Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The World's Verdict Will Be Harsh if the US Rejects the Man It Yearns For
An America that disdains Obama for his global support risks turning current anti-Bush feeling into something far worse
The feeling is familiar. I had it four years ago and four years before that: a sinking feeling in the stomach. It's a kind of physical pessimism which says: "It's happening again. The Democrats are about to lose an election they should win - and it could not matter more."
In my head, I'm not as anxious for Barack Obama's chances as I was for John Kerry's in 2004 or Al Gore's in 2000. He is a better candidate than both put together, and all the empirical evidence says this year favours Democrats more than any since 1976. But still, I can't shake off the gloom.
Look at yesterday's opinion polls, which have John McCain either in a dead heat with Obama or narrowly ahead. Given the well-documented tendency of African-American candidates to perform better in polls than in elections - thanks to people who say they will vote for a black man but don't - this suggests Obama is now trailing badly. More troubling was the ABC News-Washington Post survey which found McCain ahead among white women by 53% to 41%. Two weeks ago, Obama had a 15% lead among women. There is only one explanation for that turnaround, and it was not McCain's tranquilliser of a convention speech: Obama's lead has been crushed by the Palin bounce.
So you can understand my pessimism. But it's now combined with a rising frustration. I watch as the Democrats stumble, uncertain how to take on Sarah Palin. Fight too hard, and the Republican machine, echoed by the ditto-heads in the conservative commentariat on talk radio and cable TV, will brand Democrats sexist, elitist snobs, patronising a small-town woman. Do nothing, and Palin's rise will continue unchecked, her novelty making even Obama look stale, her star power energising and motivating the Republican base.
So somehow Palin slips out of reach, no revelation - no matter how jaw-dropping or career-ending were it applied to a normal candidate - doing sufficient damage to slow her apparent march to power, dragging the charisma-deprived McCain behind her.
We know one of Palin's first acts as mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska was to ask the librarian the procedure for banning books. Oh, but that was a "rhetorical" question, says the McCain-Palin campaign. We know Palin is not telling the truth when she says she was against the notorious $400m "Bridge to Nowhere" project in Alaska - in fact, she campaigned for it - but she keeps repeating the claim anyway. She denounces the dipping of snouts in the Washington trough - but hired costly lobbyists to make sure Alaska got a bigger helping of federal dollars than any other state.
She claims to be a fiscal conservative, but left Wasilla saddled with debts it had never had before. She even seems to have claimed "per diem" allowances - taxpayers' money meant for out-of-town travel - when she was staying in her own house.
Yet somehow none of this is yet leaving a dent. The result is that a politician who conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan calls a "Christianist" - seeking to politicise Christianity the way Islamists politicise Islam - could soon be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Remember, this is a woman who once addressed a church congregation, saying of her work as governor - transport, policing and education - "really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God".
If Sarah Palin defies the conventional wisdom that says elections are determined by the top of the ticket, and somehow wins this for McCain, what will be the reaction? Yes, blue-state America will go into mourning once again, feeling estranged in its own country. A generation of young Americans - who back Obama in big numbers - will turn cynical, concluding that politics doesn't work after all. And, most depressing, many African-Americans will decide that if even Barack Obama - with all his conspicuous gifts - could not win, then no black man can ever be elected president.
But what of the rest of the world? This is the reaction I fear most. For Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama.
The crowd of 200,000 that rallied to hear him in Berlin in July did so not only because of his charisma, but also because they know he, like the majority of the world's population, opposed the Iraq war. McCain supported it, peddling the lie that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Non-Americans sense that Obama will not ride roughshod over the international system but will treat alliances and global institutions seriously: McCain wants to bypass the United Nations in favour of a US-friendly League of Democracies. McCain might talk a good game on climate change, but a repeated floor chant at the Republican convention was "Drill, baby, drill!", as if the solution to global warming were not a radical rethink of the US's entire energy system but more offshore oil rigs.
If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.
Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for.
And the manner of that decision will matter, too. If it is deemed to have been about race - that Obama was rejected because of his colour - the world's verdict will be harsh. In that circumstance, Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote recently, international opinion would conclude that "the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race".
Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, "historical decline". Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is "not about the issues."
Of course I know that even to mention Obama's support around the world is to hurt him. Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the "candidate of Europe" and making him seem less of a patriotic American. But what does that say about today's America, that the world's esteem is now unwanted? If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it.
- Posted in
221 Comments so far
Show AllIt is perfectly acceptable for the US to get the leadership it wants--its George Bushes, its Sarah Palins, as they are eminently suitable to the American temperament, American intelligence, and American sensibilities. What is not acceptable for the US under these circumstances is global leadership.
Conversely, if the US wishes to continue being policeman to the world, then we should all get a say in who gets to be the commissioner.
I agree. The election will be interesting and the outcome perfectly just, no matter which way it goes. I personally am weary of living in an obsessively "top dog" country, and would not mind it if our leadership were so embarrassingly inept as to drop us back to a fourth rate economy and an obsolete, under-equipped military. Some third world conditions locally would put us in touch with the concerns of the broader world. Maybe we would read more, learn some foreign languages and become easier to get along with.
“Anti-Bush feelings” may spread even if Obama is chosen. Why? Because, I think, the world is more attuned to the skullduggery in America and it will take more than a nip and tuck to change that. All trends point to McCain/Obama presiding over business as usual, militarily, economically, environmentally. Don’t forget, Karl Rove, did a job on you, but the whammy wasn’t ever meant for us. We have seen the Bush/Clinton years in all their unadulterated infamy. So I hope whoever is really pulling the strings over there doesn’t “misunderestimate” his audience, the world.
I just don't understand why so many rational intelligent people continue with these kinds of posits when Diebold remains the only real obstacle between who wins and who loses. Does anyone reading this website still really believe GW won 2 races? REally? The voter fraud then and now is rampant and traceable and trackable and yes, under reported but still, the facts and the info are there. this is where our attention should be. this will be the only reason anyone wins or loses. everything else is set out like a carrot to distract from the men behind the curtain.
It has certainly been an eye opener, seeing how little Americans care to investigate the voter fraud and its manifestations: hanging chads, diebold(they changed their moniker didn’t they? I wonder why?) “voter caging”. It’s all just an exoteric hobby for some to care about democracy in America.
You need to get in touch with he DNC for this one. Alot of us at the polls saw it in Ohio. The DNC did nothng. And, if it is that close again (it should NOT be) they will do nothing agian. People in the UK/EU--maybe even in coastal states may think they know how bad it is (esp. to be a socialist stuck in a battleground state!)in middle america--but they do not. I am simply saying that most in the Rust Belt wil vote on domestic issues. And why not? Obama has gone back on his promise to stop the wars. He has gone back on natl health care. If it is so hard to "throw working people a bone", the Dems deserve what they get.
One from another country - having heard the rhetoric from the states about being the greatest democracy, the ones who brought back the rule of the people, etc. - might be a bit more concerned with maintaining the security of the vote. Sure, there's a good number of foreigners who know bush committed fraud to get where he is.
Should we see the 'election' of McCain - a man who would be far more unbalanced than bush is/was - in 2008 it would be obvious that the usa has no claim to being a democracy, no claim to being a nation that respects human rights, no credibility when it comes to respecting international treaties.
A McCain victory at the polls will lead to the world having to come together against you, to attempt to stop your incessent march to war with every country on earth one at a time. Who's going to be the next invaded after Iran? Should McCain win, Iran's destruction is certain. But then who will you attack? We'll all know it's going to be one of us or another.
You mean the Diebold whose CEO told George Bush he would deliver the presidency to him? You mean the Diebold whose machines in some districts recorded ten times the votes for Bush than there were registered voters in the district? You mean the Diebold whose machines had thousands of Florida voters pulling the Democrat's lever for every office except President?
Yup, I guess we forgot, or at least the media did. After their exit polls, the previous gold standard of vote polling, were "found" to be so unreliable in the last election, who can they rely on? In Diebold they trust.
You have got that right. The fact that the American Morlock would rather be Eloi despite the fact that they are food for the machine doesn't help either.
If Diebold were conducting the national polls, maybe. If McPalin goes into Nov. 4th with an 8% lead in the polls and ends up winning the election (electorate and popular vote), how can we blame the voting machines?
Diebold may not be running polls, but the polls are skewed, deceptive, manipulated. Elections are now akin to sleight-of-hand.
It's a BIG factor for sure. But it's not the only problem with the electoral marketplace. I wish the voting technology was being given more air time (I'm Canadian, but what's the difference?).
Here in Canada, We are about to have a federal election, it appears, solely because Stephen Harper has calculated that he can win a majority. He has a minority government at present. Just days ago, He huddled with the other major party leaders and they expressed their wishes (minus the Liberal leader who was not onside) to the tv network consortium that they would like to bar the Green Party candidate from the upcoming televised leaders' debate. The consortium agreed. Later we learned that the prime instigator of that move was the New Democratic Party's leader, Jack Layton. If I was going to vote, it would have been for the NDP. It won't happen now, even though public outrage at that maneuver has caused the plotters to backtrack and let Elizabeth May into the debate. For me personally, It doesn't change a thing. Jack is not a changed mind and I won't vote for the federal NDP again until it's party dumps Jack and in no uncertain terms remembers and cites this event.
What I find interesting about it is this. Our elites go on about free markets. Of course, Most of the folks posting in CD know what is meant by 'free' markets. But the point I would make is that here is a great illustration of how free markets in general work. You get powerful special interests (certain major party leaders and private broadcasters) conspiring to keep a seller (a particular party) out of the market, thereby blocking not just that seller/party's leader from access to the public, but the public's access to the products and services which that seller/ leader is offering. The common sense idea of a free market is that includes not just all sellers being free to lay out their wares for all to see, but the freedom of all potential buyers to have access to all sellers and their products.
We are pretty far from that, Aren't we?
Unless Obama can actually prove that he is much different than Mccain on foreign policy, the voters are not going to pick between/among the candidates based on foreign policy. The world is looking for an Obama that will end these reckless losing wars but the Obama they're going to get will DISAPPOINT them unless he doesn't turn out to be a Bush-lite.
America does not police the world, only it's interests.
The reason Jimmy Carter did not get re-elected was that he told the American People to change their ways under duress. Reagan is worshiped for conducting clandestine operations so America could have its way.
The feeling of entitlement continues to drive American Voters. I need a truck big enough to fuck comfortably in.
We do not live in a world that has limitless resources. IF you understand that, you will give up a few beliefs, some material things you have and take a hard look at the colored man who is running for President.
He may be able to take us away from this self destructive path we are on by a fraction of a degree in the four years he will have. Maybe that will enough to steer us right.
Four Years, as I believe (no, I PREDICT) that if he does get elected, he will not be re-elected.
Love
Zero
Like Clinton, Palin is teflon.
--
Eric Patton
http://www.myspace.com/412205319
Perhaps its the thinness of the attacks...they are generally debunked within hours of being slung...
The Lady is squeaky clean...and all the made up dirt evaporates before it hits her
So are you saying that delivering the guest of honor speeches at the Alaska Sepratist Movement's annual conferences is "squeaky clean?" Do you think banning books is squeaky clean? Do you think believing that you and I and everyone who isn't Pentacostal is going to hell is squeaky clean?
Newsflash: when a person judges 99% of humanity as hellbound, they got mud on their soul.
Could you give us a list of the books she actually "banned"? I want to read them.
When you make false claims like 'she banned' books, you take away from all the legitimate claims against her. She inquired about how to ban books and no books ended up being banned. Why not say "Do you think inquiring about how to ban books is squeaky clean?"
If you make claims that aren't commonly agreed fact like she thinks all non-Pentecostals are going to hell, please provide a source to back it up.
I'm sick of this bullshit. Let's focus on real issues!
THANK YOU!!
It's amazing how lies hang on when they have been disproven. I guess thats why there are still a few fools thaty believe Obama is or was a Muslim.
Let's focus on real issues! Amen!
Republicans say ours is not a Democracy, but a Republic (a dictatorship).
re·pub·lic
–noun
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic
Can you please provide an example of a dictatorship in which supreme power rests in the body of citizens?
Thanks.
A Republic in which the citizen's representatives only represent the oligarchy that buys them.
The world only hears Obama's pretty words and does not understand that he is runnign a "republican-lite" campaign that is alienating voters. Voters provided a choice between two republican like candidates is going to choose the real republican. Obama has NOT made the case that needs to be made of making real sacrifices, avoiding resource wars (far from it: he is ADVOCATING resource wars and an idiotic self-wounding "war on terror"), accepting that we need to move away from our dependency issues (he's for "clean coal" and "responsible nukes", yikes!). Yes, McCain and Palin are much worse; but Obama is running an idiotic campaign. It worked in the primaries, but therein lies the problem - the primary system is BROKEN for the Democrats, and they can't admit it. My wish: that somehow Obama would withdraw from the race NOW. As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton's positions on foreign policies and some of her economic ideas (I think she's quite strong on most domestic issues), I belive wholeheartedly that she would WIN in November.
Would you please give us the so-called Republican-lite details of Obama's campaign? You keep saying that over and over again without justification.
Talk issues. Straight up and to the point.
I am not crazy about everything Obama says either and I am leaning Nader, but by spreading BS around the CD postings you may be driving independents towards McCain.
Are you just another CIA mole speading pseudo-intellectual discontent to divide the liberals? Don't doubt for a second that they don't exist.
Republican-light or -lite seems like a pretty straightforward, reasonable 'description' to me. Just my two cents worth. Well, I've got an extra penny or two, so here goes. There's no guarantee that Obama won't do more damage than McCain, as others observe (I don't recall offhand which others). I just refer to them all as Republicrats. As for social conservatism, I think that when push comes to shove (Palin offers a clue to how it works), most core principles or positions of Conservatives will fall. In other words, Basically, The differences between rightwingers and (mainstream Obama-type) leftwingers are superficial.
The Theory
DUOPOLY ANNOUNCES: WE CAN'T LET DEMOCRATS WIN THIS ONE!
Obama doesn't intend to win this election. Can't you tell? Yet, so many progressive pundits are having none of that. They want to force this election on the Democrats whether they like it or not. They know that if Obama wins, Dems will stand, finally, stark naked in the light. No excuses. They will have the House, the Senate and the presidency.
The duopoly, without it's clothing, will be exposed for what it is: PR manipulators for the wealthy, powerful corporations bent on controlling the world, bombing innocents, etc. as the means to justify the ends. Progressives will finally get it (in a perfect world, right?). We can only "hope."
But if a Republican wins, Dems are able to escape blame, again, and the duopoly is saved. IT'S RALPH NADER'S FAULT!" they will rail. Obama will no doubt get an attractive promotion. Better yet, he will get permission to pull off a progressive bill or two and .... I can hear it now: "Obama never got the chance!" It'll be hard to stomach.
You remember, Howard Zinn says the Republicans are only slightly to the right of Obama. But the delusions must go on - at any cost. They care more about maintaining the duopoly than they do about any one candidate winning an election.
This may be the strongest reason for voting for the Democrat!
My opposition, or rather reluctance regarding Obama has nothing to do with race or culture wars or any other such nonsense. If Obama were a true, consistent progressive like Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, or Dennis Kucinich, he'd get my vote sans reservations or hesitation. It's sad how the author and so many other progressives keep giving Obama the benefit of the doubt because of his cult of personality.
Not that I want him to lose to McCain. I'd take Obama in a nanosecond. I hope Obama does win. As much as I back the 3rd party candidates, I doubt Nader (my pick) or any of the others (I wrote in Kucinich as Democratic nominee) have a shot. The money and the exposure simply isn't there.
I just hope that if Obama does get the win, that the people keep him honest and push him in the right direction. We'll have to demand that the change he proposes be much deeper than it is.
Let me see if I understand you right - you will vote for a third party candidate, either directly or by write-in, rather than vote for Obama? Are you so dense that you do not understand that to do such a thing is not only a waste of your vote (because they will not win) but also a de facto vote for McCain! If you truly do not want McCain/Palin, then in the name of all that you hold holy, vote for Obama! So what if you have reservations about some of Obama's policies, they are far and away better than any of McCain's or Palin's. In fact, they are closer to your choices than anyone else. As for his being a cult personality, being a dynamic speaker does not make him a cult leader, and if you listened to his speeches, you will hear that he does not plan on doing everything alone - he is counting on us to do our share of the work since after all it is our country. Isn't that what Kucinich or Nader would ask of us as well?
PLEASE DO NOT VOTE AS YOU HAVE INDICATED! THIS RACE IS TOO CLOSE, AND WHEN PEOPLE LIKE YOU VOTE FOR GUARANTEED LOSERS ON THIRD PARTY TICKETS, YOU CONDEMN US ALL TO THE LIKES OF McCAIN/PALIN!
The race wouldn't be close if Obama hadn't thrown his base out under the bus and had he been a populist from campaigning to legislating. He pandered to the rightwing and allowed the media to frame him as a "coward" and now he's running on empty and he's paying for it just like Gore and Kerry. I don't want to hear about Obama on "abortion". I want to know what he plans to do about those trade scams? Is it going to be more NAFTAs or cutting down on those "free" trade scams?
I will vote for a Democrat in the general election when they allow third party candidates into the debates. I am tired of bickering over comments and vague, shallow generalities instead of well-formed plans of action. We owe a lot of wonderful ideas to third party platforms, particularly the Socialists. It seems the Democrats & Republicans will only move their campaigns in a positive direction when pushed by third parties, and they would also help the media finally regain their former importance by pushing these issues in front of the nation.
More and more Democrats are sounding like republicans - even their followers. I don't buy into the two party trap. It's extremely immature to call someone names for simply voting for a candidate that you don't support. If Obama wanted to win this election he could, by not pandering to republicans and Corporations. It's the same thing with Gore. He could've won the election but too many democrats were unsatisfied with his stance on issues. Many more registered democrats voted republican in 2000 than were votes cast for a 3rd party. And I don't know if you've looked at recent polls but there is evidence to suggest that Nader hurts McCain even more than he hurts Obama. And besides all that. If Nader were in the debates we'd hear about some real issues. And the American people WANT to hear about some real issues and real solutions. That is why you have people like me who support 3rd party candidates because we are SICK of the duopoly of the Corporate Democrats and Corporate republicans who are converging. Don't tell us we condemn you to McCain - because if the Dems lose this election the fault will lie on them. For not resonanting with the American people. They have a stage to get some real ideas and real solutions across but instead all we hear about is how they pander to corporations and when they're not doing that they bicker back and forth which is a TOTAL insult to the American people. It's not about being dense - it's about not falling for the lie that 3rd parties are spoilers. If you believe that - you are committing an act of political bigotry. And that intolerant mindset sounds all too familiar.
To ~djnoll~
re: Your post, September 12th, 2008 5:00 pm
Your attitude and misunderstandings expose of one of the fundamental flaws of any representative governing system:
It is heavily reliant on the education and competancy of the voting Citizens, but there is a strong motivation for those wishing to "represent" the Citizens to interfere with this education, obscure the facts, and hinder that competancy.
You write stridently, wishing to urge others to your position, just barely failing to ride the edge between advice and condescension. Yet you seem wholly ignorant of how the Federal Constitutional Republic (and its Electoral System) is intended to work.
You state (parenthetically) that a vote is "wasted" if that candidate "will not win". As if the outcome of Polls of the People are somehow predetermined.
And you find it a selling point that Obama has said "he does not plan on doing everything alone" in his speeches. As well as warning that "third-party" votes would "CONDEMN US ALL TO THE LIKES OF McCAIN/PALIN!". As if the president is a monarch, accountable to nothing, the Congress, the Courts, the People, the Constitution, nothing (exept, weirdly, his co-president?). And as if we poor peasants should be grateful that his Potential Majesty is "counting on us to do our share of the work" just like "Kucinich or Nader would ask of us...".
Congatulations! You're a Royalist!
Now, would mind not interrupting us Libertine Democrats with anymore (shouted) advice?
Have Fun,
-matti.
Obama can do this country one great favor after he loses: DON'T CONCEDE. Call the election what it is - a fraud, rigged from Day Zero. Then turn away from the podium and walk out. Let the Repimplicans and their ass licking concubines in the MSM call him a rat, a sore loser, a political low-life, whatever insults they want to hurl. And then wait as Mccain/Palin turn this country into a landfill. When the surviving drooling knuckle draggers who put them into power crawl out from under the mountain of trash the Repimplicans buried them in, perhaps then things will change for the better.
Nice post MS. Made me laugh.
What have the Democrats done to prevent yet another stolen election by Diebold? It's bad enough that the GOP are preventing African-American voters from casting their ballots in some states by requiring a driver's license which many African-Americans don't have. Don't states just issue a state ID card if a person doesn't have a driver's license? Elections in the U.S. have become like elections in banana republics.
By refusing to investigate the steady stream of criminal activity of the Bush era, Pelosi has handed the election to the Republicans.
The rest of the World can pound sand...but when they are in trouble they'll come running to us to save their ass one more time
Save them from whom?
The US would not have won its revolutionary war had it not been for the aid we received from France.
Had the US fought Germany alone during WWII, the results would not have been the same. We would be complete horses'asses to think we can or should go it alone from this point in history onwards.
Soon the US will not be the world's dominant economic power and where money goes so does political power and military might. We should be very careful how we treat others, especially now.
What a load of revisionist bullshit! The usa joined the wars of the past only when the outcome was in no doubt. You wanted to collect some colonies out of the former German Empire in 1917, you wanted to take colonies from the nearly dead Spanish Empire in 1898. When Hitler declared war on you in '41 only the fools in Germany thought they could defeat the USSR.
Say, snowie, where've you been? I missed your posts on those stories this week that had to do with how the bush admin directed and was responsible for torturing people.
Sure, we let a bunch of war mongering Europeans kill each other off. What is wrong with that? We should have stayed out of WW I, and let Europe disappear completely in 1919...
Sorry TruthTeller, but the US barely got mobilized and arrived in mainland Europe before 1919. The tide had shifted, the Germans were out of manpower and resources, the battle of attrition had done them in before the Americans even got there. Right place at the right time.
Incorrect, as usual. US troops had a telling affect, BUT, more importantly, US material had a HUGE affect insofar as rearming the allies.
We should have armed BOTH sides, free. Then let them kill each other. The world would be a better place sans Europeans.
You would have underwritten a genocide, and cheared the results.
Truthteller, you are a barbarian. One that makes a hammer look bright.
The Voters intelligence will be "Dumbed" again, just like in 2004. McCain/Palin will be ruling the U.S. I will vote for Obama, he will lose as the Conservative/Corporate America wants and will be the end of America. Maybe one day people will speak up. I can understand how the rest of the world will fault American Citizens if they Elect McCain. Please except my apology. Thank you.
you are so
it's a sad observation, but many supporting obama have already conceded that the ruling republikan party has found their reason to justify another coup and another four years of self-inflicted economic hardship by the working class. again, they will deserve exactly what they get and ironically, they will push their shopping carts and build their homes of cardboard and boast that they did not vote for that arrogant black man.
this indeed will be the downfall of america. too many informed and intelligent people have made similar conclusions but the blind and the easily led would rather go to hell than reliquish the prejudices upon which this country was built. i foresee more turmoil, discontent, and possibly another war that we will be unable to win, let alone sustain.
i am so blessed that i live near the canadian border. hopefully, there are still remnants of the underground railroad still around for good americans of all stripes.
Please explain this "coup" that is coming to me. Is it going to be like the "coup" that forced the cancellation of the 2006 elections where the dumbocrats took over congress?
Is the Army going to be involved?
What do you think 100 million American gun owners will have to say about the impending "coup"?
Them gun owners were trained to look the wrong way and be "nice" to sellouts. Besides, the economy is collapsing and the foreign policy blunders are already screwing this country no matter how you try to deny it. Thanks for admitting you're wrong.
The army would call in air strikes against them. YOu would see - if such pictures ever were shown - a series of funerals for the 100 million idiots who took up arms against their country.