It’s easy to throw words like “fascism” around without really thinking about their definitions . . . so I looked the word up, to reexamine it. In my opinion, the “shoe fits,” as the saying goes, whether you call it “American fascism,” or simply “Trumpism.” Just look at the details of the Google-provided definition above:
What’s more, all of this is apparent after Donald Trump has been in office for only a week.
The world now has a new, simple way to build character:
[Image found here.]
Source of quote: The Washington Post, online edition, December 14, 2016: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/the-kremlin-likes-the-hacking-attention-but-not-the-blame/2016/12/14/65279738-c177-11e6-92e8-c07f4f671da4_story.html?utm_term=.fc453119c6fd.
Fiona Hill co-authored the 2015 book Mr. Putin: Operative at the Kremlin, available here, on Amazon. She is also (according to the Washington Post story linked above, written by David Filipov) a scholar at the Brookings Institution. Here’s the headline, taken from a screenshot.
For those who do not know, The Washington Post is the newspaper which blew open the Watergate scandal, and that, in turn, brought down the Nixon administration.
These are facts.
This is my predicted electoral map for Tuesday’s presidential election. If you disagree with it, you can make your own version at http://www.270towin.com.
The school year is about to begin, and I’m a teacher. Right now, my school district is in the traditional “week o’ meetings” which precedes the arrival of students. Yesterday’s meetings were about using Google products to enhance instruction, and one of the new skills I learned involves using Google forms. We were encouraged to make something, such as a poll, using this online tool, so I made one for the current US presidential election. If you would like to vote in this completely unscientific poll, here’s the link:
This poll is “completely unscientific,” of course, because I am making no attempt to poll a representative sample of the electorate. Here’s how the poll results look so far, with 17 responses.
The current American election cycle was predicted, with amazing accuracy, in the late 20th Century, by Bill Watterson, the creator of Calvin and Hobbes. Evidence will follow. We’ll start with ignorance and apathy, both of which are certainly involved in American elections.
Not wanting to vote and not being allowed to vote are, of course, two different things to Calvin.
While he’s being ignorant and apathetic, Calvin is, at least, honest. Honesty is something which we definitely need, and currently do not have, in American politics, from the left or the right.
If only this fictional duo qualified under the Constitution, we’d be facing this choice, which certainly seems better than the choice we actually have:
Watterson understood, well, the corrupting role of money in politics.
The big issue politicians do not talk about enough is the environment. Why do they not devote more energy to that? Money, of course. The love of money drives people to do harmful and irrational things, and this includes things with obviously-negative environmental impact.
He also created numerous cartoons about pollsters and lobbyists, taking them every bit as seriously as these people deserve to be taken.
America has a lot of single-issue voters. They are not safe from Watterson’s satire. This cartoon is as on-target today as it was when it first appeared.
For what purposes was Calvin willing to do research? Could his spray-painting ambitions include negative campaign ads?
I certainly think so.
The next cartoon applies equally well, in my opinion, to the words and actions of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
If the next cartoon doesn’t remind you of the Trump-or-Clinton choice we face, and what an amazing waste of time and energy it is to have to make such an absurd “choice,” please read it again.
Finally, here’s Calvin’s invention of the perfect bipartisan slogan for this campaign season, and its nausea-inducing choice between bad (Clinton) and worse (Trump).
“So what?” Indeed.
[To obtain all these cartoons, and many more, I recommend purchasing this boxed set: the complete collection of Calvin and Hobbes.]
Many Americans are experiencing the same dilemma right now — we’re trying to decide whether to vote against Donald Trump for president (by casting a vote “for” Hillary Clinton), or vote against Hillary Clinton (by casting a vote “for” Trump). Voters who actually want to vote for either of the major-party candidates are much rarer, this time, than is typically the case, as recent news stories have documented.
I’ve said for months that I would vote against Trump (again — for I already voted against him once, by voting in my state’s G.O.P. primary election). As November gets closer, though, I am finding the idea of voting against Trump in November, by holding my nose, and casting a vote for Clinton, to be a progressively less palatable idea. I like to have both hands free when I vote, you see, so I’d need to use a clothespin, for my nose, to actually do this. The problem is, of course, that I’m far from alone with my opinions about this election — and I’m not sure exactly how many clothespins we have in the USA. There might actually not be enough for all the “against” votes people intend to cast.
In the face of this potentially-devastating, nationwide clothespin shortage, I finally decided to do something else: look for someone I can actually vote for, in good conscience, without fear of being horribly embarrassed by my vote within days of our new president taking the oath of office.
I didn’t find one such person. I actually found two. (Image source: here.)
I’m not a Libertarian, nor am I a member of the Green Party. Having examined both of these candidates, though, I find that I agree with each of them on many things, and disagree with them on a smaller number of issues. The major thing they have in common is also their major political “selling point” in this election — not being Trump, nor Clinton.
Once I make a decision between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, I will have accomplished two things which are important to me: (1) finding someone to actually vote for, rather than casting a 100% “against” vote, and (2) finding a way to vote against the two major-party candidates — both of them — at the same time.
While comments on this post are welcome, please don’t simply point out to me that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will almost certainly win the election in November. This is something I already know, and it does not affect my decision. Either of them could win in November . . . but neither of them will get any help from me to do so.