Colbert King is engaged in a great civil war!


The truth about us elitists:
You might say that we the liberals got tea-bagged last Tuesday night.

The people Rachel mocked with such glee came back to take us down.

(Night after night, she kept pretending that she was embarrassed to do it. How we loved what she did!)

Only a fool would say we didn't deserve and earn what we got. But then, what fools we pseudo-liberals turn out to be!

Starting Monday, we'll be spending a week or two exploring the ways we liberals worked for what we received this week. That said, this morning's Washington Post provides a stunning example of the way we "think."

Let's be clear. The Washington Post's Colbert King isn't a standard issue liberal. As far as we know, he doesn't identify as a liberal at all.

That said, he is a major insider elite. From 1976-1979, he was Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Department. For the next two years, he was U.S. executive director to the World Bank.

From 1980 through 1990, he was executive vice president of the Middle East and Africa at one of the nation's big banks. A fiery liberal can't help wondering what he might have been paid.

By October 2000, King was so well entrenched at the Washington Post that he wrote several ridiculous columns excoriating Candidate Gore in the run-up to Election Day. It was the kind of ridiculous work which, maintained by the guild over two solid years, allowed Candidate Bush to end up in the White House.

(It can't be discussed today.)

In fairness, King's service paid off. In 2003, he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in commentary "for his against the grain columns that speak to people in power with ferocity and wisdom."

(Eventually, everyone within the guild ends up winning the Pulitzer Prize. Something lofty is always said. This is a marketing practice.)

In our view, King's columns sometimes make excellent sense. On other occasions, they don't. That said, Colbert King isn't a standard-issue liberal. Within the taxonomy of modern PseudoThink, he would probably be listed as a black centrist.

That said, his column today helps showcase the mammoth limitations of us in the pseudo-liberal world. It also helps showcase the fact that we earned everything we got.

As he starts, King makes a winsome statement. He says God may have used Tuesday's result to teach us something "about ourselves."

But as he continues, a point becomes clear. Though King pretends to be discussing Us, he's really referring to Them:
KING (11/12/16): God must have a sense of humor to put up with what we do to ourselves.

Or maybe the election was used to teach us some lessons—about ourselves.

We learned election night, if we didn’t already know it in our heart of hearts, that we are not the inclusive, multiracial and multicultural country we make ourselves out to be. Despite projecting the image of a United States embodying a kumbaya-like spirit of human unity, our identities are rooted in race, religion and ideology. That showed up in the election returns. It could be seen in the faces of Trump’s core constituencies.

And don’t think of them as only old, Rust Belt, blue-collar supporters.

White people made Trump president.
"White people made Trump president?"

According to the exit polls, so did 29 percent of Hispanic voters; 29 percent of Asian-American voters; and 8 percent of black voters. But when the privileged start to vent, few bother keeping score.

King goes on to further describe the way white people made Trump president. In the mindless way our tribe adores, he casts Us as the forces of light after limning the forces of darkness:
KING (continuing directly): He ran the table in virtually all categories, including college- and non-college-educated white men, and whites 18 to 29 years old.

Hillary Clinton’s camp, in contrast, consisted of a polyglot of colors, religions, sexual orientations and college-educated white women.
Candidate Trump was supported by Goofus. Clinton was backed by Gallant.

King's column is exceptionally stupid work. Like so many in our world, he offers a single explanation for roughly 60 million votes. He offers a single explanation—the ugliest one he can find.

As he offers his explanation, he blows past Trump's Hispanic, black and Asian-American voters. This is a type of privilege We often bestow on Ourselves.

King couldn't have made it any more clear—"Those People" elected Trump. His messaging is perfectly clear. Clinton's camp contained the good people. You could tell because they were polyglot.

Trump's camp contained the bad people. Don't waste your time looking for further explanations of their behavior. Within our profoundly unintelligent world, there can be only one.

Throughout this campaign, it's been stunning to see the limited way our liberal world often "reasons." With amazing regularity, we favor the sweeping single explanation, preferably the most demonic one we can find.

We drop our R-, B-, M-, N-, X- and I-bombs and pretty much call it a day. King is quite explicit today. No other explanation need apply:
KING: The Post described voters drawn to Trump as “Americans alienated by the forces of globalization and multiculturalism and deeply frustrated with the inability of Washington to address their needs.”

They were depicted this way in the New York Times: “A largely overlooked coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters who felt that the promise of the United States had slipped their grasp amid decades of globalization and multiculturalism.”


Drop the “globalization and multiculturalism” genteelism.

Call it what it is.

It’s low-skilled brown people from Mexico showing up in the job market and competing with low-education white folks.
It’s non-Christian immigrants—yes, those Muslims—and illegal immigrants who have “our people” fearfully looking over their shoulders and, in some cases, down their noses.
Let us translate that for you:

There is no chance that low-skilled immigrants will "show up in the job market" and interrupt the flow of money and status which goes to Emperor King. From the safety and comfort of that situation, he's happy to demonize "low-education folks" whose situations are thus affected.

He sticks the word "brown" into that passage to make his demonology plain. In such ways, we who got tea-bagged Tuesday night have earned everything we got.

King's column is stunningly unintelligent, but in a familiar old way. It takes a special kind of stupid to adopt these single explanations for the actions of sixty million souls, including quite a few million who form that "polyglot of colors, religions, sexual orientations and college-educated white women" which King is so eager to praise.

It takes a special kind of stupid to do that—a kind of stupid we the liberals have shown we possess in spades. Even more so, it takes a special kind of indifference—a contempt for "low education" people who haven't siphoned their financial status from big banks and from deference to standard insider press scripts.

It takes a giant contempt for The Others to engage in behavior like that. In all honesty, you have to inhabit a near suburb of the world we've always attributed to "bigots."

We liberals got tea-bagged Tuesday night. Truthfully, we earned what we got, every step of the way.

The babies being born today will pay the price for our relentless pitiful conduct. They will pay the price for Us! We'll start on that topic next week.

The headline on King's column: In hard-copy, the headline on King's column doesn't quite capture its contents.

On-line, the headline makes a better fit:

"Spare me the euphemisms. White people made Trump president."

Truly, what a remarkable headline! We the liberals have earned what we got every step of the way.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. It will take many years for many in the pseudo-liberal world to realize how they have been conned, played as marks and suckers, by the plutocrats, the Kochs, et alia, if they ever do. As Bob has said, "Divide and conquer."
    I too have seen countless articles and comments to those articles, whining that the loss can be blamed on just one factor ("Bernie would have won," etc.), playing their favorite game, "What if...?". Yes, our tribe has the smart people. How smart do you feel now? Our tribe's own Rhodes scholar will continue to clown and insult, and she and her crew and fans will continue to serve and be served their pablum, increasing the divide.
    It is truly sad to see our "advanced civilization" act as we have in the past few years. "Are we the rational animal?" Indeed.

    1. pseudo-liberal world? What are you talking about? Everyday real world liberals know about the Koch Brothers, and they know Bernie was an illusion.

      We don't take our cues from MSNBC. We had thoughts before cable and internet, believe it or not.

      And by the way, I find you incoherent.

    2. You know what's going to be funny? When these people stop flattering themselves for a minute, put some effort into understanding the other side because they think they need to do so for strategic reasons, and they come to understand the other side has a better argument.

    3. The "other side" has no argument. They offered a man who is:

      1. A huge liar
      2. A chronic bankrupt
      3. A tax cheat
      4. An immigration cheat
      5. A pimp and exploiter of women, especially immigrants
      6. A racist supported by KKK and "alt-right" white supremacists
      7. Entirely unprepared to hold office
      8. Incapable of reading anything requiring concentration
      9. Dependent on his children
      10. A consumer of bizarre conspiracy theories
      11. In league (or being manipulated by) Russian interests
      12. Lacking in empathy for anyone, including his own wife and children
      13. With tiny hands and a dysfunctional penis
      14. Unable to attract friendship or support from others beyond his kids
      15. So vain he doesn't realize his orange skin and pseudo-hair are ridiculous looking
      16. So consumed by grudges and revenge that he cannot resist attacks, even when self-injurious

      He offered no arguments, no concrete policies, nothing but contradictory statements and bombast and lies, continual lies. That "other side" has nothing.

      The way he is floundering to staff a transition team (much less a new administration) would be funny if it weren't horrifying.

      He is following his business tradition of only including women who are "10"s, as eye candy to harass, putting Bondi on his team. Or maybe that is to piss off the Democrats -- indulging in petty revenge instead of doing the work at hand.

      Meanwhile, people who worked on his campaign are not being paid. That's your "better argument"?

    4. I see 16 insults, some of which aren't becoming of a tolerant person. You mocked illiterate people, people with smaller hands or erectile dysfunction, skin color and hairstyle. The candidates were even as far as extremist supporters. I take that back, BLM is worse than the KKK because only one of the two has been relevant in the last 30 years and it's the group that is the reason for police officer murders in the last year. He offered few policy details but "He's not her" was more than enough. I won't make a list of reasons of what's wrong with her because it would take too long. Ask around, if you can tolerate the answers. Most on your team can't. One of the reasons will be that she couldn't help herself in casting people who oppose her as RSHXI-ists and phobes and enough voters decided it was time to make it clear that those insults would no longer hold power. How he handles a transition team is only important to readers and believers of the New York Times who announced today they decided they would try to start telling the truth.

    5. No, I mocked Trump.

      The only qualified member of his transition team is Mike Pence.

      I'd hate to be the person who tells Trump that the USA has a nepotism law.

    6. He put Pam Bondi on his transition team. That says it all.

  3. "According to the exit polls, so did 29 percent of Hispanic voters; 29 percent of Asian-American voters; and 8 percent of black voters."

    Yes, facts matter, but as a burned 2016 liberal I can't help feeling pissed.

    I think only:

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.
    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    I believe they voted against their interests, and I will be taken down too. Hard to empathize.

    1. Hispanic voter interests include opposing abortion which is more important interest for them than identity politics, and for some even opposing illegal immigration which benefits their economic interest. Stop speaking for others you arrogant pricks.

    2. Those, black, latinx, and Asian voters were mostly men. So let's amend that take on exit polls, white people with an assist from the men of color who let their misogyny freak flags fly, gave Trump an electoral college victory. The majority of Ametican citizens who cast ballots last Tuesday, voted for Clinton. Bob, your hatred of all things, "Not Bob" is burning brightly this week. Walk across Eutaw a gaze upon the land and peoples that you've consigned to hell. Because Bob, it's not just the upper middle class blacks of Ten Hills that will suffer, or the ernest social justice warriors at MICA and Station North, it will be all of those people in Sandtown Bob.
      Feel better now?

    3. You stop speaking for others, Mr. Bunker.

    4. Those 29% Hispanic voters include Cuban Americans. They nearly always vote Republican and they do not identify with other Hispanics. They are from families that came over when Castro fell -- well connected professionals and business owners with plenty of money. They disdain the later arrivals (Marielitos) and consider themselves better than other immigrants. Those are your Trump voters. Yes, they are Catholic but that isn't why they voted for Trump.

      "Only a fool would say we didn't deserve and earn what we got. " Somerby says.

      Somerby refuses to generalize and he doesn't do trends in data. He wants every snowflake to be unique.

      Clinton lost because Dems who voted for Obama didn't turn out for her, or they voted for Trump instead. These were more often men than women and when they were women, they were more often less educated than college women.

      I suspect that those kids marching in the streets did vote for Clinton. I know I did and I know I don't deserve Trump. I don't know what individual concern any individual can hold that would justify voting for Trump. They do deserve Trump because they voted for him because they were too stupid to see him for what he clearly is.

      This is a democracy so we sink or swim together. This time it is swim. I saw this happen with Bush and I thought he couldn't possibly be that bad, but he was worse than I ever imagined. I do not know why those who clearly see the dangers should "deserve" what will happen now.

      Trump voters weren't attracted to Trump because we called them (or him) names. They were attracted to him because he promised to solve all their problems in a tough-guy strong way that makes them feel like they can hand off their burdens to him. Life is hard and it is harder for those who are stupid and live in rural areas and don't like multiculturalism or globalism or brown people. It is harder for people who are undereducated for the demands of our current culture. It is harder for people who are unfortunate in their choice of occupation or spouse or geographic area. It won't become any easier with Trump, but these folks have been told it will be. Maybe they don't deserve Trump either, but they voted for him and now we are all stuck.

      Right now, I feel nearly as much hate for them and I do for Trump and that is a lot, since I believe he is going to burn our planet up while pretending to be "presidential". I guess I'm not ready to be Malala yet.

      Somerby screwed over Clinton by favoring Sanders and saying too little while she was relentlessly attacked. Comey's stunt handed Trump the election, not liberal name-calling. But all the weak-tea "I don't like Clinton but I'll hold my nose and vote..." caused Democrats to stay home. Somerby owns that, in my opinion.

    5. "Clinton lost because Dems who voted for Obama didn't turn out for her." Why didn't they? Are they racists who would not turn out for a white candidate whose policies track with Obama's almost identically? Yes, they are. The Democrats see nothing but race and gender and they are the biggest racists and sexists that ever lived in America. Trump even won women because apparently they don't identify with crazy white liberal professors like Melissa Click. Most of them think their family's lives are enriched by their baby daddy being a part of it, an idea hostile white liberal feminists reject. Education gap is a myth as well. Nobody whose education was worth the tens of thousands spent on it is going to favor speech codes on campus but the more indoctrinated an "educated" lefty is now, the stronger her ignorance about why we operate under our constitution as it is instead of protecting their fee fees.

      When you see "education" in these poll results, think "indoctrination" because that has replaced subjects like history and philosophy. Teaching Western Civ is no longer required. Triggering don'tcha know. These institutions are turning out frighteningly ignorant but equally arrogant intellectual morons with less insight than the Trump voter with a 5th grade education they love to mock because they are oh so compassionate.

    6. As I've stated here before, I believe voters were expressing sexism and were affected by the sexism embodied by the lukewarm support for Clinton by those who should have been her base. And I blame Comey.

      All people are both racist and sexist and biased in a number of other ways as well. You have to consciously work to overcome these biases that arise from being human. Liberals try. I don't think conservatives do.

      I won't debate conservative memes about baby daddies and politically correctness with you. Most of your examples are fabricated or atypical. I work in education and I know what it is.

      If Trump supporters are avoiding higher education because they think it is like the media images they are fed, they are doubly undercutting their own success. Lifetime incomes are higher for every year of education beyond high school, and much higher for college grads. When conservatives undermine faith in high ed, they are condemning their supporters to lifelong struggle in an economy that requires the skills taught beyond high school, especially math. This isn't me speaking, it is the job market (employers).

    7. Hillary won more votes for being a female that she lost for being a female.

  4. "The people Rachel mocked with such glee came back to take us down."

    Yes we did. I was done with Democrats when I noticed that honest policy criticism of Barack Obama would cause some lunatic to get in your face and shout RACIST. That's all they had left to offer, they abandoned liberalism, and continuing to align with them felt too stupid and embarrassing, even compared to aligning with Trump. Let that sink in, dummies.

    1. If aligning with a black president who you have some honest policy disagreements with feels stupider than aligning with a lying con artist who fondles women against their will and cannot read a policy statement much less express a coherent thought, something is very wrong with you. Maybe it isn't racism and is more akin to brain damage. Respecting everyone's opinions because they are all equally valid, when they obviously are not, feels like a greater betrayal of reason. You can take your Trump and shove him up your ass.

      They talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. You are stabbing yourself in the heart to spite who? Some nameless Democrat on the internet? Obama? Who exactly are you spiting? The only one being hurt here is our entire planet and all the people on it. Feel better now? And you call others dummies!

    2. Keep thinking. Try harder.

      Let's call the sexual escapades even because presumptuous behavior with a groupie is no worse than inappropriate workplace behaviors with young and powerless interns or smearing those interns later.

      So far like a typical lib you have settled on "stupid or racist" as the two columns of your powerful intellectual argument. Are you sure you've exhausted all the possibilities? Not only are we not stabbing ourselves, we are helping ourselves and you, too. Someone has to save the country and put an end to the deranged self-sabotage of the snowflakes.

    3. No, I don't call the sexual activities equal. Clinton's were consensual. Trump's were not. Clinton did not engage with interns. I do not accept that the lies told about Clinton are established truth, nor that the accusations of discredited, paid accusers are true. These are smears. So far, none of the women accusing Trump have been shown to be lying or paid, although some were paid off to keep quiet.

      Trump showed himself to be racist when he discriminated in rental of apts and when he cleared the floor of his casinos of black employees and when he used the n-word on his show. Stupid was aimed at the commenter, not Trump.

      I don't like snowflakes. That's Somerby's beef. Trump is not capable of saving the country. That makes your support of him tragic.

    4. Given the power disparity in the workplace in Clinton's case, it looks more like actionable sexual harassment than consent. Whatever it is, it was worse than old man Trump trying to entertain the Bush kid.

      I remember a movie called Kramer vs Kramer where Dustin Hoffman got a job and on his way out of the building grabbed an unknown woman and kissed her on the mouth. Not one person in history ever complained. Some would now but nobody likes them.

    5. Monica stalked Clinton. She said so in her deposition. At the time they were involved, she didn't work in his office and he had no authority over her. To be sexual harassment, an advance must be unwanted.

      I remember that movie scene and I didn't like it at the time. What has changed is that women are complaining now. It is not OK to kiss women without permission. It is assault.

  5. "when I noticed that honest policy criticism of Barack Obama would cause some lunatic to get in your face and shout RACIST."

    This is a lie. It was rare that there was an "honest " policy criticism. The chronic attacks on Obamacare, Romney's Ma. basic plan, is a prime example. So grow up.

    1. So because the opposition attacks every move of the incumbent, you conclude RACISM must account for it? Have you ever heard of the idea that members of one party are the only ones who can politically advance certain policies because it will create less ideological resistance? Bill Clinton was considered the only one who could reform welfare or be tough on crime because he was a democrat and could not be demagogued.

    2. It is racism because the Republicans declared before Obama even took office that they would obstruct him and because they attempted to invalidate his presidency and prevent him from having any constructive achievements (any legacy). They stated that as a goal. That is racist because it was motivated not by policy but by opposition to Obama as a person. Birtherism occurred together with this obstructionism. This went way beyond normal opposition to an incumbent.

    3. Oh come on. It was not motivated by policy?

      So they would not have wanted a white President to be a one term President? They impeached the last white Democrat who was elected.

      Right now there is a black man who is Senator from South Carolina. You think that if Tim Scott had been elected President in 2008 that Republicans would have opposed him at every turn? Just because he is black?

      Uh, of course not. Republican legislators want a President who will support the excrement that they pass out of the House. Either because they think that excrement is good for the country, or because they know it is good for the rich people in the country.

    4. You raise a good point. Why have there been so few black candidates who are Republicans?

    5. Because Colin Powell never ran. There have been candidates but they were Ben Carson and Alan Keyes, who only appealed to the most extreme of the base, the ones who Democrats would ironically claim were the most "racist."

    6. It feels good to point to someone and yell RACIST but logic won't support it. You're going to have to let your smug feelz go or Trump will be right, opponents of those (now) ineffective tactics will get tired of winning so much.

  6. The election was decided by lack of enthusiasm for HRC. There's a consistent republican base vote; that's what elected Trump because democrats didn't turn out. When democrats turn out, they win elections; when they don't, the republican base vote wins everytime.

    1. So then the question is why there was such a lack of enthusiasm for HRC.

    2. I wish people would quit talking as if there was only ONE election. The Democrats also lost a majority of races for the US House and enough Senate races for Repunlicans to retain control of the Senate.

      Those facts, at least as much a President Trump, are gonna be what hurts this country.

      Also, it does not seem to be turn out. Looking at the CNN exit polls. In 2008, it was 39% D, 32% R and 29% I. In 2016 it was 37% D, 33% R and 31% I. Not hugely different.

      The real key was the I's. In 2008, Obama won them 52-44 (with 4% for the others). In 2016, Hillary lost them 42-48 with 10% for the others (mostly Gary Johnson)

      Looking at ideology, shows 2008 with 22% liberal, 44% moderate and 34% conservative. 2016 has 26% liberal, 39% moderate, and 35% conservative. Liberals showed up to vote relative to the others, more in 2016 than in 2008. Again, the key is the Clinton losses. Compared to Obama, Hillary took 5% less of the liberal vote, 8% less of the moderate vote, and 5% less of the conservative vote. Yet at the same time, Trump only got 2% more of the moderate vote and 2% more of the conservative vote. Hillary's losses would mostly seem to be Bern victims who voted for Johnson or Stein, because the morons who voted for Nader in 2000 apparently still have NOT learned their lesson.

      And to think that those people probably think Trump voters are stupid.

    3. First, look at actual returns, not exit polls. Second 538 estimated that Comey's letter cost Clinton 2%. That is about what she lost by. You seem to be minimizing that difference but it was enough to cost her the election because the loss of voters occurred in key states that she needed to win.

      The undecided and third party voters broke for Trump in the last week, again due to Comey's second letter.

      You can blame Clinton for not being as charismatic as Obama, but Obama didn't have the systematic attack over a non-issue to contend with. No one was chanting lock him up or calling him crooked Obama on a daily basis. Even Clinton didn't go after him the way she could have during the primary. In the same way, his presidency has been scandal free because the conservatives have been too busy attacking Clinton in anticipation of her run for office. I don't believe any candidate, regardless of personal appeal, could withstand that.

      Someone really didn't want Hillary in office. Wonder who it was and why they worked so hard to keep her out.

    4. The primary foretold the election. You can point to a number of factors that made the difference in those upset states but the Bernie grudge was definitely one of them.

    5. "Someone really didn't want Hillary in office. Wonder who it was and why they worked so hard to keep her out."

      Everyone who has ever been called a "racist" for opposing Obama or his tantrum throwing snowflake following on any issue. Millions including millions of independents and democrats.

  7. Bob, and soon as you said World Bank, I knew what was coming. Of course a globalist would discredit the argument that the headlong march to globalization was an issue. It isn’t the only cause of income inequality, the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy; it is simply a very obvious and easily understandable one. It is the less educated workers that held good paying manufacturing jobs that were the first to suffer, and they know it. They don’t realize that long patents on drugs, for example, also transfer wealth to the rich because it is a tad convoluted how it does. Patents are touted as a subsidy for research, but the rewards of patent monopolies cost Americans far more than direct federal subsidies on research would.
    There are many other deliberate wealth transfer policies. “Trickle down”, union busting, Citizens United, etc. The list goes on. When rich people and global corporations hire lobbyists to write our laws, and buy up our newspapers and TV networks, the result is NOW!

    Greece was a bad actor because they used their changeover to Euros to borrow money at favorable rates, then spent the money on wage increases and pensions, instead of paying back the loans they already had.
    They didn’t crack down on tax evaders, and squandered millions on hosting the Olympics. Bad, bad Greece!
    Austerity is the only proper way to face a recession, say bankers and think-tank brainiacs, because bankers must not lose. Pay banks first, before anything else. It’s the moral thing and the fiscally responsible thing to do.
    Look what happened to the world economy, so goes the myth, when millions of Americans hoodwinked the poor innocent bankers, cashed in their equity, refinanced and spent the money on McMansions they knew they couldn’t afford, bought fully loaded SUV’s and lavish vacations, and left the bankers holding the bag. Of course the poor victimized bankers and brokers had to go to the government to be rescued. Bankers must be paid first!
    Who punished the bankers? Only tiny Iceland. Other countries bailed them out instead, outraging their citizens. The bank bailout is probably the most truly bi-partisan issue in recent American history, but so what. The fix has been in for decades.
    The media can’t and won’t publicize the causes of income inequality, but they will pimp for its worker bees.
    Just as a note. You have preached to us the futility of throwing the “R” bomb, but you also have reminded us over and over about the effects of two hundred years of slavery and racial discrimination. Actually, it is almost 400 years.

    1111 GMT -- CHINA -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said June 3, 2005, that China's military is growing as fast as its economy and that it is a major
    importer of weapons from Russia. Speaking with journalists while on his way
    to Singapore, Rumsfeld said "Ultimately, China will need to embrace some form of a more open and representative government if it is to fully achieve the political and economic benefits to which its people aspire.”

  8. America interviewed candidates for the job of president and they hired the least qualified one. Why?

    1. IMHO both parties offered their least qualified candidate. Joe Biden would have defeated Donald Trump in a landslide.

    2. Nonsense. Biden was saddled with the crime bill, his handling of Anita Hill, his coziness with banks and especially credit card companies, and his handsiness. He may not have been able to campaign effectively due to the death of his son. People like him but he has a lot of liabilities that would have come to the forefront, especially if he were challenged by Bernie Sanders. If you think the conservatives wouldn't have swiftboated him, you are very wrong. He would have faced the same challenge as John Kerry, a person who was similarly very qualified but who suddenly became a French Vietnam coward during the election.

      You wouldn't recognize a qualified candidate if he were right before your nose. You voted for Trump and that makes you scum, just like your candidate.

    3. Women would not have tolerated Joe Biden as the nominee.

    4. Anon 1:18 -- you might be right that Biden wouldn't have been a strong candidate. But, I disagree that the crime bill is something a politician would be "saddled" with. That bill was enormously successful in bringing down the crime rate. Blacks especially benefited, because blacks are dispropotionately victims of crime.

  9. With respect - white people did elect Donald Trump. The vast majority of non-whites voted for Hillary ... The vast majority of Trump voters were white folks. Are you saying that 0% of the non-white voters would have had to choose a different candidate to make the headline true?

    30% of the Hispanic and Asian communities voting for Trump means 70% voting for someone else. Had we seen a more even split among the racial groupings, I'd agree with you.

  10. Best Spell Caster Reviwes to help you get your Ex back and stop Divorce
    Get Your Ex Back After Divorce or breakup right now no matter how hopeless your situation seems!! my husband is back today and i am so excited sharing my testimony with everyone here. I am Mandy Divanna by name and i reside here in UK. I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with 3kids. A very big problem occurred in my family few months ago, between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pains. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back in 17 hours once he cast the spell.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. few hours later, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past{5}months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our marriage was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster Dr GOODLUCK. So, i will advice you out there, if you have any problem contact Dr GOODLUCK and i guarantee you that he will help you and you will be the next to share your testimony to every one in the world!!. Email him at: and you can also Whatsapp him or call with his mobile +2349059610309