Trent Lapinski asks Democrats:
Did you read Wikileaks?
Well, you should have.
The “conspiracies” were true, and the mainstream media lied to you to about everything.
Wikileaks was not Russian propaganda, it was the news.
Wikileaks has a 10-year record of never releasing a single falsified document, and is not connected to Russia. Everything they released were the actual e-mails of Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff. You had the opportunity to look through a window into the Hillary Clinton campaign, but you didn’t.
By ignoring the leaks, you ignored reality.
By not listening to your fellow Americans, and accusing them of being “conspiracy theorists” and trusting the corporate media, you ignored reality. By only following other liberals on social media, and only reading liberal or corporate news, once again ignoring reality. When Hillary Clinton was caught rigging the primary against Bernie Sanders, and Democrats nominated her anyway they ignored reality.
Everyone was simply insulating themselves within their own echo chamber ignoring anything outside their bubble.
The Media Lied To Us About EVERYTHING
If you’ve been following my Twitter or Facebook account during this 2016 election you probably would have thought I was a Trump supporter. However, I am a former registered Democrat, a Bernie supporter, and consider myself a progressive libertarian. This was the first election I ended up voting 3rd party, but my second choice was Trump. I simply could not vote for Hillary Clinton because of her mishandling of classified information, and stealing the nomination from the people’s choice Bernie Sanders.
Hillary never should have been nominated in the first place. The first clue was when she was under FBI investigation, and the second clue was when she rigged the primary elections.
In an attempt to inform my friends, family, and followers I posted dozens if not hundreds of Wikileaks e-mails, and tweeted alt-right news just as much as I did liberal news. I did this because most of my followers are liberals, and I realized they were all living in an echo chamber on social media where they were not being exposed to differing opinions or news. I was mostly rejected by liberals for doing this, they didn’t understand why I was sharing things that made them uncomfortable, but now they know why. Ironically, I got far more support from Trump supporters for trying to tell Democrats the truth. I wasn’t expecting that.
I took it upon myself to understand Trump, and his supporters. What I found was millions of great Americans who had been disenfranchised, normal people like you and I, who did not recover from the Great Recession. They’re pissed off about Obama Care, endless wars, trade deals that have killed jobs, higher taxes, a rigged economy–and, they are not wrong.
Had Democrats taken the concerns of average American seriously, especially the concerns of Millennials, they would have quickly realized Hillary Clinton was not the right nominee for the Democratic party in 2016.
Bernie Sanders Would Have Beat Trump
I 100% believe Bernie Sanders could have created a political revolution to beat Trump, but instead we’re getting Trump’s revolution.
The reason Hillary Clinton did not win this election is because she never should have been nominated in the first place. There was a better choice.
Democrats let Hillary hijack the DNC, and use her corporate money to push everyone around. Meanwhile, she used Correct The Record to poison the minds of people online into isolating themselves with paid Hillary trolls. Had Democrats paid attention to the leaks they would have seen the mountain of evidence that told the world that Hillary rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders, and was illegally coordinating with Super PACs like CTR. She should have been disqualified. The evidence is on Wikileaks.org.
Meanwhile, the media, and social media kept everyone ignorant and isolated from differing opinions. They lied to us, manipulated us, and made us think the rest of the country agreed with us, when they didn’t. They used their position of authority to mislead us into believing in a false reality—in propaganda.
This is the problem with America today, the technology that was supposed to bring us together actually isolated us into echo chambers and drove us further apart.
Getting the news from just your friends is a logical fallacy, you need to know your enemies, and realize they’re not much different from yourself. …
At the end of the day, this is an opportunity to learn and grow and consider another world view. This is a wakeup call to get out of safe spaces, politically correct thinking, shatter echo chambers, and challenge yourself to consider the other side of the fence. This is an opportunity to reach out and truly learn to understand each other.
We all have to come together to solve any real problems with our country in the next 4-years. This election was a lesson to consider all ideas equally, regardless of established authority.
Brendan O’Neill adds:
If you want to know why Trump won, just look at the response to his winning. The lofty contempt for ‘low information’ Americans. The barely concealed disgust for the rednecks and cretins of ‘flyover’ America who are apparently racist and misogynistic and homophobic. The haughty sneering at the vulgar, moneyed American political system and how it has allowed a wealthy candidate to poison the little people’s mushy, malleable minds. The suggestion that American women, more than 40 per cent of whom are thought to have voted for Trump, suffer from internalised misogyny: that is, they don’t know their own minds, the poor dears. The hysterical, borderline apocalyptic claims that the world is now infernally screwed because ‘our candidate’, the good, pure person, didn’t get in.
This response to Trump’s victory reveals why Trump was victorious. Because those who do politics these days — the political establishment, the media, the academy, the celeb set — are so contemptuous of ordinary people, so hateful of the herd, so convinced that the mass of society cannot be trusted to make political decisions, and now those ordinary people have given their response to such top-down sneering and prejudice.
Oh, the irony of observers denouncing Middle America as a seething hotbed of hatred even as they hatefully libel it a dumb and ugly mob. Having turned America’s ‘left behind’ into the butt of every clever East Coast joke, and the target of every handwringing newspaper article about America’s dark heart and its strange, Bible-toting inhabitants, the political and cultural establishment can’t now be surprised that so many of those people have turned around and said… well, it begins with F and ends with U.
The respectable set’s allergy to Trump is fundamentally an allergy to the idea of democracy itself. To them, Trump’s rise confirms the folly of asking the ignorant, the everyday, the non-subscribers to the New York Times, to decide on important political matters. They’re explicit about this now. In the run-up to election day, big-name commentators wondered out loud if democracy is all it’s cracked up to be. Trump’s ascendancy showed we need better checks and balances on ‘the passions of the mob’, said Andrew Sullivan. We should ‘cool and restrain [these] temporary populist passions’, he said, and refuse to allow ‘feeling, emotion’ to override ‘reasoned deliberation’. The little folks only feel and wail, you see, and it’s down to the grown-ups in the system to think coolly on their behalf.
Elsewhere, a writer for the New York Times asked Americans to consider installing a monarchy, which could rise above the ‘toxic partisanship’ of party politics — that is, above open, swirling, demos-stuffed political debate. In a new book called Against Democracy — says it all — Georgetown philosopher Jason Brennan argues for an epistocracy, an ‘aristocracy of the wise’, who might decide political matters for those of us who are ‘low information’ (ie. stupid). This echoes the anti-democratic turn of liberals in the 2000s, when it was argued that daft, Bush-backing Americans increasingly made decisions, ‘not with their linear, logical left brain, but with their lizard, more emotional right brain’, in Arianna Huffington’s words. Such vile contempt for the political, democratic capacities of the ordinary person has been in great evidence following Trump’s win — across Twitter and in apocalypse-tinged instant responses — and it is likely to intensify. Anti-Trump will morph more explicitly into anti-democracy.
If this all sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the same kind of pleb-fearing horror that greeted the Brexit result four months ago. ‘Why elections are bad for democracy’, a headline in the Guardian said. The people are deluded and it is the task of those with ‘reason and expertise’ to ‘un-delude’ them, said a writer for Foreign Policy. ‘What if democracy doesn’t work? What if it never has and never will?’, wondered a pained George Monbiot. Boom. That’s it. The secret and not-so-secret cry of the elites and the experts and the observers over both Brexit and Trump is precisely that: ‘What if democracy doesn’t work?’ It’s not so much Trump they fear as the system that allowed him to get to the White House: that pesky, ridiculous system where we must ask ordinary people — shudder — what they think should happen in the nation.
The anti-Brexit anti-democrats claimed they were merely opposed to using rough, simplistic referendums to decide on huge matters. That kind of democracy is too direct, they said. Yet now they’re raging over the election of Trump via a far more complicated, tempered democratic system. That’s because — and I know this is strong, but I’m sure it’s correct — it is democracy itself that they hate. Not referendums, not Ukip’s blather, not only direct democracy, but democracy as an idea. Against democracy — so many of them are now. It is the engagement of the throng in political life that they fear. It is the people — ordinary, working, non-PhD-holding people — whom they dread and disdain. It is what got Trump to the White House — the right of all adults, even the dumb ones, to decide about politics — that gives them sleepless nights
This nasty, reactionary turn against democracy by so many of the well-educated both explains the victory of Trump, which neatly doubles up as a slap in the face of the establishment, and confirms why democracy is more important today than it has ever been. Because it really would be folly, madness in fact, to let an elite that so little understands ordinary people, and in fact loathes them, to run society unilaterally. Now that would be dangerous, more dangerous than Trump.
James Taranto reminds us:
For most of the past year, this columnist has been a relatively lonely voice arguing that Trump could—though by no means necessarily would—pull off what still must be reckoned a stunning upset. His weaknesses were manifest, but then so were hers; and she sorely lacked the natural political talent that was his great strength. Not since Richard Nixon, in our admittedly subjective judgment, had the less charismatic major-party candidate been elected president.
At one point last month we thought he was finished—after the release of the 2005 “Access Hollywood” video and several women’s subsequent accusations that he had sexually harassed or assaulted them. Why did that turn out not to be disqualifying? In part no doubt because the Oct. 28 revelation that Mrs. Clinton was once again under FBI investigation shifted the focus from his misdeeds to hers.
But also perhaps because of the Bill Clinton precedent. Mr. Clinton—as Trump reminded Americans at several points during the campaign—also had a history of sexually predatory behavior, at which voters shrugged. So did prominent feminists, hypocritically, perhaps (as we theorized in February) in the expectation that their reward for standing behind Mr. Clinton would be an eventual presidency for Mrs. Clinton.
Of course standards have changed since the 1990s, and it’s possible that Trump’s piggish statements and the alleged corresponding behavior would have been disqualifying had his opponent not been named Clinton. Trump’s detractors denounced his conservative Christian supporters for looking past his personal misconduct in the interest of policy, but it was perhaps unreasonable to expect them to behave differently in this regard from the way feminists did in the 1990s.
Trump’s victory can be taken more broadly as a lesson in the political perils of nepotism. In the primaries and the general election, he managed to defeat both the Bush and Clinton dynasties.
The New York Times has a fascinating visualization, based on exit polls, that shows how Trump performed in various demographic groups relative to the previous three Republican nominees. Some of the results are unsurprising: His margin was much wider than Romney’s among whites without a college degree and considerably narrower among whites with a degree. All told, he improved only slightly among whites.
But some of the results ran counter to expectations. Trump also improved over Romney’s (losing) margins among blacks, Hispanics and Asian-Americans, and his gains among all three groups were greater (in percentage terms) than among whites. And while the “gender gap” was enormous—both Trump’s margin among men and Mrs. Clinton’s among women were over 10%—Trump did only slightly worse than Romney with women and considerably better among men.
Many in the media are kicking themselves, and deservedly so, over the way their organizations covered the campaign—though not all are especially clear-eyed about what went wrong. “To put it bluntly, the media missed the story,” writes Margaret Sullivan of the Washington Post:
Trump, quite apparently, captured the anger that Americans were feeling about issues such as trade and immigration.
And although many journalists and many news organizations did stories about the frustration and disenfranchisement of these Americans, we did not take them seriously enough.
And although we journalists try to portray ourselves as cynical sometimes, or hard-bitten, we can also be idealistic, even naive.
We wanted to believe in a country where decency and civility still mattered, and where someone so crude, spiteful and intemperate could never be elected—because America was better than that.
I can fault journalists for a lot of things, but I can’t fault us for that.
And that’s the problem, isn’t it? It’s not just that journalists were naive or even ignorant, it’s that their work was suffused with hostility, even bigotry. Another way of putting Sullivan’s “America was better than that” is “we were better than them.”
The New York Times’s Jim Rutenberg comes closer to acknowledging the point:
In an earlier column, I quoted the conservative writer Rod Dreher as saying that most journalists were blind to their own “bigotry against conservative religion, bigotry against rural folks, and bigotry against working class and poor white people.” . . .
In their view the government was broken, the economic system was broken, and, we heard so often, the news media was broken, too. Well, something surely is broken. It can be fixed, but let’s get to it once and for all.
Tellingly, though, Rutenberg doesn’t acknowledge another of his earlier columns, the one that ran on the Times’s front page and argued that because Trump was so odious, journalists would “have to throw out the textbook” and cover the campaign in an “oppositional” manner.
Motivated by prejudice, many in the media threw aside standards of fairness and balance and even the pretense thereof. That didn’t prevent a Trump presidency and might even have helped bring it about. It certainly heightened the media’s crisis of credibility.