​The Democrats’ Conspiracy Theory

By Joe Giambrone, Political Film Blog.

Democrats and their apologists have proven to be far more pathetic than previously witnessed. A quasi-fascist nationalism has erupted, and the blind rush to conflate Donald Trump with Russia has expanded the envelope of delusion.

What is it they claim now? And based on what actual evidence?

The CIA floated a conspiracy theory to undermine Trump in the Electoral College, a Hail Mary pass after the election upset. Yes, a conspiracy theory, the dangerous kind that puts nuclear-armed nations at each other’s throats.

“And yet, there is skepticism within the American government, particularly at the F.B.I., that this evidence adds up to proof that the Russians had the specific objective of getting Mr. Trump elected.”

-NY Times, Dec. 11, 2016

What’s more, that’s still the case!

“Officials reiterated that there is no single intercepted communication that qualifies as a ‘smoking gun’ on Russia’s intention to benefit Trump’s candidacy or to claim credit for doing so.”

-CNN, Jan. 6, 2017

“Reiterated” because the message is clearly not getting through the solid wall of hysteria.

That plain truth is clearly the opposite of the propaganda blitzkrieg we have just witnessed, from Saturday Night Live to the usual suspects at the foundation-funded left-leaning propaganda complex, those “gatekeepers.” Nor to the nation’s political cartoonists, who have led the charge to conflate Trump with Vladimir Putin, even though none of us has seen a single shred of credible evidence. The propaganda tsunami has been so voluminous that it’s difficult to recall a previous comparable situation. Only the false ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ bamboozle comes to mind, and we know how that worked out; don’t we?

Two Minutes’ Hate

The Democrats have become feral. Irrationally lashing out in every direction, the CIA’s conspiracy theory has had the effect that many of those anti-conspiracy theory psycho-babble articles had warned us about! #irony

But psychology remains at the core of it all, and it is the psychology of blaming others to avoid taking personal responsibility for negative outcomes. Taking cues from Hillary Clinton herself, there must be Russians hiding under the bed. Of course that’s the reason people supported Trump and not glorious Hillary. The alternative is too horrible for them to entertain.

What is obscured is the contorted logic that Russia allegedly defeated Clinton by revealing The Truth about her own corruption and lies, her private position versus public position. Impossible to make the case that the Russians are lying, the Democratic Party apologists’ only response has been to change the focus of the outrage toward killing the messenger. It’s a cheap magic trick, and we’ve seen this tiresome show before.

Most of the corporate US “news” media has bought into this conspiracy theory. It’s always a good idea in the mainstream to beat up on Russia, especially when the CIA takes point. There is no downside for jumping on that bandwagon. But “news” is now relegated to an empty label requiring quotation marks, because these outlets refuse to cover the full story: WikiLeaks.

There is no ambiguity at all regarding Julian Assange and Craig Murray’s position.

“Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails — they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for ‘disgusted’ Democratic whistleblowers”
-UK Daily Mail, Dec. 14, 2016

How can any American argue that Murray and Wikileaks’ revelations are not newsworthy? They are the publishers of the emails! So, that story must have appeared on the front pages of every US newspaper and on the 24/7 cable news barrage; no?

Censorship is clearly at play here. Any “news” article that covers the CIA’s conspiracy theory but omits the WikiLeaks counter-narrative is not journalism at all, and clearly violates basic journalistic ethics.

The Blackest Kettle Around

Psychological projection is when you accuse others of doing what you yourself do. It happens quite a bit more than people realize. Would the Russians be justified in working against a candidate who threatened to escalate a hot war in Syria against their own military and national security interests?

I’ll not belabor America’s bloodstained imperial record of overthrowing legitimate democracies, like Iran in 1953 or Chile in 1973. But more recent events should not be avoided, as we assess what’s really going on here in the intelligence sector’s assault on Russia and Putin and Trump.

What America did to Ukraine should be first and foremost, as we talk about foreign interference in the democratic processes of sovereign nations. In 2004 US agencies were exposed for their parts in a soft coup, or “color revolution.”

“The Democratic party’s National Democratic Institute, the Republican party’s International Republican Institute, the US state department and USAid are the main agencies involved in these grassroots campaigns as well as the Freedom House NGO and billionaire George Soros’s open society institute.”
-Guardian, Nov. 25, 2004

Former Representative Dennis Kucinich brilliantly flipped the script on Bill O’Reilly, after the second coup perpetrated against Ukraine by the USA.

“What I’d do is not have USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy working with U.S. taxpayers’ money to knock off an elected government in Ukraine, which is what they did. I wouldn’t try to force the people of Ukraine into a deal with NATO against their interest or into a deal with the European Union, which is against their economic interest… You have to look at the United States behind the scenes efforts in Ukraine to understand what’s going on — 65 programs by the National Endowment for Democracy — “

-Rep. Dennis Kucinich, O’Reilly Factor, Mar. 5, 2014



Closer to our own homes we have the real theft of the 2016 presidential election going completely unreported, drowned out by the anti-Russian hysteria campaign. In a situation that is difficult to explain, Greg Palast has reported on the purging of millions of minority citizens from voter rolls in key swing states since August. Real election tampering happened in several key states and that easily cost Clinton crucial electors. How is it that a fake hacking story becomes the most widely covered news of the modern age, while the violation of voters’ civil rights in monkey wrenching state elections received zero scrutiny?

Honestly, I’m at a loss to explain this mentally retarded strategy by the Democratic Party, but it has a precedent. In Florida 2000 the exact same voter purge led to the exact same result. And Greg Palast was there documenting and reporting on it, but we never heard a single sentence about that election theft from Al Gore, Bill Clinton or his Justice Department.

Noise-Based Politics

The Russian angle is not only dangerous, reckless, motivated by ulterior ambitions, and likely false. It drowns out the other news, like Donald Trump’s cabinet of horrors. While the nation should have marshaled against this gaggle of billionaire psychopaths, instead we were drummed up into a fictitious Russians-Are-Coming panic.

Trump’s cabinet picks are the most detestable in modern US history. The damage they will inflict on social safety nets and consumers and the environment is shockingly frightening. None of that has anything whatsoever to do with CIA conspiracy theories.

A CNBC pundit put out a Twitter poll which swiftly backfired on him. Despite the censorship and biased narratives, the Internet believed WikiLeaks 83% over US spooks. So much for their case against Russia.


Perhaps the role of James Clapper in championing the CIA’s case has something to do with the public rejecting it. Clapper, now immortalized in Oliver Stone’s Snowden, lied directly to Congress about NSA spying on Americans: a felony. He was not prosecuted, but instead allowed to continue running the US intelligence complex.

NSA whistleblower William Binney noted not only the continuing absence of credible evidence, but he also tied James Clapper directly to the previous Weapons of Mass Destruction fabrications.

“Mr. Clapper was a key player in facilitating the fraudulent intelligence. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put Mr. Clapper in charge of the analysis of satellite imagery, the best source for pinpointing the location of weapons of mass destruction — if any.”
-William Binney & Ray McGovern, Consortium News, Jan. 6, 2017


Trump’s chief of staff said that Trump had caved into pressure and “accepted” the intelligence complex’ claims.

Trump’s statement:

“Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations.”

-GlobalNews, Jan. 8, 2017

Well that’s a general observation if there ever was one. Trump is no-doubt feeling the pressure and unable to counter all the evidence-free claims that he is an agent of Putin. Perhaps he is barely hanging on by a thread in the face of a concerted spook effort to remove him from power, or at least to coerce his policies in a direction more to their liking. In the end, that’s what it’s really all about.


This entry was posted in Media, Politics / World News, propaganda. Bookmark the permalink.
  • NOS

    Evidence doesn’t matter. The oligarchs are always right and they expect the sheeple to digest their lies all the time in the name of “patriotism” – i.e they resort to “the last refuge of a scoundrel”.
    That’s what being a democrat or non-deplorable means these days!!

  • Josh Stern

    The public needs to get over its misguided faith in the idea that the CIA, an organization which is PROFESSIONALLY involved in committing covert (deniable involvement) and clandestine (completey denied) attacks on other countries and their govt. is somehow above suspicion for attacking elements of the US govt. and/or its domestic citizens. That faith is absurd. Tons of historical evidence argues it is widly false. Yet the media cling to it like a sacred cow.

    Look at the airport shooter case in the news right now. It is reported a) the guy sold his possessions, bought a 1 way ticket from Alaska to Florida, took only a handgun, and two clips of ammo, shot all the ammo at random people as soon as he could, and then lay down on the floor waiting to be arrested, b) he offers no motive, c) He claims that the CIA was working to control his mind, forcing him to watch ISIS videos, and telling him to joing ISIS, d) he is dark skinned and beared but has no Islamic connections or other interest, e) he served in the armed forces and would have been evaluated in many different ways, f) he claimed to hear voices telling him things.

    We also know from other sources that the CIA has done many decades of research on mind control, causing mental breakdown, and projecting voices into people’s heads. Is it completely beyond the realm of possibility that Mr. Santiago was evaluated in the military as being someone vulnerable to these techniques and that he was actually being targeted by the CIA for some false flag purpose? That’s the ONLY explanation this guy, who managed to live (by laying down on the floor) gives for his actions. Yet not one media source shows any interest in actually investigating it. The CIA could do something like that. So the lack of interest must be based in a faith that its simply to improbable. That faith is misplaced.

    • Kathleenhfullmer

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj181d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash181TopDirectGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj181d:….,…..

    • Josh Stern

      This article -https://www.ft.com/content/c7a7d804-d357-11e6-b06b-680c49b4b4c0 – says that ISIS droids are hot black market commodity, currently selling for $50K a piece. ISIS used to be a droid buyer and now they are a droid exporter.

      • Marilyngharris

        Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj398d:
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash398MediaGroupGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj398d:….,……

  • R. G. Price

    A number of things contributed to the Democratic losses in the latest election. Keep in mind that it wasn’t just the presidency.

    1) The electoral system IS “rigged”/biased against the Democratic party on multiple levels.
    2) Yes, the leaks did have an impact, whoever did them. Doesn’t matter if it was the Russians or not, the effect was the same. It’s true that the content of the leaks was largely legitimate, but it was still a quite biased event. I’m find with the Dem leaks, the problem was that there were no corresponding Republican leaks, or leaks of Trump’s private exchanges. I am quite confident that there was as much or more damaging material on the Trump side that was never hacked or leaked. So, it was a very one-sided affair.
    3) The Democrats chose the wrong candidate, in no small part to the very problems surfaced by the leaks. I think Hillary was a poor candidate and Bernie would likely have won, but whether he would have won or not, it doesn’t change point #1.
    4) The Clintons have, IMO, gutted the Democratic party over the past 20 years by basically taking up all the oxygen. Too many resources were directed at the Clintons that would have been better used going elsewhere.
    5) I think too many people believed going into the election that Clinton was a sure lock, so they decided to cast protest votes or not vote thinking it was safe to do so and Clinton would still win. Clinton lost Michigan by 11K votes and Jill Stein got over 50K votes. That’s just one example. I would bet my life savings that at least 12K of those Stein voters would have voted Clinton if they had believed that Trump had a real chance of winning the election.

    I think that the combination of the electoral system biases / voter suppression, and the hacking narrative definitely lost the election for Clinton, but she was always a bad candidate from the beginning. Despite that I still think she would have won if not for those two things.

    See my article here on the state of our electoral system: The Far-Right Has Rigged the American Electoral System http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/stolen_election.htm

    • Josh Stern

      Analyzing HRC’s loss, I’d pick a completely different list of things to emphasize.

      Starting with your point “5)”, the more important, but related problem for HRC was that her people believed their victory was a sure lock. Her team had stopped polling in the many of the key swing states they lost because they felt they were comfortably ahead. She didn’t campaign aggressively because the Trump campaign seemed to be such a non-chalant, non-professional affair, and the media was ganging up against Trump. HRC barely proposed any new initiatives. She ran on being “not Trump”, and on some vague association with Obama. This was pretty weak stuff. Why should she take any credit for Obama? Or why shouldn’t she take some blame for the hawkish war embracing Obama foreign policy which she also favored?

      Both Trump and HRC got less votes than both Obama and Romney in 2012.

      I grew up in PA and have friends there so I was looking at their results: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/pennsylvania

      If you focus on the total vote counts, and the party affiliations there, you can see that some really obscure state bureaucrat posts went to Democratic candidate, and had totals that often rivaled or even surpassed Trump and/or Clinton. That indicates that the results were not decided by people voting party line in PA. It also indicates that the results were not decided by people voting mostly for their pick for POTUS. It rather looks like most people didn’t like either candidate, and more voters than usual chose to abstain from voting in the headline race.

      In terms of wildcard things that swung the results, the story about the FBI possibly charging HRC with a crime was a bigger factor than Wikileaks. The DNC primary rigging was a shocking story – it *should* have gottten more attention than it did. But the media downplayed that, and HRC wasn’t perceived as the active villian. In contrast, the FBI allegations fed into the “Crooked Hillary” concept and affected swing voters a lot more. There were some announcements in the last 2 weeks of the campaign and some fake news related to that which did break for Trumpt.

      Trump’s “Drain the Swamp” proposal may not have been real or sincere, but it is what a lot of the electorate wanted to hear, delivered at a time when HRC wasn’t say much of anything except thatTrump is too ridiculous to consider, while rumors circulated that HRC was going to be further investigated.

      Trump made people notice that he had, at least, been an executive of a lot of businesses, whereas HRC didn’t have a much in the way of exec/chief experience on her resume; and she didn’t work hard to fill that gap. People argued that she was incredibly well qualified…in terms of memorizing facts that was clearly true, but in terms of being the decision maker she didn’t make a case for herself. The hands-off “I don’t really know what happened or what was classified” story of the e-mails didn’t help matters in that category.

      Some argue that no publicity is bad publicity. That’s an exaggeration, but Trump did help himself with very low information voters by getting his name constantly in the news and constantly being talked about, without letup. The people who vote for the 1 name they can remember, broke big for Trump.

      I see all of the above as more significant factors in the election than the items listed in the post above.

      • R. G. Price

        If you look at the actual facts, it’s clear to see that millions of mostly Democratic voters are either prevented from voting or don’t vote due to obstacles. In Florida alone over 20% of African-Americans are prevented from voting by felony voting restrictions. In this election 95% of African-American voted for HRC. 20% of the black population in Florida is around 700,000 people. If even just 25% of those people voted it would have given the state to HRC. That’s just one single issue in one single state.

        As for your other statements. I largely agree, but I consider them all covered by point #3.

        • Josh Stern

          HRC didn’t do as well with African Americans as Obama did, so the numbers were lower than 95%. http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls While I agree with your condemnation of convicted felon voting disqualification, that wasn’t something new to election 2016, so I didn’t seem on-topic. I mean, I also agree with those who say elections should be held on non-work days, and predictions about the effect of that also seem off-topic here.

          The General election and perhaps even the Republican primary would likely have been a lot different if Sanders had pulled ahead of Clinton. I wouldn’t care to be on a Bernie victory, though one never knows. Here at the beginning of 2017, I’ll go out on a limb predicting that in 2020, Dems will again choose a wrong candidate who does the best job of raising money from wealth/corporate donors and quickly, therefore, becomes the media consensus “best hope” to win and save the world from the more evil/distasteful/naughty/regressive Republican pick, whoever that might be.

          • R. G. Price

            NPR stated that 94% of African-Americans voted for HRC, so whatever, but anyway. 94%, 89%, not a huge difference.

            At any rate, what we need to realize is:
            A) The electoral system is rigged in favor of the Republicans, so defeating them at the ballot box requires additional efforts. It’s like they start every race with a head-start.
            B) The ONLY institution that can be used to defeat the Republicans is the Democratic Party. We have a crappy, unfair, corrupt political system, but that’s the only system we have. It is a system DESIGNED to only allow two parties to win. Yes, I want a system that enables multi-party politics as well, but we don’t have that system in place right now. Indeed we are moving toward a ONE party system. As bad as a 2 party system is, it’s better than a 1 party system, so right now we have to use the 2 party system to try and hold back the implementation of a 1 party system. Defeating the Republicans requires unification, not people abandoning the Democratic party. The GOP would love nothing more than people abandoning the democratic party right now.
            C) Given item B, we have to have a “Tea Party” on the left to do to the Democratic Party what the right did to the Republican Party. The right recognized that 3rd parties are futile in our system, and so instead of wasting protest votes on candidates that would never win, they pushed far-right candidates through the Republican Party. What they did worked. We’re going to have to do the same thing on the left, because that’s how our system is designed to work. Complaining that the system sucks isn’t going to change anything. Yes, the system sucks, but we’ve got to with with what we have.
            D) The only alternative to B & C is violent revolution. If you aren’t going to unify behind the Democratic Party, and try to change the Democratic Party, then either a) you support the Republican Party or b) you support violent revolution. Personally, I think those of us on the left would be on the losing end of a violent revolution right now, so IMO, violent revolution is off the table.

            Like it or not, the ONLY option we have, is unifying behind the Democratic party. And we have to recognize going in that the deck is stacked against us from the outset, and IMO with each passing moment that Republicans are in power the deck is going to be further and further stacked against non-Republicans.

            I absolutely believe that the goal of the majority of Republicans in office and in Trump’s administration is to create a perpetual one-party state, in which the Dems or any other political opposition will have no meaningful political power. They will do this through voting restrictions and procedural rules that make it impossible for any opposition to get enough votes to challenge their agenda, even when 70%+ of the population opposes it.

            And the war on the media is a means of trying to make their agenda appear more popular than it really is. What they are doing is taking extreme positions, that really have very little support, rigging the voting system so that they can win at the polls and in the legislature despite minority support, and shaping the media to make their positions appear to have wider support than they actually do. That’s happening now, that’s been happening for 20 years.

            And they have cultivated violent armed citizen militias on their side to ensure that violent revolution as a means of overthrowing them is virtually impossible as well.

          • Josh Stern

            When you write “electoral” above, are you really talking about the electoral college or are you talking about the Senate + Congressional districts with winner take all in each?

            Prior to the past election, people were saying that the electoral map favored Dems. I would say it just adds bad noise, so they could get rid of it, but it is not the main issue. In contrast to that, the weighting of 2 votes from every state in the Senate gives disproportionate power to individual voters in rural states, where the freewheeling gerrymandering of House districts gives extra power to whichever party is in control when the districts are drawn.

            If I were in charge, I would replace the Senate with a second legislative body that worked more like a Parliament – allow national election on the basis of party platform and representative numbers roughly proportional to the tally for the given platform. Also, I would switch to some type of instant runnoff voting, like Condorcet, allowing people to directly vote for their rank of preferences in each office and not make decisions about whether or not to “waste their vote”.

            About the Democratic party – I feel that it’s been pulled steadily further to right on national security an economic issues since the 1970s. Also, the Republican party has moved further to the right on national security and economic issues since the 1970s. So if that is not where you are, you need some other way of changing the conversation, rather than doing the same thing which didn’t work for 40 years.

            After I wrote my first reply above, I regretted my failure to mention the issue of ObamaCare. Many folks who support the concept of a safety net and the concept of Universal HealthCare were oblivious to the ways in which the ObamaCare implementation was not negotiated to lower overall costs – even though Obama consistently promised that. It ended up imposing financial losses on a lot of middle class and lower income families. They may have been underinsured as a group before, but Obamacare discontinued the lowest cost insurance forms, making it super pricey for large families without govt. aid. Now they are required by law to carry more insurance with a lower deductible. They are a little healthier and somewhat poorer. Seeing the sticker price for 2017 just prior to the Nov. elections may have been another factor in HRC’s defeat.

          • R. G. Price

            When I say electoral I’m talking about everything. The entire system of elections.

            It doesn’t matter what people were saying. “People” are idiots. Geographically things have been moving in favor of the Republicans for the past 20-30 years as the division between Dems and Repubs has become more defined along the rural / urban divide.

            Every aspect of our electoral and legislative system, both by design and happenstance, favors rural and suburban areas.

            Small states have more power than big states. Rural areas have more power than urban areas. It’s easier to vote in rural vs. urban areas. Voters in rural areas have greater voting power than urban voters.

            So long as democrats are an urban party, their votes count for less and they get fewer legislators per voters. period, that’s the fact of how our system works. Dems have won majorities in total votes in like 60% to 70% of elections across all levels of government for the past 20 years, yet Republicans dominate every level of government because of what I’ve just said.

          • Josh Stern

            So, by electoral, you mean the US system of voting, elections, & representation, rather than the electoral college. You have, above, some of my main criticisms of that.

            In many countries, with various systems, the party winning power through fair elections often needs to form some kind of winning coalition. It is not true that the Democrats, with all sorts of assets and historical advantages, are forced into weak or losing coalitions. They typically do that to themselves. Nobody forced the Democrats to be not competing for lower and middle class rural voters – they (unconsciously) made that choice, in modern times. Nobody told them they had to be not competing well for factory workers – they (unconsciously) made that choice in modern times. Nobody told them they needed to please arm manufacturers and the super wealthy – they made that choice in modern times. There is a universe of potential candidates Dems can run and issues they can emphasize and truths they can tell. They’ve chosen to define themselves as “A little less Reagan than Reagan and a little less Trump than Trump, while being more experienced in the ways of Washington DC”. That isn’t usually a winning strategy. Bill Clinton presented an image of himself as regular guy from Arkansas while Obama in his first try presented himself as anti-war candidate promising hope/change and greater sensitivity to minorities. Nobody forced them to run “Not Reagan and I’ve sat in on a lot of DC meetings” as their pitch.

            The voting system can be improved, but it isn’t the big weakness of Dems.

            Pentagon/Spook/Defense Contractor/BigBiz Complex influence on the media and the candidates wbo get nominated from parties is a huge issue. Voting for the least worst of the two in each election is not going to solve that problem.

          • R. G. Price

            “Voting for the least worst of the two in each election is not going to solve that problem.”

            But neither is voting for people who never get elected while allowing the most worst to retain power either.

            So you’re in favor of violent revolution then?

          • Josh Stern

            I made no statement about how folks should vote in the general election on election day in the current system, nor did mention “violent” or “revolution” in any context.

            You replied to my criticisms of HRC’s campaign with the claim that she was an inherently weak candidate, to which I replied that she could have made a better showing in many different ways.

            You mentioned that you see the current voting system as making a 2 party system inevitable and being stacked against the Dems. I replied that it is not inevitable, there are lots of different changes that could be made within the voting system, while improving our focus on media news sources that actually educate us might be even more important.

            I started using Twitter to make a list of what I consider to be good IndyNews sources. I may make a RSS version in the future.

            My list is here: https://twitter.com/misc_CIA_victim/lists/IndyNews

            or look at https://twitter.com/misc_CIA_victim/lists/IndyNews/members for a roster.

            Best usage for someone else is probably to copy the members to your own list using a tool like this one: http://projects.noahliebman.net/listcopy/index.php

            and then customize it your individual preferences.

    • cityspeak

      The D and R are the same thing representing, working for and executing the whims of the .01%.

      I don’t believe you could live through the Obama Presidency and not see how it was a continuation of the Pax American and continued looting of the nation and the world by Wall Street.
      The only conflict I see is that the .01% itself might be fractured into two groups that may disagree on means but there is no disagreement on the ends.

      • R. G. Price

        Completely agree. Now what? Again, our political system is designed to prevent 3rd parties from succeeding. Voting for them is a total waste. “Protest votes” do nothing.

        Are the 50K+ Jill Stein voters from Michigan happy that Trump won instead of Clinton? Do those Jill Stein voters think the Dems are going to “learn a lesson” because of their votes?

        In virtually every election it is evident by the time you cast your ballot that under our system, there are only two possible candidates that can possibly win. If one of those candidates happens to be 3rd party then great, but if not, then voting for a candidate that you KNOW is only going to get 0% to 5% of the vote is a total waste. it proves nothing. It changes nothing. All it really does is perpetuate the myth of democracy in America by allowing people who want change to “participate” in a completely ineffectual way.

        The only thing that matters is who wins, and it always comes down to two possible options. If you don’t vote for one of those two you are just supporting the greater evil. That’s how our system works. I wish it didn’t, but wishes don’t matter.

        So the only options are A) greater evil, B) lesser evil, or C) violent revolution.

        If you don’t vote for the lesser evil, you are then supporting the greater evil. That’s the reality of it. If you don’t vote for the lesser evil you increase the chance that the greater evil will take power. Unless you plan on violent revolution, then supporting the lesser evil is the best you can do in our system.

        Both parties are afraid of real democracy, and this is the real reason that the Dems haven’t done more to combat the obvious undermining of the electoral system by the GOP. Because many of the things that need to be done to combat GOP undermining of the system would open of the system to all parties, and the Dems don’t want that either.

        Eliminating political party control over redistricting is the obvious example there. The Republicans have completely rigged the congressional and state district maps in their favor, yet instead of calling for the elimination of districting control by elected officials (what is really needed), the Dems mostly say nothing and hope to bide their time until they can get back into the driver’s seat. But it’s looking more and more like that may never happen any time soon. It could be decades. So instead they would rather see their nose cut off to spite their face rather than call for a truly equitable and fair system.

        But again, other than violent revolution, nothing can be done about it!

        • cityspeak

          I disagree as not all revolutions are violent.
          You might want to recall when the Soviet Union fell the Party officials asked for the army to fire on the non violent protestors and the military refused to do so stating their duty is to protect Russian citizen’s lives not unlawfully kill them.
          If we stopped voting between two evils (which by the way what is the lesser of two evils? I only slaughter male babies and eat their livers while my opponent slaughters both female and male babies and dines on their livers?!) and didn’t participate at all no government could stand and say they are the legitimate voice of the people.
          If nothing else have citizens not vote, mock the whole charade and call for votes of no confidence across the board.
          Violence is not an option nor an answer.
          Besides like the current security forces for the .01% needs any more reasons to turn its violent nature on more powerless defenseless people?
          Think Standing Rock or the March on Selma. Not the Watts Riots.

          • R. G. Price

            Somewhat agree, but this involves not voting at all, which I somewhat agree with. Voting 3rd party has no benefits at all.

            And that type of change of power doesn’t happen until things get REALLY bad. So if you are looking for that type of transition of power, maybe it will happen after about 50 years of 1 party Republican rule. It also may never happen, just as in North Korea or Cuba, etc.

          • cityspeak

            I hate to be the bearer of bad news but things are really bad. Worse than many people realize because the grim truths are being hidden by spectacle.
            When it hits it will be quick and sudden.
            You may recall no one saw the dissolution of the Soviet Union happening.

    • MrSmithInDC

      1) Really? Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroit’s precincts… you think Detroit leans right?
      2) WikiLeaks founder says the problem with leaking material about Trump is that nothing can compare with ‘what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth’….. Trump still won. Get over it.
      3) Trump would have easily defeated Bernie….. fact
      4) Obama/Pelosi/Reid destroyed the democratic party…. fact.
      5) Thank God for msm fake news…. in this case.

      Anything else?

  • bondo

    trump legitimately won both electoral college numbers and voter numbers.
    the dems/the system so confident that they had successfully rigged the election
    they failed to see their misses.

    2 states, ca and ny, had how many corrupted votes to match each vote counted 6 times in detroit for clinton.

    reduce her popular vote total by at least 45,000,000.

  • Geno7397

    Thanks for using my pic in the heading!