Serves Them Right

~ Clarissa

Pence is delivering a triumphant speech at an anti-choice rally in DC. I do feel a bit of Schadenfreude, to be honest. It’s what citizens wanted, so let them get a full measure of it.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

31 thoughts on “Serves Them Right”

  1. Well many more people voted for Clinton. So sadly the majority of the people didn’t want this. It’s not even a coast vs. midwestern thing. It’s an urban vs/ suburban/rural thing. Clinton took nearly every city–even cities in red states: like Atlanta, Austin, Milwaukee, Cleveland, perhaps Dallas? And now we are all in thrall to a bunch of religious fanatics.

    I know that Trump won according to the existing rules. But I think it’s important to keep in mind that the majority of Americans did not want this horror show.

    Like

    Reply

    1. “And now we are all in thrall to a bunch of religious fanatics.”

      • This is why I’m not so excited about the possibility of a Trump impeachment that people keep bringing up. President Pence scares me just as much. He is totally unhinged in every direction.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. “But I think it’s important to keep in mind that the majority of Americans did not want this horror show.”

      • I’m not sure I can agree. Those who stayed home basically said this was OK with them. So they must have wanted it, if only passively.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Well I’m not talking about those awful non-voters. I’m not talking about the still more awful Stein supporter. I simply meant that in terms of raw numbers, more people voted for Clinton: 3 million more. Those that voted for her–outnumbering the Trump voters–didn’t want this.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Well I’m not talking about those awful non-voters. I’m not talking about the still more awful Stein supporter. I simply meant that in terms of raw numbers, more people voted for Clinton: 3 million more. Those that voted for her–outnumbering the Trump voters–didn’t want this.

          In a sense, every US president has popular backing or passive acquiescence because most citizens who can vote do not.

          I know this bores the shit out of you but voter suppression absolutely played a role. This is the first election since the VRA was defanged.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. Also, if people who voted Clinton worked harder organizing, getting people to the polls, etc, Trump would have lost.

            I don’t think the situation can be improved until we recognize that the reason why Republicans hold the national and the state legislatures, the governorships and the White house is that they are giving people what they want. And we aren’t. It’s with this understanding that change will begin. The belief that “We almost kind of won” is a road to more losses.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. Soon after we moved here, my neighborhood elected a Democratic representative to the statehouse two times in a row. Then the borders of our district were changed to allow for more Republican voters and fewer Democratic ones, and that was that.

              We shouldn’t discount the vicious circle of gerrymandering. More Republicans in state houses means more changing of district lines, means more Republicans in the statehose, etc.

              These Republicans in the statehouse also draw the districts for Congress. My metropololitan area regularly sent Democrats to the House of Representatives until Columbus split the city in two. Now I share my representation to Congress with people who live far from me, in deeply rural areas, instead of my neighbors in the next suburb over.

              Look at a map of Ohio’s Congressional districts. Even if you had no knowledge of our geography, you can immediately identify the cities: they are the areas with the very convoluted Congressional district boundaries.

              Better yet, google “gerrymandering” and click on Images. You will see charts that demonstrate very clearly how it is possible to create a preponderance of minority party representation. With computer-modeling, the precision behind drawing the borders is increased.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

        1. In general, I’m with Clarissa, Pence is no better than Trump. And if for some reason, they both get impeached (won’t happen of course), whose next in line? Paul Ryan. And in some ways he’s the worst of the three. But I do think David Bellamy’s point stands: I wouldn’t be worried about Pence or Ryan beginning a nuclear war. And a small part of me is sincerely worried Trump will do this.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

      3. “Those who stayed home basically said this was OK with them. So they must have wanted it, if only passively.”

        Surely that does not include anarchists who don’t vote on principle, and express their opposition through ‘direct action’?

        Like

        Reply

          1. I did not refer to responsibility. Only to the lazy assumption that not voting = wanting the presumed outcome of not voting, assuming such an outcome may be presumed.

            As to “fantasyland” I will concur in so far as I don’t think there is any realistic prospect of anarchists or any other revolutionary types overthrowing the system at least in the short term, or that such a revolution will lead to the desired outcome (historically, as well we all know, revolutions often don’t). However is it “fantasyland” if some people really don’t think any option on the ballot represents them in the least, and they feel they or others are screwed either way, or at any rate, nothing will change? Of course with certain options like Trump one can make and argument he goes so far beyond the pale for abstention not to be worth it.

            Like

            Reply

            1. If I refuse to make my will known, of course that communicates my acceptance of the outcome. So of course they want it, no matter what convenient lies they tell themselves.

              What’s especially curious is that the “I’m too holy to vote for Hillary” purists I know will gain financially from Trump’s tax cuts. I’m sure they aren’t consciously motivated by this but it’s there.

              Like

              Reply

              1. Your argument only works if a number of things are assumed:

                That political involvement by the masses begins and ends at the ballot box. It doesn’t. There is a recognized right of legitimate protest and petitioning of government, and in theory, elected representatives are supposed to listen to and act upon (to an extent) the concerns of their consttuents. Of course there are some radicals who wish to go further even than the conventional or sometimes legal means allow; how far they get is another matter.
                That a vote is anything other than a preference for, and endorsement of, a particular candidate or political party. Tactical voters will of course wish to support candidate A if it is the only seemingly realistic chance of beating candidate B (though this is a self fulfilling prophecy to a degree- if people do not vote for or support third party or independent candidates, of course their chances will consistently remain low). Others may sincerely believe in a candidate or throw their lot in as the best chance of getting what they want. Both blame anyone who did something different. But voting for a third party candidate or not at all can (and, in my opinion, should) be a statement of actual preference. It is the people at large that vote in governments; individual voters (or abstainers) should not be held in any way to blame for the outcome.
                That a vote counts for all that much. In America there is the electoral college system which means that even with more people voting for Clinton than Trump in the popular vote, Trump still got in. And with accusations of gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics it’s not hard to see how the outcome can be manipulated by certain interested parties to suit their ends. And that’s assuming no-one illegally hacks the voting machines, etc.
                That the system itself is not so broken (in a wider sense) or legitimate that is worth one’s time and effort to work within and give one’s efforts to even as simple a thing as marking off one’s voting preferences. The aforementioned anarchists and certain other radical types believe neither.

                In short, I see only limited reason to believe that abstaining should in any way be seen as simple acceptance of the outcome or that such people should be blamed for it.

                That said, it is certain where the least favourable alternative really is that bad (as would seems to be the case with Trump, Pence and associates) tactical voting is not entirely unjustified. Some anarchists seems to be of that mind. I recall Chomsky (whether he is really an anarchist or not, and irrespective of whether you care for the man or his views) saying it was better to vote for Clinton as she at least recognizes the threat posed by climate change; Trump does not.

                Like

              2. I can’t see anything other than early childhood trauma behind the words “the system is broken”, sorry. And substituting an adult political engagement with infant stage pouting is not a choice I can sincerely respect.

                Like

        2. “Surely that does not include anarchists who don’t vote on principle, and express their opposition through ‘direct action’?”

          Surely this most certainly includes those impossibly adolescent nincompoops. Such people helped deliver the country to someone that promises to be the most controlling president in recent memory. Have you heard the latest? He wants to “close up the internet.” And where would leave all the silly little anarchists with their pre-pubescent rant-laden excuses for websites? I despise people who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton because their “principles” didn’t allow it. Now look what your ridiculous principles unleashed upon the world.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. “I despise people who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton because their “principles” didn’t allow it. Now look what your ridiculous principles unleashed upon the world.”

            • Exactly. Everybody who spent months ranting on the Internet how Hillary was “just like” Trump is complicit. It bugs me to no end to see these very people now tell the world how appalled they are by Trump. First, they help him get elected and now they are outraged. What sense does this make?

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. ” First, they help him get elected and now they are outraged. What sense does this make?”

              It maximizes their warm feeling of self-righteousness. First in turning their nose up at the less than perfect candidate and then clutching their pearls at the antics of the person that beat the less than perfect candidate.

              It’s all about the feels – political “opinions” as an emotional joy ride.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

          2. Nice that you choose to despise an entire political philosophy with over a century of thought behind it, and reduce it to the rantings of “silly” “impossibly adolescent nincompoops”. Nice also that you choose to blame those people who happen to disagree with you that the system is not hopelessly irredeemable and can be really changed from the better from within, who are so small in number that their participation at the ballot box probably affected the outcome very little, for the outcome that largely was the fault of said system and voters with very different ideals and preferences.

            Please bear in mind that I am not (yet) an anarchist, and am somewhat skeptical of their somewhat pessimistic view of the reformability of the established order.

            Another point is that you take seriously the possibility that Trump can somehow control or censor the internet. Even if this is not taken out of context, even if rhetoric matches action, even if he gets away with it to an extent, that is a tall order and there are generally always some workarounds.

            Like

            Reply

    3. The majority of those who voted didn’t want it. Many of those who didn’t vote, didn’t realize what they would lose, or thought they as individuals would at least not be harmed by Trump. I don’t have a lot of patience with them. The man who cuts my grass isn’t too well educated, but he sees what the issues are and gets to the polls, as could many others who do not.

      Like

      Reply

    1. Sounds like Uri’s into plagiaring articles from American lefty websites like Salon.com and Slate.com — Trump as the mindless primitive, the classic American ape King Kong? Not very original two-and-a-half three months after the election.

      It’s obvious from one of Uri’s recent articles, “Confessions of a Megalomaniac,” linkable from the right upper corner of his website, that the considers himself one of the very first THREE ORIGINAL THINKERS (a single Jew [Uri], a single Muslim, and single Druze) who conceived of the brilliant idea of a “two-state solution,” way back at the beginning of the nascent fulfillment of the Zionist dream in 1948. If only the world had listened to their brilliance in that hazy long-ago time 69 years ago, the Middle East would now be a peaceful Garden of Eden flowing with milk and honey.

      But the world didn’t, and as they say, the rest is history…

      Like

      Reply

  3. Those who wanted this, will enjoy it. The rich ones will send their daughters to Houston and other places where there are still legal clinics or good illegal ones.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Actually, no, it’s not good. All evidence shows that it destroys productivity.

      The problem is, though, that it’s not that easy to make people leave. I’m seeing it at work all the time. They just keep hanging out at the office because it’s fun.

      Like

      Reply

  6. Also:

    \ People with no time usually listen to the radio for their news and in many part of the US the radio is dominated by right wing propaganda, as far as I know. The left should really invest in some local radio station.

    AND

    \ The premise seems to be that the less personal time a citizenry has, the more they have to focus on survival and production, the less time they have to focus (or act) on social issues. I accept that premise. I’d go a step further and offer that in addition, the more that secondary education is focused on future employment to the detriment of accumulating a variety of knowledge, the less we are a savvy voting population and the more we are simply, in the aggregate, an exploitable workforce.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I hate this kind of drama. Trump’s voters had the median income of $70,000. That’s a lot of money. They are not “focusing on survival” and they are really not exploited by anybody. Nobody is a victim here. People voted for Trump because they are spoiled and bored. Those who are really focused on survival don’t tend to vote at all.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment