The Left is in such a panic over Donald Trump’s continued rise in the polls that it has descended to ridiculous rhetorical depths in order to find a justification for voters to back Hillary Clinton.
The October issue of The Atlantic features a column by Jeffrey Goldberg, who suggests that a compelling argument for a Hillary Clinton presidency is that it would offer Bill Clinton another chance to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — so much for the glass ceiling and female independence.
“Bill Clinton might not succeed in bringing peace … but it would be a crime not to give it one more try.”
Goldberg isn’t the first to effectively argue that Bill Clinton is a good reason to vote for Hillary Clinton, but his column, which sounds more like the naive political idealism of a beauty queen wishing for world peace, brings the sentiment for first gentleman Clinton to a new level.
“Bill Clinton might not succeed in bringing peace — chances are good that he wouldn’t,” writes Goldberg. “But it would be a crime not to give it one more try,” he added.
But if anything is a crime, surely it’s using quixotic fantasies of Bill Clinton waving a magic wand of peace as a valid argument for supporting Hillary’s quest for the presidency.
[lz_jwplayer video= “twCHN6lI” ads=”true”]
The scramble for reasons to back Clinton has only been outdone in absurdity by the media’s lust to undermine Trump’s candidacy.
Chuck Todd said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Wednesday morning that Trump’s rise is indicative of an “anti-intellectualism” that has taken hold of the GOP.
If by “anti-intellectualism,” Todd means the rejection of the policies that serve none but the globalist elite — then yes, Trump’s rise is indicative of “anti-intellectualism.”
The ideologues masquerading as intellectuals brought the nation such costly quagmires in the Middle East, destructive trade policies that transfer jobs abroad and create dependency at home, and immigration policies that not only cripple wage growth and erode job prospects for actual Americans but also threaten to change American culture fundamentally and irrevocably.
[lz_jwplayer video= “gkIzDB6w” ads=”true”]
Previously, Todd argued that a Trump presidency could bring unprecedented danger to press freedoms and press access to the White House — despite the fact that Clinton’s campaign has been marked by a fear of journalists and blatant distaste for answering their questions.
That Hillary’s liberal media cheerleaders have descended to the rhetorical level of a 10-year-old betrays a desperate attempt to find a new narrative to justify blind opposition to Trump — now that it’s clear crying racism no longer works.
Since Trump first announced his candidacy and highlighted the threat of illegal alien crime, a chorus of liberals have sung of Trump and his supporters’ alleged racism, culminating in a dramatic crescendo in Reno, Nevada, where Clinton herself decried Trump’s bigotry and the rise of the Alt-Right. One week later, Trump was actually up in the polls.
[lz_related_box id=”195743″]
But not only will electing Trump ruin chances of peace between Palestinians and Israelis and herald in a new age of anti-intellectualism, liberals tell us, but it will also usher in World War III. Last week, Clinton supporter and billionaire businessman Mark Cuban tweeted that a Trump presidency would substantially increase the chances of a third world war. Clinton, however, is the hawkish candidate widely favored by the warmongering neoconservative Establishment — a group that repeatedly brags about her more belligerent stance towards Russia and eagerly promotes regime change.
The scattered and disjointed effort to discredit Trump is unlikely to succeed, now that the Left’s favorite discussion-silencing weapon — the charge of racism — has been blunted.
Without a compelling justification for Clinton’s candidacy and a succinct mandate against Trump’s, the GOP nominee can win over frustrated voters.
Join the Discussion
Comments are currently closed.