Exactly!! I call it keyboard activism, because it is always the jackasses who don't actually DO anything outside of "expressing themselves" online lol.
That said, I'm staying waaaaay out of this one, except to say the following: Trump is a monster, and Hillary and the DNC are all monsters. You guys really had a raw deal in this election (if you can even call it that?). We were all shocked when Trump got in, but I wasn't. Frankly, I would have likely voted for him too just to stick it to the establishment and stand up for the disenfranchised. I would have regretted it later, though. Clearly this man does not represent the best interests of the everyday American men and women who voted for him.
Bernie's my guy 100%. I wish Canada could trade Trudeau for him.
I wish we could trade Trudeau for Sanders, too. Hell, we'll gladly throw in Obama and Hillary too, no extra charge!
I believe Sanders lkst the primary because he was an avowed communist, and Americans are rightly loathe to elect a communist. He moved SLIGHTLY off the left peg by calling himself a socialist - though I don't believe there was any change whatsoever in his ideology. But Americans - still rightly, because it's proving itself over amd over to not work - are loathe to elect a socialist. The major problem as I see it is that Hillary, Obama and just about all the rest of the left ARE socialists, but the don't admit it. Add to that the leftist media which braces them up; presents their policies, opinions and actions as "mainstream"; correct and proper; "morally right" and so forth. Now, the general population of Americans believes all this bullshit and takes it on. All the while never realizing that they are supporting a socialist agenda.
It's also a result of decades of leftist propaganda, beginning at the earliest stages of public school education. Long story, but my daughter is almost 25. When she was in elementary school, like 2nd grade, she came home with a reading assignment. The book was a simplistic (obviously - she was in 2nd grade) story about a community in some south American country who had been using a vacant lot for a community garden to which all the local families contributed and from which they all put vegetables on their tables. Along comes the property owner who wants to build something on HIS property. The story made the property owner out to be evil and wicked for booting the squatters and building a fence to protect his private property. In the end, the evil property owner saw the error of his ways. He took down the fence which deprived the community of their "right" to use his property; he bought the community a tractor to male their gardern more productive; and they all lived happily ever after.
In top of the "Have"s vs Have Not's" message implicit in this story, the cover of the book showed the "community" illustrated as every person of a different ethnic background. One was black; another Hispanic; another Oriental; another white, etc. There was no overt memtion of this in the book, but the "diversity" theme was being pushed, big time. Nevermind that it's a totally unrealistic presentation of a community in South America, where the vast majority is Hispanic. The main thrust of that story was that the benefit of the group trumps the rights of the individual; and that the "underpriveleged" (the community was obviously poor) "DESERVE" to take from the "priveleged". Poor vs rich. The public school system is creating little socialists from an early age.
This of course originates from the fact that universities and colleges - the places that have the nation's future teachers, administrators and professionals - those who will influence society - are in a liberal stranglehold. They are full of young people in their late teens and early 20's who are idealistic because of their age and naiivete and lack of life experience, therefore easily brought into the leftist fold. It's really quite insidious.
