Why Voting For Trump Was The Right Thing To Do (7 Reasons)

Donate

Why Voting For Trump Was The Right Thing To Do (7 Reasons)

(Photo by Dan Hallman/Invision/AP)

Written by TheSaker; Originally appeared at TheUnzReview

Now that Trump has already comprehensively betrayed all his campaign promises and that he 100 first days in office are marked by nothing else but total chaos, incompetence, betrayals of his closest friends and allies, recklessly dangerous and utterly ineffective grandstanding in foreign policy, there are a lot of people out there who say “I told you so!”, “how could you take this clown seriously!” and “are you now finally waking up from your delusional state?”. Yes, a superficial survey of what Trump did since he got into the White House could appear to make these nay-sayers look right. But in reality, they are completely wrong. Let me explain why.

First, what these nay-sayers apparently ignore is that there are innumerable examples in history of the elites turning against each other, usually in times of crises. In the case of Trump, I submit that there overwhelming empirical data out there that a good part of the world elites really and truly were terrified of a possible Trump victory. The kind of hysterical, completely over-the-top hate campaign in which the US Ziomedia engaged in against Trump is something which I have never seen before and which, in my opinion, proves that the Neocon-run propaganda outlets (the Ziomedia, Hollywood) saw Trump as a major danger to their interests. Now, whether Trump had any chance against such powerful “deep state” actors or not is immaterial: Trump was a chance, a possibility and, I would argue, the only option to try to kick the Neocons in the teeth. And don’t give me Sanders or Stein as possible options, they were both 100% fake – just look at how both of them did Hillary’s dirty job for her (Sanders with his endorsement of her even though he was cheated out of a victory and Stein with her ridiculous recount). Even if Trump had just a 1% chance of prevailing, voting for him was an opportunity to achieve regime change in the USA and the American people grabbed it. They did the ethically and pragmatically correct thing. Trump was really the only choice.

Second, you can think of the elections as a giant opinion poll. What the American voter did is to send two messages urbi et orbi. First to the rest of the planet: Not in our name! We don’t support this regime! And then to the Neocons: we hate you. In fact, we hate you so much that we are willing to even vote for a guy like Trump just because we hate Hillary even more. As to the message to the Ziomedia it was crystal clear: liars! We don’t trust you! Go screw yourselves, we will vote for the man you hate with such a passion precisely because we deny you the right to tell us what to think. Yes, Trump proved to be a fake and a liar himself, but he will also be a one term President as a direct consequence of his betrayals. And it is quite possible that Kushner or Pence will now run the Empire on behalf of his real bosses, but the world will also know that this was not what the American people wanted.

Third, this gigantic vote of no-confidence in the Ziomedia will now force the regime to engage in all sorts of more or less subtle maneuvers to try to crack down on free speech in the USA. This is good news for two reasons: a) they will fail and b) they will show their true face. YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter and all the others are now becoming overt agents of oppression whereas in the past they still had (an admittedly thin) veneer of respectability. Now that it has become clear that the Internet is the last free-speech zone and that more and more Americans realize that Russia Today or Press TV are far superior news sources than the US Ziomedia, the level of influence of the US propaganda machine will continue to plummet.

Fourth, if we look at the immoral, self-defeating and, frankly, stupid decisions of Trump in the Middle-East and in Far-East Asia we can at least find some solace in the fact that Trump is now betraying all his campaign promises. Hillary would have done more or less the same, but with what she would definitely present these policies as having a mandate from the American people. Trump has no such excuse, and that is very good indeed. Voting for Trump took the mandate away from the Ziocons.

Fifth, remember the “basket or deplorables”? “Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.” If Hillary had been elected, then the ideology which made her characterize the average American as ugly bigot would be ruling the country by now. But she was defeated. Thus, it is becoming undeniable that there are two Americas out there: one which I call the “alliance of minorities” and the other what I would called “real America” or “mainstream America”. The defeat of Hillary has sent a powerful message to these minorities reminding them that they are exactly that – minorities – and that a political agenda centered on the hatred of the majority is not a viable one. This empowering of the majority of US Americans is, I think, a much needed development whose effects will hopefully felt in future elections.

Sixth, Trump already got one more or less decent Supreme Court Justice in. He might get another one in before he is impeached or his term ends. Hillary would have probably nominated the first Black or Latino genderfluid freak, a Chabad-Lubavitch rabbi or even Alan Dershowitz Himself (with a capital “H”) to the supreme court and dared anybody to vote them down. Of course, compared to the risks of nuclear war, a Supreme Court Justice nominee might not appear to be crucial, but for those living inside the USA such nominations can make a huge difference.

Seventh and last but not least, nuclear war is simply too horrible and threatens the future of the entire human race. I submit that we all, every one of us, has a moral duty to do everything we can to avoid it and to make it less likely, even if we can only act at the margins. This is one of those very rare cases where a single-issue vote really does make sense. I don’t care how bad Trump turned out to be. In fact, even if he turns out to be even worse than Hillary, I submit that it is absolutely undeniable that on the day the Election took place Hillary was the candidate for war and Trump the candidate for peace. Those who claim otherwise seem to have forgotten that Hillary promised us a no-fly zone over Russian forces in Syria. They also forget this absolutely crucial statement made by Hillary Clinton in early December of 2012:

There is a move to re-Sovietise the region,” (…) “It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that,” (…) “But let’s make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.”

There are also persistent rumors that Hillary was the one who told Bill to bomb Serbia. So this women (sorry, I cannot call her a “lady”) does have a record and that record is a frightening one. God only knows what would have happened if she had become the President. She clearly is a hateful maniac with a personal hate for Putin. There is absolutely no evidence indicating that Trump had that kind of hateful personality.

So while “Monday morning quarterbacking” is fun, it is also absurd. Those who now tell us “I told you so” are right but for the wrong reasons, whereas those who supported Trump were wrong, but for the right reasons. Trump betrayed his campaign promises, but those who voted for him could not simply assume that he would do that, especially not when there was no reason at all to believe that Hillary would betray hers: does anybody seriously believe that after being elected on a promise of war she would have turned into a dove of peace? Of course not.

Simply put: Hillary was guaranteed bad. Trump was possibly bad. The logical choice was therefore obvious, especially when ‘bad’ would most likely mean nuclear war.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Ezwat Binsalah

    I actually thought that trump would stop funding jihadi groups and would get his troops out the middle east. But it turned out to be a false hope , how could I been so ignorant. I mean he stays an V.S president, they don’t have any interest in peace.

    But I still believe he’s a better choice than Hillary Clinton.

    You have an old Iraqi saying : you can better have a dog thats dry (Trump) than a dog that is wet(Hillary). Because a wet dog will make your living room dirtier than a dog that is dry .

    • Real Anti-Racist Action

      Many of us feel betrayed by Trump, though most agree he was a better choice then the alternatives from either main party.
      Though the – Constitution Party – or – Ron Paul – would have been best! https://www.constitutionparty.com/
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD04F2c6bec

      • Algano

        Ron Paul absolutely but until a good candidate has poll numbers in range of the Dems and Reps its senseless to actually vote for a third side. In the mean time the better choice is the way to go.

    • Valery Grigoryev

      I would like to add: any President other than Hillary is better.

  • Pavel Pavlovich

    I am sick and tired of Saker and Southfront publishing his bulls**t.
    It is clear that Trump was the worse choice for Russia and China

    and it is clear that he was NEVER meant to be different from the others.
    Except that the strategy the people who control him used (same people
    who controlled Obama, largely, although likely not 100%) a different
    strategy which was more clever and subversive. But now, it is all clear again.

    • Algano

      I thought the text above was easy to understand. You can say against Trump anything you want and you would be right but “worse choice”? Do you have any clue what Killary IS still right now? People are tending to forget to fast about the madness of someone if they are disappointed by another person…
      And just to clear that out, I am disappointed by Trump too!

    • Aleks Black

      I actually think the Saker and the Southfront both provide great material. Let me explain why. If Hillary were president, there would be a hot war with Russia. DJT is a paper tiger in some sense. He hasn’t really done anything aggressive. It is all talk. Blew up some cave with a massive bomb? Destroyed some old jets on a random air base? Send some ships to Korea. The fact is that while Trump has no principles and is likely immensely intellectually promiscuous, he does have a general world view until convinced otherwise. My theory is that Trump acted in Syria less because he believes Assad attacked Khan Sheikhoun and more because he has to maintain order in his own house. Trump has to convince Democrats he is not Putin’s agent, convince neocons he will still bomb places, convince all sorts of lobbyists that there is no reason to activate nuclear options to take him down. I think the situation with North Korea is different because KJU deployed submarines which could strike Hawaii and west coast of the US with a nuke and based on the general propensity of nuclear DPRK to issue threats against its neighbors and the west. Regarding US policy with Russia. Hillary Clinton would have unquestionably resulted in WW3 based on her openly stated positions on declaring a no-fly zone in Syria, creating the US manned safe zones, and facing ‘Russian Aggression’ in Ukraine with conventional escalation. As the Saker correctly points out, even though Donald J Trump is not all we hoped him to be. Thus far, he hasn’t actually done anything that can be compared to the end of the world like destruction Hillary would have brought us almost immediately.

      • Manuel Chrut

        You (and many others including Mr. Saker) seem to be completely confident that Clinton would have immediately started an open war with Russia or worse. Is it perhaps possible that it was just a part of campaign rhetoric? Trump also made many promises during campaign and did the exact opposite.

        I’m not saying Clinton is not a warmonger (she definitely is), but hot war against Russia would be a huge risk right now — militarily but also politically. How would American people feel about their president if their sons and daughters were coming back in body bags en masse? (which would happen as such conflict would result in huge casualties on both sides)

        • Aleks Black

          Manuel, there are always some arguments both sides can make for any issue ever debated under the sun. There are credible arguments as to why Clinton is more militant than Trump. First, she said so. Clinton laid out a clear, Washington Deep State insider vision for Syria. Her plan was to institute a no-fly zone over Syria, Clinton also insisted on using troops to create safe zones within Syria. We have the example of Libya, to quote Clinton “We came, we saw, he[Gadaffi] died.” Is it possible that Clinton would break all of her promises about waging war? It would be more credible if she didn’t accept billions of dollars for her campaign from Gulf monarchies that promote Islamofascism by the sword. It could be a total coincidence that Clinton’s policies support jihadists, but its hard to believe based on her money for service history. What about her Husband? He attacked Serbia to dodge domestic criticism. Is it possible Clinton would be criticized and would go back to Bill’s playbook? There is a psychological factor at play, Hillary Clinton is a woman, which means people would invariably say, she is soft. Thus she would feel the need to assume the extra hard position with Russia, Syria, Iran, DPRK. Things Trump does, on steroids.

          It is true that Trump broke his word, and his base is pissed. Unless there are drastic changes in this administration, I don’t think Trump warmongering ways will get the second term. Trump’s policies as are applied all over the world today do not represent the ideas that the Americans voted for in November. Trump is a powerful argument for the idea that the Deep State runs the Unites States, and the president is just there to entertain the masses, exactly what Trump is good for.

  • Real Anti-Racist Action

    He was and is much better then Hillary, that is for sure. Hillary is 95%-Zionist, while Trump is only 75%-Zionist. Israel preferred the 100% Zionist little-Marco or 95% zionist Hillary.
    However, Trump is already caving into his 100% pure zionist evil son in law, ((( Jared Kushner )))
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD04F2c6bec

  • Douglas Houck

    As regards President Trump and Syrian War, I’m not seeing much change. Without saying so, everyone seems to be working together to eliminate both ISIS and Al-Qaeda terrorism. Nobody is crying over all the bombing both sides are doing. No calls for humanitarian pauses. Will be interesting to see what shape western Mosul is in after ISIS is driven out or killed.

    The strangest US President ever. Nobody throws media bombs like he does. Too early to tell.

  • Christina Parousis

    So people vote for the lesser of the two evils instead of someone who has a higher VIBRATION. What does this tell me about how AWAKENED humanity is?

    • Alex Mayers

      Sou leei polla gia tin stratigiki pou prepei na akolou8hsoume gia na ksekanoume tin elit, ena vhma tin fora.

      It tells you much about the strategy we need to follow in order to to overwhelm the elit, one step at a time.

  • Illegal

    As this post points out electing Trump was the middle finger to the system. His election helped unmask the elite and their propaganda outlets. We can see in real time Trump’s betrayal. The elite are no longer able to hide behind the MSM and their propaganda. We need to continue the struggle and not accept the box the elite want to put us in. The rise of alternative media will propel the next candidate.

    Trump’s generals need to be called out. Gen Mathis has turned into the butcher of Mosul (Iraq). Gen McMaster and his phony war on Assad. The U.S. “moderate rebels” slaughtered hundreds of children in a terrorist attack on a bus convoy in Aleppo. The MSM will not cover the story.
    https://www.sott.net/article/348920-BBC-Shows-its-Faith-in-al-Qaeda-After-Terrorist-Attack-Kills-126-in-Aleppo

  • jamali hamilton

    But Hillary won the popular vote so how can you say the majority was against her?
    The majority of the country saw the Trump con coming while the other side kept to their ignorance that a millionaire from New York that’s never been broke a day in his life would somehow understand their issue’s.
    (Trump is literally everything they said they were fighting against)

    Trump is just like any other slimy business man… out to make money for them selves so think about that as trump continues to use tax payers money to feed himself at Trump towers, and as he rakes in millions everyday from having his wife stay in New York on top of his products still being made in foreign countries.

  • John

    I like the article. It has it’s own view and much of it, I concur with. Some of it I do not. The overall point is spot on. President Trump is a possibility and his term is far from over. Mrs. Clinton was a sure thing. Her remark about bombing all Syrian airbases is testament to this. I wish well to all.

  • Dod Grile

    The question of the political process is the question between that of “the ballot or the bullet.” That is in part what Thomas Jefferson refers to when he wrote, “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

    A large percentage of humanity is selfish and short sighted so it follows politics, at least to now, has been dirty and dishonest. Rigged elections and fake voter tallies are just two aspects of that corruption.

    Among the Republicrat front runners Trump, not having any history of public service or track record in politics. was a clean slate. Of course his personal business dealings are a different matter. So he had a marked advantage over Hillary Clinton, who had a track record of nearly fifty years of public and private corruption. Some of the oligarchs knew this, so Trump’s name was suggested and put forward.

    In terms of matters changing for the better, at least in the short term, do not count on it. Mascots may change but the criminal syndicates in charge remain. So this brings us to the matter of “the ballot or the bullet.”

    Where the ballot fails to make the needed changes to the body politic the bullet follows. The time of bloody revolution seems to be fast approaching.

  • Peter Magnus

    Stop using bigoted racist slurs such as “ziomedia”, it only shows incompetance.
    The theory of the ‘judenpresse” have been throughly debunked. So just take your antisemitic retardation and cram it!

    The the most reluable sign of liw IQ is without exception antisemitism!

    • XRGRSF

      Peter, it appears to me that you have issues. The most reliable sign of a low IQ is a person who is too stupid to understand the facts clearly presented to him. The most reliable sign of a complete absence of honor is groveling before the Jew. Where does that leave you, Peter?

      • Peter Magnus

        You are talking about facts while defnding baseless antisemitism, do you have any sorces that indicates that the “judenpresse” is real?
        If not, stop spreading rascism!

      • Manuel Chrut

        He has a point, though. Those slurs could have been omitted without distorting the facts.

  • Haywood Longview

    Between Bernie Sanders – who absolutely would have won the Democratic Nomination and the Presidency given a fair process and an honest vote count despite a massive MSM tilt against him – and Donald Trump, the Anti-Bernie, what the voters have made clear is that our billionaire ruling class and their two party system have profoundly lost their mandate to rule. That’s a big plus, but was voting for a corrupt, mobbed-up, potty-mouthed reality TV star whose appeal was that he appeared to have no inhibitions worth the risk? Really?

    Saker, you were one of the first to assemble the evidence that Trump has lost control of the military. Obama, whatever you can say against him (and I detested him), did stand up to the gung-ho war hawks and pull the US back from a military showdown with Russia in 2013. Now we don’t have that buffer. Hillary, corrupt, shrill and bloodthirsty as she is, might at least have been capable of making a cold-blooded calculation and pulling her generals back from the brink. Now apparently we’re in the hands of the generals, whose institutions have been planning and preparing for a nuclear war with Russia and China for 70 years.

    So Saker, what’s your take on what *they* are going to do? With no president to restrain them, will they learn how to restrain themselves? Will their corporate paymasters be able to control them without a functioning president? And how do we hold them in check long enough for the Empire of the Dollar Bill to collapse?