Holy Shit. Our President is the Greatest Troll of All Time

Holy Shit. Our President is the Greatest Troll of All Time

(left image courtesy of /r/the_Donald)

That is, of course, assuming he’s the one who actually leaked his tax return, which seems extremely likely, given how it looks for him.  If he didn’t leak it, and this was the worst the leaker could find/put out on him…holy crap, he should release all his returns for the glowing publicity he’ll get.

What all did this accomplish?

  • Exposed the McCarthyist-in-chief, Rachel Maddow, and her entire organization, for the desperate, overhyped shills that they are.  Also shows them to be complete idiots, for not realizing this is positive for him (or for not reviewing the document before hyping it).
    • This will rub off on the corporate media, the Democrats, and anti-Trumpers as a whole.
    • This damages the jingoistic, McCarthyist witch-hunt movement, given her role as its spiritual leader. This is great not just for him, but for the country and the world as a whole.
  • Shut down any desire from his opposition to talk about his tax returns for the time being
  • Showed he had income at a rate where he probably is indeed a billionaire, and that he has paid a fairly high tax rate (higher than NBC, Obama, and Sanders), completely cutting down two speculative criticisms of him.
    • Further, shows he probably earned at least a billion between ’95 and ’05 alone, given the billion dollar loss in ’95 he could have deducted for up to 18 years
  • Tarnished the reputation of David Johnston (the reporter who received the document and took it to Maddow), who wrote a negative biography of Trump during the campaign.

The fact that it went to Maddow is probably just incidental (but extremely fortunate) as it was probably Johnston’s own choice to go to her.  And the spectacular, extremely hyped-up fashion it all blew up in is just about the best result Trump could have hoped for, but couldn’t actually control.

This is also the greatest trolling not just because it’s funny as hell and he utterly BTFO his opponents, but because he did a GREAT service to the country, as it might be enough to put an end to the extremely dangerous McCarthyism and jingoism that Maddow has been leading, and the media at large has been fueling.  As someone who has been calling out (more so on social media than here) the Russia hacking/collusion narrative as the politically-motivated, dangerous, hysteria that it is ever since it started last summer, last night was both a huge relief and extremely satisfying.

I’ve recently seen commenters on Reddit literally calling for war with Russia over what is clearly nothing (or almost nothing, if Russia actually was the one who leaked the DNC/Podesta emails and exposed their unethical, democracy-subverting behavior; which is probably not the case, and perhaps completely unknowable).  Everything Trump ever did or said involving a Russian has been fuel for the paranoid fires in their heads, and each one of the daily litany of lazy, disingenuous and innuendo-laden articles further ignited their rage.  The jingoism was getting crazy and feverish, and the baseless accusations of treason and treachery even more rampant and vicious than during the run-up to the Iraq war.

I think the Dems were likely going to spin themselves into a political death spiral before they could actually gain the power/influence to outright stoke war with Russia—but it still presented a serious risk of that, among other dangers like pressuring the administration into unnecessary belligerence, which it may have already done.  It’s not something I want to see fucked around with in the slightest.  Michael Tracey, who is from what I’ve seen one of the more reasonable and respectable liberal journalists, outlines well the very real danger the anti-Russia hysteria poses.  I hope it tamps down quickly now.

I’m not trying to idolize Trump, or revel in partisan schadenfreude—I think this is truly a watershed moment in exposing an unscrupulous media, and hopefully in refocusing/shifting our approach towards Russia and, really, our entire political atmosphere. Maybe, just maybe, we can get on to governing now.  Trump will come out of this with more respect (if begrudging) and sympathy from a lot of people, and the many vicious, irresponsible, tunnel-visioned opponents of his in the media and government will rightfully come out of this with a lot less respect.  I think this is evidenced by the online reactions, case in point (found in an anti-Trump community):

bvy4ozz33jly.jpg

God bless this timeline.

Advertisements

Who is Steve Bannon, really? Required Reading for All Americans

Who is Steve Bannon, really?  Required Reading for All Americans

This is one of the most important documents in American politics right now, and perhaps ever, given how consequential the next 4-8 years might be.  It’s the transcript of a Q&A that Steve Bannon gave (remotely) to a conference on poverty at the Vatican, hosted by the Human Dignity Institute in 2014.  Everyone I’ve shown it to, of a variety of political stripes, has had the same reaction I had: it’s illuminating.  You learn the framework of his worldview on a variety of issues, like his governing philosophy, his views on finance and Wall St., the role religion, and more, and how they all tie together.

It’s not what you’d expect based on his portrayal in the media, where he’s routinely painted as a vicious white nationalist, and an ambitious, hard-right fascist.

It’s incredibly valuable reading/viewing for all Americans, for understanding the perspective and motivations of an obviously very influential man right now.  If you want to engage in politics, and value being informed (and I hope you do), you owe it to yourself to read it.  Given the myriad of issues swirling around him (like the #StopPresidentBannon meme, the continual accusations of white supremacy leveled at him, outrage over him being on the National Security Council, and the uproar over potential changes to Dodd-Frank) I think it’s even more critical.

I honestly care much less that you read the rest of this article, than I do that you read this:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world

Hearing someone’s point of view in their own words doesn’t necessarily give you the full picture of who they are, of course—everyone, especially people of high status and power, might have skeletons they are not forthright about—but it is a huge piece of the puzzle, and if you haven’t done it, yet jump to accept other people’s judgements of them, you are doing yourself a disservice.


One of the most striking things the talk reveals is the sophistication of Bannon’s worldview.  He shows a depth of knowledge about a multitude of topics, and a thoughtful approach from a clear moral center.

The most striking part, though, are his views on capitalism, finance, and Wall St.  He’s an unrepentant capitalist, but also an unrepentant enemy of crony capitalists.  He knows finance, and appears to be very earnest in his aim to stamp out the corrupt practices within it, and ensure capitalism serves the common good.  It’s really the driving force, in his view, of the center-right populism we’re seeing in America and elsewhere, and the driving force of his governing philosophy, where he marries the practices of capitalism to the traditional values of the Judeo-Christian west.

This is in opposition to the two other strains of capitalism he sees in the world: state-sponsored, highly corrupt capitalism (a la Russia, China, and to a large extent the crony capitalists of the west) and the Ayn Rand / Objectivist school of libertarian capitalism, both of which turn people into commodities, and do very little to spread wealth and value among the middle and working classes.

Some excerpts on this topic:

I think it really behooves all of us to really take a hard look and make sure that we are reinvesting that back into positive things.


…when capitalism was I believe at its highest flower and spreading its benefits to most of mankind, almost all of those capitalists were strong believers in the Judeo-Christian West…And I think that’s incredibly important and something that would really become unmoored. I can see this on Wall Street today — I can see this with the securitization of everything is that, everything is looked at as a securitization opportunity. People are looked at as commodities. I don’t believe that our forefathers had that same belief.


…I think you really need to go back and make banks do what they do: Commercial banks lend money, and investment banks invest in entrepreneurs and to get away from this trading — you know, the hedge fund securitization, which they’ve all become basically trading operations and securitizations and not put capital back and really grow businesses and to grow the economy.


I think the bailouts in 2008 were wrong….absolutely outrageous, and here’s why: It bailed out a group of shareholders and executives who were specifically accountable.

…In fact, one of the committees in Congress said to the Justice Department 35 executives, I believe, that they should have criminal indictments against — not one of those has ever been followed up on. Because even with the Democrats, right, in power…they looked the other way.

…they understood what they were getting into, forcibly took all the benefits from it and then look to the government, went hat in hand to the government to be bailed out. And they’ve never been held accountable today. Trust me — they are going to be held accountable.

Unless you believe this and his other public statements to be an elaborate facade—that he’s crafted an entire framework and set of beliefs purely in order to deceive the public, and kept his real motivations entirely hidden for years—I think this shows that he’s not driven by simply doing rich people favors.  I haven’t seen anything to indicate that Trump is driven solely by corrupt motives either.  He’s already proven willing and able to stand up to big business (e.g. manufacturers, defense contractors, pharma) in ways no other presidents have, at least not in recent history.  Both of their anti-establishment track records seem pretty genuine to me.

Progressives might find they actually have allies in the White House on many issues, including Wall St. in many respects.  But the Democrats and the media are loathe to let people come to that conclusion.  The recent executive order, that has largely been characterized as an effort to begin a full repeal of Dodd-Frank, simply calls for a review of our financial regulations to ensure they adhere to a certain set of principles, chief among them preventing more taxpayer-funded bailouts, something which Dodd-Frank has not adequately done.  Discussion is certainly warranted about the merits of each policy they eventually push to repeal or modify, but the hysteria and hyperbole, as usual, is not warranted.

Taking everything into account, Bannon and Trump might be exactly who we need in the White House right now, to actually stand up to the behemoth of Wall St., and prevent them from royally screwing us over again.


The other major aspect of Bannon’s talk, and of the crisis he believes the west is facing, is the rise and spread of radical Islamic fascism.  This is where I have more mixed feelings on his approach.  I think the fight against ISIS and Islamic fascism at large is an absolutely necessary one, and we need people like Trump, Bannon, and National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who all recognize the necessity and gravity of that fight in an unmistakable, clear-eyed way (unlike Obama and Clinton, who actually routinely empowered jihadists, and tried to use them as a geopolitical tool).

But, while there may be some merit to it, the extent that he views the world in a “clash of civilizations” and religious framework, combined with the past rhetoric of Trump and Flynn, makes me worry that the administration may pursue this fight in an overzealous way, and frame it in a blunt, xenophobia-stoking way, that polarizes factions and inflames tensions before we can resolve them.  The fight for the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims, and to pull Muslim societies as a whole towards more moderate stances, and push them to actively reject extreme ones, is a necessary fight as well, and should not be neglected.

My worry is a bit alleviated by a few factors.  One, Bannon’s recognition that people can be opposed to radical Islam but “not as militant and not as aggressive [as he is] and that’s fine.”  Two, the fact that he states explicitly that, “It’s very easy to play to our baser instincts, and we can’t do that. But our forefathers didn’t do it either.”  And three, that I think he, Trump, and especially Secretaries Mattis, Tillerson, and Kelly, are all ultimately very pragmatic people.  Hopefully this will keep the temptation for overzealousness in check, and keep the importance in mind of an inviting posture for fence-sitters to gravitate to, but it’s certainly something to keep an eye on as things unfold.


Seriously, you should read the transcript.  If you don’t want to read it because you oppose him politically, you’re being foolish—“know thy enemy”.  If you don’t want to read it because you’re afraid you might have your mind changed about him, you’re being weak, and intellectually dishonest.  There is little excuse, really, other than apathy, but if you’ve read this far, I’m willing to bet you’re not the apathetic type.

And if you think it’s valuable reading, and that others should read it too, share it.  I know a lot of you might be afraid to post something that might make people think you support Trump or his administration even in the slightest way, but this is an easy one.  The headline and the article are politically neutral (a transcript, a primary source), and you can share it without comment.  If everyone were afraid to share information that went against the dominant narrative, our society would be doomed—fearmongering propagandists, witting and unwitting, would have nothing standing in their way.  I encourage you to help un-doom our society in whatever small ways you can.  It’s actually quite liberating to throw off the constraints of fear and fear-driven conformity.  And it’s the right thing to do.

Some Overlooked Considerations When Choosing a Presidency (not just a president)

On November 8th, we’re not just electing a president, we’re choosing a presidency.

A Donald Trump presidency would see his feet held firmly to the fire by the media on many, if not most, issues—just as we’ve seen so far.

A Clinton presidency, and we’d see: more of the wall-to-wall obfuscation of the Clintons’ self-enriching, corrupt “charity work” and the ongoing obligations they have as a result, or the morally bankrupt worldview it represents; and more obfuscation of her obsession with projecting American power militarily, and encirclement and brinksmanship with Russia.

Donald Trump is an awful person, and certainly unfit to be president.  He could do a lot of damage to the country and the world.  But at least he’d be held somewhat accountable by a media that clearly has an interest in opposing him.

Hillary Clinton is also an awful person, and certainly unfit to be president.  She could also do a lot of damage to the country and the world.  THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE IS: she would not be held accountable by the media to nearly the same extent—they would continue to shield her, keeping the public in the dark as they so often deliberately do, making it that much easier for her to march us to war with Russia, to pour new record amounts of weapons into the Middle East (surpassing the records she set as SoS), to fuel civil wars in a few more countries that refuse to roll over and be complete U.S. puppets, to continue to aid and abet terror-exporting Gulf states, to continue to support Islamic extremists in Syria for the sake of unnecessary regime change.  Millions more people could die, tens of millions more could suffer and be displaced.  And if she should lead us into war with Russia (which could come sooner than later if she enacts her no-fly zone, which she’s been itching to do), those numbers might not “just” be numbers any more—civilian Americans might be faced with risking their own lives and livelihood for unnecessary war, rather than somebody else’s, for the first time in a long while.

And that’s just on foreign policy.

There’s a whole other realm of her shady, staunchly pro-corporate worldview that poses a threat to the quality of life domestically, and a threat to the health of our politics, our government, and our economy.

For these reasons, when I look at these two astoundingly awful candidates, I can’t shake the feeling that Clinton is the more dangerous.  This comes from someone who can count on one hand the number of Republicans they’ve voted for in their life, and has said for years that Trump is a toxic, ignorant, xenophobic buffoon.  But to me, the behind-closed-doors machinations of an extremely well-connected Kissinger acolyte draw a clearer line to death and suffering in the world, than does divisive, ignorant bluster spewed into a microphone—particularly when that bluster is roundly condemned by American media and both political parties in this country.

No matter who is elected, we will have some serious challenges ahead in constraining their behavior, but such is the conundrum we find ourselves in.  I personally will be voting for Gary Johnson, and I encourage everyone else in a non-battleground state to vote for either Johnson or Stein.  The more support they get, the more likely we are to break free from the two-party stranglehold that put us in this situation in the first place.

If you’re not in a locked-in blue or red state, I won’t tell you who you should vote for.  Directly advocating either way in this regrettably high-stakes crapshoot, for such terrible candidates, wouldn’t feel right.  But I will encourage you to make as informed of a decision as possible, and to please, inform yourself about Clinton’s history on foreign policy (my other essays would be a good place to start), and about her fundamentally corrupt style of politics and governance (the latest Doug Band / John Podesta emails would be a good place to start, as well as the repeated intersection of corporations (and Gulf dictatorships!) who donated to the Foundation, paid the Clintons millions for speeches, and/or received lucrative State Dept-approved contracts).  I assume, thanks to the media, that you’re already familiar with Trump’s deplorable personal behavior, suspect business practices, and dangerous policy ideas, but if you’re not, I certainly encourage you to read up on those too.

And when you enter that booth, or mark that ballot at home, please, above all, consider the totality of the presidency and its potential effects, including how they will be treated by the media, the Congress, and already established elites, and whether or not as president they’ll be enabled or opposed in enacting the more troubling aspects of their agendas.

Clinton’s Plan to Fight Fire with Fire Could Leave Us All Burned

Clinton’s Plan to Fight Fire with Fire Could Leave Us All Burned

Her Foreign Policy Speech Reveals Another Ill-Advised Facet of Her Ill-Advised Strategy Against Trump

[ Note:  To anyone who doubts Hillary’s central role in the run-up to both Iraq and Libya, or who doubt her hawkishness, her penchant for looking tough and taking action when faced with “hard choices”, I highly suggest reading these two articles.  I highly suggest reading them anyways.  They are the best accounting I’ve seen of the role she played in the decisions to intervene, and offer great insight into her worldview and her role in the Democratic party.  For all its faults, including its demonstrated bias, NYT does good work sometimes. (If you hit a paywall you can copy the link address and paste into the wayback machine)
– On Iraq, “Hillary’s War”: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/magazine/03Hillary-t.html
– On Libya pt 1, “Hillary Clinton, ‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall”: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html
– On Libya pt 2, “A New Libya, ‘With Very Little Time Left'”:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/libya-isis-hillary-clinton.html ]

 
Amid flagging poll numbers, a damning State Department IG report on her private email server, and the ensuing doubts about her general election viability, Hillary Clinton stepped out of her week-long lull from the public eye and sought to shift the narrative back in her favor. On that account, her highly publicized speech on foreign policy may have worked to a degree—we all have an interest in knowing what a president Hillary Clinton would mean for us and the world, and given that foreign policy is supposedly one of her strengths in this election, the media conversation was bound to focus on the speech, and shift away from the topics that gnaw at her image just days before the crucial California primary.

So, what did we learn about Clinton’s vision for America’s role in the world? Did she inspire confidence in that vision?

Not much, and not really. By most accounts it was a well-written speech. It took some well-aimed shots at Trump, appealed to our national pride, and sought to reassure us that we are great and will never not be great.

In other words, she played it safe. She did not present a vision for the future beyond anything we’ve heard before; America is defender of the free world, Iran can’t get nukes, and we must remain steadfast with our allies, especially Israel. In fact, she did not give us much information at all as to what her strategy or approach would be for any single issue; as many have noted, she spent 90% of the time either blasting Donald Trump or contrasting him with common sense positions, like diplomacy is good, and alliances are great.

For many, this hardly inspires confidence. Trump is an easy target, and anyone who’s watched him closely will have a litany of his bombastic statements to criticize. What is really concerning is what was left unaddressed. For those who fear her presidency would mean repetition of her past mistakes—and thus more of the aggression, regime change, and arms buildup that has invariably led to deadly civil wars, refugee crises, and the fueling of global terror—she did nothing to ease their concerns.

In fact, most of her emphatic criticisms of Trump apply directly to her and her record (whereas Trump doesn’t yet have one):

  • Trigger happiness:
    • The charge: “…it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.” “…Do we want his finger anywhere near the button?”
    • Her record:
      • A penchant for looking tough and decisive. When making a “hard choice”, she would rather take action than be seen as weak.
        • “Anne-Marie Slaughter, her director of policy planning at the State Department, notes that in conversation and in her memoir, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly speaks of wanting to be ‘caught trying.’ In other words, she would rather be criticized for what she has done than for having done nothing at all.” (source)
      • Did not do the minimum due diligence before vocally advocating for, and voting for, authorization of force in Iraq. The 90 page intelligence estimate—a few hours of reading at most—was available to all members of Congress, and she didn’t read it (only six senators did). It proved false the Bush administration’s lies (that she repeated) about Saddam’s weapons programs and his alleged links to al-Qaeda.
      • Convinced Obama to intervene in Libya, against the warnings of the Secretary of Defense, the Vice President, and the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency that the consequences would be far ranging and that they did not have an adequate plan for post-intervention.
  • Support for dictators and oppressive regimes
    • The charge: “I have to say, I don’t understand Donald’s bizarre fascination with dictators and strongmen who have no love for America.”
    • Her record:
      • She didn’t seem to have a problem with dictators when the Clinton Foundation accepted money from Saudi Arabia and a handful of other despots, or when she turned around and approved the sale of hundreds of billions of dollars of weaponry to them as Secretary of State.
      • Her foreign policy mentor, Henry Kissinger, supported dictators and coups to install them anywhere U.S. business interests were threatened.
  • A closed mind
    • The charge: “…if you’re convinced you’re always right, you’ll never ask yourself the hard questions.”
    • Her record:
      • Surrounds her self with yes men and instills a culture of loyalty and obedience.  Just look at what happened with the private email server: any underlings who raised legitimate concerns with the department were told to never speak of it again. From the Inspector General’s report:
        • “Two staff in S/ES-IRM reported to OIG that, in late 2010, they each discussed their concerns about Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account in separate meetings with the then-Director of S/ES-IRM. In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements. According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system. According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”
  • Eschewing diplomacy
    • Her record:
      • Voted against the Levin amendment that would have required U.N. diplomacy and approval before authorizing war in Iraq, or a return to Congress if such efforts failed.
      • Blocked the 2012 Syrian ceasefire effort by Kofi Annan, because war on Assad was her priority.
  • Empowering terrorists and extremists
    • The charge: “We need to…dismantle the global network that supplies money, arms, propaganda and fighters to the terrorists.”
    • Her record:
      • Regime change in Iraq, Libya, and Syria that creates power vacuums and chaos, empowering militant extremists and aids their recruitment.
      • Arming and supporting rebels in Syria, which has directly empowered al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda affiliate who has established footholds there.
      • Support for and continued arming of Saudi Arabia, the biggest exporter of radical Islam and terror since 9/11 and earlier.
  • Abandoning allies who cooperate in fighting terror
    • Her charge: “This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO – the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad”
    • Her record:
      • For all her talk of realism and pragmatism, she abandoned it when it counted: it would have been pragmatic to not overthrow Qaddafi, who had been providing us intelligence and assistance against al-Qaeda, and was acting as a bulwark against extremism. Senior intelligence officials warned that taking him out would lead to an expansion of extremism and terror, and that’s precisely what happened.
  • Making enemies unnecessarily
    • The charge: “Why would he want to make one of them an enemy?”
    • Her record:
      • Unthinking intransigence against Syria, Iran, Russia
      • Wants to stick her thumb in Russia’s eye at every turn—instilling a no-fly zone in Syria, toppling Assad, funneling weapons to Ukrainian troops.
        • Syrian no fly-zone could put us in direct military conflict with them, yet she still pushes for it.
  • Increasing the debt
    • The charge: “His economic plans would add more than $30 trillion – that’s trillion with a ‘t’ – $30 trillion to our national debt over the next 20 years.”
    • Her record:
      • The $6 trillion dollar war in Iraq; the war in Libya; proposes expanding the effort to overthrow Assad.
      • Supported finance sector deregulation that led to the 2008 crash (cost estimated at up to $12 trillion). Profits from and is friendly with the big banks, who are now even bigger than they were in 2008; how much will it cost if/when they once again collapse and once again require bailouts?
  • Not standing up for women’s rights
    • The charge: “America stands up to countries that treat women like animals”
    • Her record:
      • Propping up and continually arming Saudia Arabia, one of the most oppressive regimes in the world when it comes to women’s rights.
  • On Syria
    • “We need to keep pursuing diplomacy to end Syria’s civil war.”
      • This is the opposite of what she’s done. Her goal is to remove Assad from power, not broker peace.
    • “He said we should send tens of thousands of American ground troops to the Middle East to fight ISIS.”
      • This is exactly what her no-fly zone would require, as top military officials have repeatedly warned.

When she referenced her record she glossed over any ugliness, acknowledged no lessons learned from Iraq or Libya, and took no responsibility for those mistakes.


It’s a disheartening prospect, the idea of having to sit through four years of her doublespeak. This is the person who said, “I’ve been the most transparent public official in modern times, as far as I know,” when discussing the private email server she set up in her house specifically to skirt FOIA laws and hide her official communications away from the public eye.

I loathe the idea of four years of outright lies, four years of a sycophantic media and party covering for her and marginalizing her opponents, four years of pretending that warmongering, arms buildup and coups are for the good of the American people and the good of the world, without the faintest acknowledgement of the utter destruction, death, and danger they cause. It’s appalling, the moral bankruptcy of it all, covered in a facade of righteousness and pride, a veneer of can-do-no-wrong exceptionalism that obfuscates harsh realities, and ignores responsibilities we should be facing. It feels like the second coming of George W. Bush, and the parallels are striking—beyond what I already stated, their penchants for secrecy and unaccountability, the crony capitalism, and the expensive, belligerent, counterproductive method of projecting American power that has led to our greatest blunders. This speech only confirmed that her approach has not shifted, and that she will continue to obfuscate.

What would a better foreign policy speech look like?

A better speech would explore the moral issues we face in our world, rather than just assure us our endeavors are always righteous.  It would highlight the long term trajectory for our nation we should aim for, and how we can achieve it.  It would be revelatory for many, illuminating the crux of our conflicts and how we might deal with them—for example, how we can begin to ease the conflict in Israel and Palestine, or how we will deal with China as an emerging superpower, how we will deal with the wars in the Middle East, and change the course that has led to failed states, extremism and terror, or how we will deal with an ongoing Mexican Drug War that has killed over 100,000 and displaced over a million, yet is barely a blip in our national conversation.

A better speech would give us real hope that our leader has the judgement and vision to lead us forward, that they have the humility and the courage to acknowledge past mistakes so that we may begin to correct them, and avoid repeating them.

A better speech would challenge us to fight for what’s right alongside our president, rather than just pad our egos and stoke apathy. It would inspire confidence that if we work together and truly stand up for the values of humanity, liberty, and justice, then a more peaceful, prosperous world really is possible, and we can begin moving toward it this very day.

She gave us none of that. Instead, we got the typical patriotic trappings and a whole lot of ridicule of her opponent. This was more politics than policy, more fearmongering than a cogent, thoughtful, or forward-facing vision for American foreign policy in the coming years. It was devoid of any insight or courage, it was vapid; designed to appeal to our nationalist tendencies, rather than challenge us to think critically about the world and our role in it.

It’s interesting, because this is also Trump’s strategy, to a T. And the scary part is he seems to be better at it—not that his ideas are better, but that he’s better at politicking the idea of jingoism; he seems more authentic and straight-forward, and he has just as much, if not more ammo against Clinton, given that she has a PROVEN record of poor judgment and trigger happiness. Trump’s supporters have heard the criticisms she puts forth, and they will not be swayed by hearing them from her. She has neither the credibility nor rapport with the American people to pull voters away from Trump in this manner.

What would a winning strategy for her look like?  That’s a good question, and is difficult to answer.  She’s spent twenty years painting herself into this corner.  I imagine it would involve doing her damnedest to convince skeptics that she would not repeat her past mistakes, and that would mean owning up to them and acknowledging why they were mistakes, or at the very least it would mean laying out a future approach that is unmistakably different from that of her past–a substantive, credible vision for peace and prosperity, to contrast with the bluster and attack-focused politics of Trump.

The winning strategy for Democrats would have been to not nominate her in the first place.

If she does somehow manage to pull off a win in November despite her poor strategy (assuming she gets the Democratic nomination, which is not a foregone conclusion), she has shown us that we will still have an impulsive, irresponsible, dangerous person at the helm, an insecure trigger-finger resting on the button.

She is fighting fire with fire, and in doing so, increasing the chances that the flames of ignorance and war will engulf us all.