01.18.2016 08:48 AM

Clinton won but is losing

She’s a superior debater to Sanders. She has a broader and firmer grip on the issues. She’s self-assured, measured and tough.

Sanders – who I sort of like because he was nice to a bunch of punk rockers in his home state – is a shouter. He doesn’t look remotely presidential. And his past positions on gun control aren’t just wrong, they’re despicable.

But he’s gaining for the same reason Justin Trudeau came from third place to win a huge majority government in October: voters – Left and Right – are in a decidedly anti-incumbent mood, these days, and they want to shake up the established order.

Politicians spanning the ideological spectrum – from Donald Trump to Rachel Notley – are the beneficiaries of that. If you’re the same as the old boss, increasingly, you’re not going to be the new boss.

That said, I still believe Clinton will win her party’s nomination, and Trump, his. And the latter will make the former president, in an electoral college sweep that will recall Johnson and Goldwater.

Am I right?

40 Comments

  1. julian says:

    HRC speaks with the tone of entitlement, Bernie sounds like a true believer.

    Democrats will be deciding to either double down on how the American political system works, or to try and revolutionize it. I think they know that particular systems have predicable outcomes.

    Bernie’s connection to social justice action in the 60’s and MLK in particular has the potential to mobilize the non-white vote. HRC is able to run the system as it stands today, but i think the treatment of Obama by Congress has angered progressives.

    A ticket with both HRC and Bernie, in either verticality, is preferable to me. The Democrats’ willingness to fight the power will determine the outcome; in that, Bernie has defined the terms of the campaign, but i tend to agree with you that the status quo will ultimately prevail, which is still an admirable outcome.

    • JamesHalifax says:

      While Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are both in the Dem party, the difference is tellig.

      sanders: “Give me what you have so that I may spread the wealth around (to those who don’t necessarily deserve it, but vote in any event)”

      Clinton:” Don’t touch what I have, but let me take what you have and spread it around to the groups who will vote for me because I give them freebies”

      that being said, after looking at both the republican and democratic offerings being touted for the President of the United States……Canada isn’t looking so bad, even though we have a neophyte of limited intellect running the show.

      • doconnor says:

        Do those who have the wealth now necessarily deserve it?

        • JamesHalifax says:

          Doconnor,

          Of course people who have wealth deserve it.

          the question of course, is DO THOSE WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING TO EARN WEALTH….Deserve the wealth of other people?

          The answer is no. They do not.

          If you are referring to trust fund babies like Justin Trudeau, it can be surmised that his father wanted his family to do well financially, and he worked towards that end. Trudeau didn’t earn it personally, but his father earned it and passed it along as he saw fit. That is how it should be.

          If you start paying people to do nothing…what do you get? Well, here’s a hint….you get more of them.

  2. ian turnbull says:

    I agree with the anti-establishment sentiment. I believe it is worse than you think and my prediction is Trump or Sanders will be the next President. Voters are just fed up with all the bull shit they get hit with from politicians (Harper and Obama are the worst for this). Trump, Trudeau, Sanders, Notley, et al are just voters way of flinging the bull shit right back at the politicians.

    Obama’s SOTN address telling 100M non working Americans that the state of their nation is strong in my opinion sealed the deal for Trump or Sanders.

    • JamesHalifax says:

      Ian,

      of the 100 Million in the USA who are not working……what percentage of them do you suspect vote Democrat?

      I would suspect the number is well past the 70 % mark.

  3. You’re probably right about the final alignment. But you’re also right that voters around the world are feeling their oats and getting very grumpy about being told *anything* is a foregone conclusion. So who can say? It’s a volatile, entertaining, and terrifying time to be a political spectator these days.

  4. Andrew B says:

    Agree. Sanders has gained more support than I expected him to, but don’t think he nor his campaign have the depth to pull off a win against Clinton. He’s not Obama in ’08 and his campaign doesn’t appear as savvy. Watching the debate last night, Hillary sounded smart, well versed in the issues, and confident. She is a better candidate than she was in ’08. Bernie rambled and shouted. As my wife said, he sounded knowledgeable, but unrealistic in his comments. O’Malley struggled to remind people he was a candidate and not the moderator.

  5. Darren H says:

    Clinton can’t win, way too much baggage, too little energy. Sanders doesn’t have the horses either. Interesting to see what happens after the nominations. Who does Trump pick as VP candidate? Will Trump veer hard to centre? Is there a dark horse Democrat candidate like Obama (no pun intended)? Elections these days are a crapshoot.

  6. Luke says:

    Clinton is as SNL portrayed her to be: the result of whatever she and her team have found to be what people want. She mostly seems as though she could well be an actual computer running through some algorithm to arrive at any given statement, facial expression, or outfit.

    Re: Sanders is despicable on gun control, do you mean because of the liability thing? His reasoning on that sounded sensible to me…

    Sanders is the candidate of big ideas, and he is addressing big, big problems in America. Those with a poor lot in life will forgive him for missing a detail or two. This is inevitable when one has a broad vision. When his message and sincerity are heard by the broader hard done by American people, especially blacks, Sanders will prevail. His shouting suits the urgency of the problems he seeks to solve. As for not looking presidential, says who? Maybe he has better priorities. Whether he looks like a president is a matter for Americans to decide.

  7. Jackal says:

    There’s something more than a little weird about calling Sanders’ position on guns “despicable” — especially given his reasonable sounding explanation — while ignoring the far worse things Clinton has done. She voted for the war in Iraq, oversaw the destruction of Libya as a country, and has tended to be on the wrong side of every major decision involving Wall Street for the last two decades. Clinton’s actions have directly contributed to tens of thousands of deaths in the Middle East and the wars that she supported created the chaos that allowed ISIS and similar groups to become major regional actors. Sanders has no comparable baggage.

    Oh, and back in 2008 Clinton had a very different message on guns. She talked about growing up with them, learning to shoot, said she opposed any kind of blanket federal regulation, etc. That kind of willingness to say anything and adopt any position that will momentarily get you ahead is far worse than Sanders’ relatively consistent position.

  8. doconnor says:

    I don’t think anyone here would deny that reducing poverty would do more to prevent gun deaths then any gun control could.

    • JamesHalifax says:

      Something we finally agree upon.

      Oh..and if we could just convince the cops in the USA from shooting unarmed citizens, it would also do a lot to help racial tensions.

  9. lou says:

    Prime example of why the primary system is flawed. Appeal to the far reaches of your support group, and you end up with Bush Jr and Obama. Even now, Clinton is moving left so she can shore up the support of the psycho-eco-wing of her party. If somehow Rubio ends up as the Republican Nominee and he can convince Condeleeza Rice to join the ticket, game over for the Dems. You will get a true display of what the left thinks of Hispanics and minority Women, and it wont be pretty. Think of Cosby as a creep and Bill Clinton and Roman Polanski as gods.

  10. Ted H says:

    Things will never be perfect of course but perhaps they can be a bit less imperfect than some of the scenarios that are offered. It is American politics but to paraphrase and expand on what our PM’s father once said, when you have to share a bed with an elephant or even a donkey, every little twitch however well meaning can have an effect on Canada.

  11. Kelly says:

    Hilary is a phony.

    Trump is a phony.

    Sanders will be the next Prez because the GOP muckety mucks will rig the nomination process and Trump will run as an independent and split the right.

    But then money will derail Sanders and nothing will get done, just like what happened with Obama.

    The Democrats are completely beholden to money. Their leadership is feckless and grovels at the feet of financiers. Their foreign policy leadership is stacked with neo-cons who are in full support of the continued spread of American empire and the oligarchs who benefit from it and finance them. Clinton 1 was the guy who repealed Glass Steagall and ended welfare and balanced the budget on the backs of the poorest Americans and set the stage for the crash of 2008. Bush just put his foot on the gas so the brick wall hit sooner. FDR would shake his head at Hilary.

    Personally I hope Russia and China are successful in their pursuit of an alternative to the IMF as it will end the USA’s ability to control other countries financially. Once the US dollar is no longer the main world reserve currency, all bets are off.

    Those are the sorts of issues that occupy the agenda of any American President. If Sanders wins and he tries anything to really make a difference — like close some of the 700+ overseas military bases or get serious about redistributing income he will be taken out. Bet on it.

    • Ted H says:

      I have often wondered when a new president is elected, if the people who really run things take them aside and tell them the truth about Kennedy as a warning.

      • Wayne says:

        Two for one sale on tinfoil hats, I see.

        • Ted H says:

          You are right Wayne, and I must admit to being tongue in cheek, however, with regard to Kennedy I am sure a President has access to some exclusive information the public cannot see and any President would be naturally curious about that incident.

      • Justin says:

        Bill Hicks fan I see. I’ve seen a video of Hicks talking about Clinton, making a joke about how it didn’t matter what he promised.

        “I have this feeling man, ’cause you know, it’s just a handful of people who run everything, you know … that’s true, it’s provable. It’s not … I’m not a fucking conspiracy nut, it’s provable. A handful, a very small elite, run and own these corporations, which include the mainstream media. I have this feeling that whoever is elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what you promise on the campaign trail – blah, blah, blah – when you win, you go into this smoke-filled room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-fucks who got you in there. And you’re in this smoky room, and this little film screen comes down … and a big guy with a cigar goes, “Roll the film.” And it’s a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you’ve never seen before … that looks suspiciously like it’s from the grassy knoll. And then the screen goes up and the lights come up, and they go to the new president, “Any questions?” “Er, just what my agenda is.” “First we bomb Baghdad.” “You got it …”

  12. Scotian says:

    I tend to believe you are correct about the eventual outcome Mr. Kinsella.

    I would point out though there are differences as well as similarities between JT and Sanders though, and one of them is a big one. Up until he joined the Dem party so as to run as the Dem Presidential candidate he was an independent, a socialist, and has little roots in the party whereas one could argue JT was literally born into the Libs, and that makes a difference when talking about creating loyalty within the party machinery, which is still going to be very important in this Presidential selection and election process for the Dems. A second issue is that JT was able to show broad spectrum connection as a retail politician in almost any social group with ease, Sanders has not been as skilled, and while is clearly starting to make up some ground in the non-white demographics he is still well behind Clinton by tens of percentage points. If this were happening three months ago I would say that Sanders still has time to gain that ground, but we are only a couple of weeks from the first caucus and primary, and while I expect him to do well in the first two, I am not as convinced he can do anywhere near as well where the voting public is far less white than Iowa and New Hampshire.

    If Clinton did not have as strong a tie of loyalty to the black community that she and her husband have had throughout their political history I’d think Sanders might have more of a chance of peeling it off with wins in the the first two States going into SC, but there was a reason why Bill Clinton used to be called the first black President before Obama got in, and that is still a real factor for Hilliary in this too. This matters since the largest voting block within the Democratic party is the black community and when combined with Hispanics and other non-white ethnicities you are talking the clear majority of Dem voters.

    There is another factor which will be in the backs of many Dem minds that is not being considered. The vast Right Wing Noise Machine, formerly known in the last Clinton Presidency as the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy whose sole purpose is to destroy the Dem Presidential candidate and if the winner the Dem President. Obama has been in its sights now for the past seven years, Hilliary has been in its sights for a quarter century, but Sanders has never seriously been in its sights to this day. There is a real question as to how well he can withstand their sustained focused attentions, especially with his life-long branding as a self described socialist especially for older Americans whose memories go back to the Cold War and therefore have some fairly negative associations there. Clinton on the other hand has shown she can withstand the worst this machine will and can throw time and time again, her latest proof of this was the Bengazhi hearing testimony late last year where she essentially made the entire GOP membership of that committee,especially the Chair, look like fools by being the calm professional and competent person she is, whatever you think of her political nature.

    So in the end I expect Sanders to have given Clinton a good run for her money, which should actually be a good thing because it got her to sharpen her fighting political skills prior to facing the GOP nominee head to head instead of coasting until then. Sanders also has clearly excited many against the GOP too, so that contribution will not completely fade with his defeat in the primary. However, given the nature of American politics, both within the Democratic party and in the wider general electorate, given Sanders and Clintons respective histories, given the proven record of the GOP attack machine and the difference in how battle tested one is over the other, given that Sanders has not shown himself to be as well rounded as Clinton overall, I just do not see him winning in the end. He is not Obama, and Obama had a hard fight to win and didn’t do it by much in 2008 against Clinton. Sanders I think will come up short, although I will be very surprised if that proves out prior to super Tuesday.

    One will note I have not included the first woman President argument in this despite it also being a real factor, that was deliberate, because I believe the factors I have already listed here are enough to make the case. The woman card would only be gilding that lily in my view and could serve more as a distraction to this argument than an asset which is why I am not factoring it in despite its clear relevance overall.

    That’s how I currently read the Democratic primary situation.

    • doconnor says:

      There was a notable Canadian politician who didn’t have a long history with the Liberals before joining them and rapidly rising to leadership: Pierre Trudeau.

      • Scotian says:

        True, but he did not have an active history in politics running against the Liberals either, unlike Sanders and the Dems. That is a fairly major difference between PET and Sanders in this regard. Sanders spent literally decades making clear he wasn’t a Dem, ran against Dems, and now suddenly switched to being a Dem for this Presidential run. PET had no real history in elected politics let alone seeking elected office prior to his joining the Libs. Also, he made a name for himself within the Libs as Justice Minister and showing he was one of them before running for the leadership far more than Sanders has an equivalent for. So I just do not think you can fairly make the comparison you just did, presumably as a rebuttal to my comment regarding Sanders as the outsider part of my original comment.

        Essentially Sanders is no PET, not even close, their paths in life with politics were very different, one was a decades long political careerist (Sanders) before joining the party he is aiming to lead, the other (Trudeau) was recruited into that party by its senior leadership from essentially academia without a history of seeking nor desiring political/elected office. PET could define himself as true Lib at heart because he lacked that history, Sanders though has a record and history decades long as an elected office outside the Dems as America’s most (in)famous socialist. No, not at all similar situations at all beyond both being outsiders and therefore I do not believe you have made a good rebuttal here.

      • JamesHalifax says:

        Previous affiliation doesn’t mean much.

        Remember, Stephen Harper started out as a Young Liberal and was a staunch supporter of the elder Trudeau until the National Energy Program.

        views change.

        Same goes for Jason Kenny. He was a long time Liberal before switching sides.

        • Scotian says:

          And how long was the gap from when those two gentlemen changed sides to become election candidates for the Reform/CA/CPC? I suspect it was more than two years, and neither man as I understand had a decades long history as an elected official under another political identity prior to that change either, unlike Sanders. Which was the point I was making. It isn’t that one cannot make such a change in politics, just that if one does one does not usually get to do so and run for the top job in the same year or so from joining the new party, and it almost never happens after a not just years but decades long time in another party or as in Sanders case independent. That is hard enough to do in our system with the history of floor-crossing to make it more palatable than it is in the US system.

          So sorry, just like PET neither Harper nor Kenney are good comparative examples to Sanders vis-a-vis the Dems even when one does not take into account the differences in our political cultures. When one includes that the comparisons become even worse, not better. So yes, actually, previous affiliations do mean something, especially after having been elected under one for literally decades and then suddenly switching all so you can run for the top office in the nation. A fair comparison would be say back in 2006 Harper had quit the CPC to run as the Lib leader for PM, or Layton had done the same, or Martin for either the CPC or NDP, THAT is the kind of comparison for a change-of-party move that is roughly equivalent in our system for what Sanders has done. So imagine how well those changes I described would have worked out for those leaders/candidates and their fits within their respective parties.

          If people are going to try and make comparisons, they need to have some real equivalency, and so far that has not been offered against my position by two people, one from each side of the political spectrum from me. Sanders is not just just someone that decided to run for the Dems without any prior history electorally speaking, his history as an independent socialist is literally decades long now, and one simply cannot ignore that impact when making this argument nor when trying to offer up others that were once one thing but became something else. The closest that comes to my mind federally was Scott Brison going from PCPC to Lib after his party was murdered in the CPC creation process, and even that one isn’t too close, but it is a closer fit than anything else. What Sanders is trying to do is in the American system very difficult, it is a very binary polarized political culture to begin with so independents have issues when they run for either party, and Sanders in particular has this because of his lengthy history as the only elected socialist in America given how toxic the concept/word socialist is in American political dynamics.

    • doconnor says:

      From my observation of the Democractic race the fact that he wasn’t a Democrat until recently has been a nonissue. His problem isn’t that the Democratic establishment is anti-Senders, it’s that it’s pro-Clinton.

      • Scotian says:

        *SIGH*

        Do you think that maybe, juuuuust maybe, her being a standard bearer for the Dems throughout her political life might have a teensy weensy bit to do with this? That this is part of my point? There is no reason for the Democratic Party and its institutions/infrastructure to feel any sense of loyalty or preference for Sanders because of his history, while there clearly is with Clinton. Sanders is essentially trying to co-opt that machinery to run for President because he could never successfully do so without that machinery, that machinery is well aware of this rather basic fact, and this is not exactly something that machinery, which is made up of people that given much if not all of their professional lives over to working for the Democratic Party cause, finds all that desirable, and really, from their reasonable/rational POV why would and should they? That they know Clinton is truly one of them, that she has poured her own life and soul into their mutual party, gotten scarred fighting its fights against the GOP, and therefore feel she is more deserving of their institutionally respect and loyalty than someone that is only running now as a Dem after literally decades as not a Dem because it is the only way he can have a chance at the Presidency?

        Seriously doconnor, if you really haven’t seen that this is clearly an issue within Democratic party circles, especially establishment Democratic Party circles you haven’t been looking very hard. Sanders supporters have been going on for many months about how that infrastructure has been working against them, how they are pissed about the lack of support they get from it, yet they refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact of why, that their guy is not a Democrat except and for just now so as to run for President. They want him to get the loyalty and respect of that machinery without his not only having paid his fair political dues first but also after a lifetime of pissing on them. The signs that the Democratic Party institutionally speaking is having major issues with the Sanders campaign already have been out there for months, and it already *HAS* and WILL* continue to play a factor if he were to win the nomination, but it is also a part of why I do not think he can win that nomination, as I have already laid out in detail. That is why I pointed out to JamesHalifax that a comparable situation would be Harper in 2004 leaving the CPC and becoming a Lib and immediately running to be Lib leader would be a much truer comparison in our system to what Sanders is doing.

        The evidence is slightly like the X-files, the truth is out there, but far less difficult to find and interpret. That drag effect, that clearly shows this is anything but a “non-issue” as you characterized it. How you can seriously claim to not have seen it despite the many signs of it on both sides from supporting Clinton to being antagonistic to Sanders and from the supporters within each camp forces me to wonder, are you really that unaware or are you shilling for the side you prefer/find more comfortable? I really don’t know, and since it is US politics you shouldn’t feel any partisan loyalties unlike in our domestic situation, which causes me to have some concern as to your capability as a political observer/analyst (even as an amateur) or your honesty in doing so. These signs have not been minor, nor have they been hidden, indeed they have been a significant part of the ongoing struggle between the two campaigns and well noted by supporters of each side.

        • doconnor says:

          Quite right. The Democratic party is final showdown of the Machine vs. the People. Its anybody’s guess who is going to win.

          • Scotian says:

            Yes, it is, and mine is that it is Clinton, and after watching Sanders decide to attack Planned Parenthood as part of “the establishment” only gives me that much more reason to believe I’m on the right track here and you are not. That was a strategic mistake on multiple levels, and instead of cleaning it up he doubled down on it. Not wise, especially not two weeks before the voting and caucusing starts. He may well still do well in Iowa and NH, but I suspect once it moves into the more diverse States Sanders is not going to wear as well. His hard core supporters, the self described “Berners” aren’t doing their side favours with all the “mansplaining” they do to any female that dares say they are considering/supporting Clinton either. Sanders needs to expand significant support into two demographics, women and blacks. Stuff like this will not help, and I simply do not see a road for his victory at this point. A strong candidacy, yes, a winning one, no.

  13. Greyapple says:

    I agree, though I’m pretty sure a millionaire named Trudeau, heading one of the established, “old money,” parties counts as one of “the establishment.” I guess he convinced people he wasn’t, but reality sez different.

  14. Bill says:

    If Clinton can over come all the negatives (and they are many and significant) then she stands a good chance of winning the Presidency. If she can’t Joe Biden is standing in the wings and has a good chance of being drafted as the Democratic candidate as Sanders is not electable. Trump might be successful in gaining the nomination but would have trouble beating Hillary. But any way you slice it, the US has had 20 years of bad leadership and there is nothing to suggest they are not heading for another 4 years of the same.

    • JamesHalifax says:

      Bill,

      If Clinton can overcome the propensity of her husband Bill to treat women as chattel, she can overcome anything.

      Remember, the list of women who accused Bill Clinton of inappropriate behaviour is almost as long as the list of women who accuse Bill Cosby of similar offences.

      The difference of course, is that Cosby apparently used drugs to subdue his women, whereas Clinton apparently preferred Gurka Cigars and sweet talk. Oh..and one was the President, and the other was Fat Albert. That may be why the treatment was different.

  15. SG says:

    Sanders may not have the gun control bonafides, but if he wins and finally dismantles the corrupt structures in place that siphon money from the poor and middle class towards the 1% after 35 years in which they have run roughshod over everyone else, I consider that more important than enacting more aggressive background checks for prospective handgun owners.

    Did you not read the news item out today that states that the 62 richest individuals on the planet have more wealth than the bottom 3.5 BILLION put together? How much more obscene can this inequality get? Something has got to give.

  16. Maps Onburt says:

    No way in hell is Hillary going to win. Far, far, far too much baggage. Benghazi will be on her epitaph. She will probably take the nomination because Sanders is not a real democrat but the other half of the Dem’s hate her as much as the Republicans do and 9 out 10 Republican’s will walk through glass to ensure she doesn’t make it. I’m not sure you are right about Trump either. It’s far too early to call it for him. He’s got the protest vote sure, but that’s a long way from taking the nomination. My sense is that once the states start to vote, the vote will coalesce around an ABT candidate… not sure who that will be yet… Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina or even Bush… I suspect Carson is done.

  17. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Frankly, and all bullshit aside, Clinton, or God forbid, Sanders wins this thing, America is done for. I don’t think the nation can withstand another term of Democrat rule without financially and economically collapsing into ruin.

    As wild and off the wall as Trump is…and he is…at least he has some bona fides regarding business and industry, and what makes it tick and function…and what doesn’t.

    Anyway, history has shown repeatedly that whomever happens to win the first couple of primaries, rarely is left standing by the day of the convention.

    The one guy who scares the hell out of Democrats because he can win, is Rubio. Sooner or later a lot of Republicans are going to realize this, and that Trump and Cruz are both gifts to the Democrats.

    He’s got everything going for him: Intelligence, charm, youth, solid grasp of the issues, and he’s relatively moderate. He adds Carly Fiorina as his running mate, and it’s all over for Clinton…or Sanders, or anyone else the Dems can dig up.

    If it ends up Clinton or Sanders vs Trump or Cruz, everyone loses, and American is screwed. And by extension, so is Canada as we’d be in for an even worse time than we’re already facing.

    …but then again, look at who Canadians just elected PM. You know, as if we have a GD clue up here regarding politics and leadership.

    *sigh*

    • Al in Cranbrook says:

      One more thing: This new movie, “13 Hours”, may well turn out to be a game changer, certainly for Clinton. Bottom line, whom are people going to believe? The guys who actually fought that battle? Or a politician of already dubious credibility?

  18. e.a.f. says:

    There is an American organization named, Working Families. They have thrown their support behind Saunders. It maybe that working families see Saunders as the guy who might deliver something to them instead of the corporations.

    Trump is fun to watch, but once voters sit down and think about him, he says a lot but there are just no specifics. Like he’d like to deport 11 million people. Nice statement if that is what your base is looking for, but he fails to explain how that is going to be done. Like just where will they even get the staff to do that.

    It is possible Saunders could win the nomination. At this point I think its hard to tell.

    • JamesHalifax says:

      IN Canada, we have “Working Families Coalition”

      I wonder if it is the same group of socialists?

      If they support Sanders, I’m sure they share at least the same deluded ideology.

  19. e.a.f. says:

    well Al from Cranbrook, economically the U.S.A. has done quite well with a Democrat as President, if you look at their figures. They have done better than Canada is doing.

    The Americans did much better economically also with Clinton, male; so there is a good chance they will do well with Clinton, female.

    Deficits tend to go up in the U.S.A. WHEN Replicans are in office, they like war and that costs money. republicans like tax breaks for the rich, so again that de funds government.

    Trump is no great businessman, have a look at how often he has gone bankrupt. He is this era’s Barnem and Bailey show. Trump wants to deport 11 million people to Mexico. Just how does he plan to do that? No details, but a lot of mouth. can you image the internal war which would start, especially given all the guns in the U.S.A. It would look like a round up of the Jews during the NAZI reign in Germany, just with more fighting. People might decide to not go quietly, the U.S.A. would have the potential to look like Lebannon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*