The weaklings might have to. Those who are independent and self reliant, who obey no authority on this earth other than their own or non human authorities, will have more freedom options.

You’re still fighting the last war, Fio. The Leftist alliance has moved far beyond the need to have the media shackle Republican Presidents with things like “mission accomplished”. They have far better ways now, given their mobilization of their strategic reserves in America.

Not saying one is more vs less, just that BOTH are beyond the threshold of acceptable.

That you care largely about the “media’s heads exploding” with a trump win says a lot. Heard that “F U” message sentiment elsewhere…
http://neoneocon.com/2016/10/18/trump-on-the-ropes/#comment-1794880

The best “F U” would be someone who is principled and competent. We have neither with trump.

And, in reaching for the balm of an “F U”, we will have to live with clinton for four years.

This strike me as very wrong in some ways.

One aspect is that China and Russia have a central organization, infrastructure, and operating philosophy that puts them in opposition to us.

Another seems to hit at capitalism – e.g. “Corporatist State”, blurring the lines with cronyism, which does exist, but throwing such a wide net and lumping them in with China and Russia implies a level of organization that just doesn’t exist, unless one believes in conspiracy theories.

“The sex allegations (wrt trump) are plainly a sham.”

But if one believes this, then conspiracy theories it is.

They are far from “plainly a sham” given how trump’s own words implicate him as capable and willing.

You might not be nominating trump for sainthood, but you certainly are turning a blind eye to or preemptively forgiving of a heckuvalot.

The challenge is telling the “alt-right thugs” apart from the “vociferous” trump supporters (who might have not supported him originally).

Not to pick on Cornhead, as he made enough statements in the comments sections for us to know that he is not a full blooded trumpster, but….

His article gives little recognition to the downside and risks to trump, nor attempt to refute them. He implies, as a given, that trump will do the things he expects. He spends most of his argument talking about the downsides and risks to clinton, resting his case largely on that.

It is better stated and nicer in tone than the rabid trumpsters, even than the pubis decievius’ Flight 93 pieces. But that is too subtle to draw the line on.

It is Pavlovian – and dems used it to their advantage.

This is how Trump loses. Hillary looks safe.