In this fallout of the Left about the election results, something comes to the surface.
An exit poll said 69% of people were angry about the way government was run in DC. The angry, fed up people are a big reason Trump was elected. We all get that.
That sentiment on the right is so clear it is not even debated by MSM. They despise us and our “drain the swamp” anger. They certainly don’t question the existence of it.
But after the election, the Left is now fuming at the results. Their anger is flowing through the streets. (anger is stock and trade of the Marxist Left) They even say anger is not enough; they call for violence. So which anger wins — ours or theirs? (See)
The above is how uber-Leftists talk. Trump’s appointments stir up more Leftist anger. Too bad so sad. But they have laser-focused their anger on them. (Alinsky rules: personalize it)
George W Bush now says “it is about what’s best for people who are angry.”
After Trump election, Bush says “anger shouldn’t drive policy”
Former President George W. Bush on Tuesday cautioned against allowing anger to dictate policy in the wake of a heated presidential race — especially when it comes to trade, an issue in the crosshairs of President-elect Donald Trump.
“I understand anger, and some people might have been angry when I was president, but anger shouldn’t drive policy,” Bush said during a speech in Dallas. “What should drive policy is what’s best for the people who are angry and how does it benefit people in our country and people in our neighborhood.”
Gee, thanks for the anger lesson Bush, but I think I’ll pass. Our anger was/is justified. Actually, our outrage and anger needs to influence policy, after all that has gone on in the last decade. And we chose Trump as a president and a vehicle.
Remember, it was Obama who in his first campaign called us bitter. Hillary called us deplorables. We were the perpetually marginalized. But thanks for the anger shout out.
On the other side, should Trump assuage the anger of the Marxists? Should one do what is best for them? Only reaching their goals will make them happy.
However, the question is which anger Bush was talking about — ours or the Left’s? Then which anger should be assuaged — doing what is best for those who are angry
Bush said. “I’m interested in politics, but I don’t think it’s helpful for a former president to criticize successors. It’s a hard job to begin with, and I don’t think it helps to make it any harder.”
Working with the incoming president? Obama is creating the illusion of working for a smooth transition. But he is hardly doing anything toward that ideal end.
I think our anger trumps their anger, and we won.
Obama had a press conference to, again, criticize and lecture Trump. Evidently he didn’t get his fill of that campaigning last month for Hillary.
Let’s see, Obama was wrong on Brexit, now he’s been proven wrong about Trump winning. He has a failed record to boot. So he goes overseas and what does Obama love to do overseas? Right, criticize his opponents and enemies back home. That is his shtick
Then he’s going to tell them to trust him this time on his promises and assessments of where things will go now that Trump did what he assured them couldn’t happen.
Obama’s Secretary of Stupid Shit did not win the election. But he did so depend on her to secure his decomposing foreign policy legacy. No such luck. But Trump is probably a bigger threat to it than Hillary would have been. And that explains his bubbling anger and resentment.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Obama’s legacy “shall be etched in stone.” And nowhere did it confer on a president the right to pick his replacement, as Obama expected.
In fact, it is all rather fluid. So Obama does what he always does, go overseas to schmooze it up with his fellow lefties, and share his frustrations about American politics — actions — then take aim at his domestic counterparts from offshore. That, while appearing to reassure them that it is not that bad. All disingenuous of course.
Commenting overseas about the election:
“I was surprised by the election results.” “Did I recognize that there was anger, frustration among the population? Of course I did,” Obama said.
But Obama and his caustic policies were the cause of much of it. He just insisted on throwing more of it in our faces as he campaigned around the country. So the election was a rejection of him as well. Let’s see how fast Obama identifies with the Left’s anger?
Just don’t lose sight of, or underestimate, this anger and pissed-offness of the people that finally brought us this far. The fierce reaction — protests and rioting — is the problem, not the solution. Message to the left: Don’t even try to out anger me.
H/T image to http://theamericanfirst.com/hollywood-director-paul-schrader-calls-for-violence-to-stop-donald-trump/