“Taking the Handcuffs Off” U.S. Missiles in Ukraine

W.J. Astore

Feeding the Obscenity of War

I woke to this disconcerting story from CNN:

President Joe Biden has authorized Ukraine to use powerful long-range US weapons deep inside Russia.

Why now? Biden is a lame duck president, shuffling out the door, and now he decides to allow Ukraine to use American ATACMS missiles, with a range of roughly 190 miles, inside Russia. It’s also expected that these and similar longer-range missiles provided by the French and British will have no decisive impact on the war. They may kill and wound more Russians and inspire responses in kind by Russia against Ukraine, but their use won’t contribute to “victory” for Ukraine. So what’s the point?

My wife put it well when she learned of the decision: “stupid” and “ridiculous” were her words of choice. It’s amazing how well our “experts” feed the obscenity of war.

How dare you handcuff our missiles!

I take my title from a comment made by President-elect Trump’s nominee for National Security Adviser, Mike Waltz, who said we should take the handcuffs off of U.S. missiles in Ukraine, as if those missiles were people being held prisoner.

Whether in the Biden or Trump administrations, the advisers at the top are moral midgets, murderously so. I wonder how they’d feel being targeted by ATACMS. Hey, we just took the handcuffs off, Mr. Waltz. Enjoy your time being bombarded by these liberated missiles.

At the end of September, I noted how Vladimir Putin had redefined Russian nuclear policy to include a possible nuclear response to the use of “tactical” missiles like ATACMS. Here’s what I wrote then:

Vladimir Putin is redefining Russian policy for the use of nuclear weapons. He’s sending a clear warning that Ukraine’s use of U.S. and Franco-British missiles like ATACMS and Storm Shadow deep within Russia could draw a nuclear response. To my knowledge, the U.S. has not yet approved of the use of ATACMS deep within Russia, though Ukraine is pushing for it.

It seems many brain-dead, zombie-like advisers and “experts” insist that Russia is bluffing. They’re willing to bet the health and safety of the world that Russia won’t respond with nuclear weapons. And for what? ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles aren’t war-winning weapons. The Russia-Ukraine War is a slog, an attritional struggle, featuring trenches and artillery and high casualties, a situation akin to World War I. It’s not going to be won by conventional tactical missile strikes.

Yet certain “experts” seemingly want it to escalate to World War III with nukes.

Just about 80 years ago, we humans entered the atomic age at the Trinity test site in July of 1945. We still haven’t come to grips with how the world changed when the first atomic “gadget” exploded in the desert in New Mexico. We had better hurry up and grow up before we all burn.

So, Putin has warned that deep strikes within Russia could draw a nuclear response, and Biden has now approved said strikes just before he leaves the White House. “Stupid” and “ridiculous” are indeed good descriptors here.

The obscenity of war knows no handcuffs in America.

Tulsi Gabbard, A Smart Choice as Director of National Intelligence

W.J. Astore

And she surfs too

Former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has been nominated as Director of National Intelligence by President-elect Donald Trump. The so-called intelligence community is up in arms about this. That is a very good thing.

Tulsi Gabbard (Reuters, Jeenah Moon photo)

Here’s what Reuters has to say:

WASHINGTON, Nov 14 (Reuters) – President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Tulsi Gabbard as U.S. intelligence chief has sent shockwaves through the national security establishment, adding to concerns that the sprawling intelligence community will become increasingly politicized.

Trump’s nomination of Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman who lacks deep intelligence experience and is seen as soft on Russia and Syria, is among several high-level picks that suggest he may be prioritizing personal allegiance over competence as he assembles his second-term team.

Among the risks, say current and former intelligence officials and independent experts, are that top advisers could feed the incoming Republican president a distorted view of global threats based on what they believe will please him and that foreign allies may be reluctant to share vital information.

Randal Phillips, a former CIA operations directorate official who worked as the agency’s top representative in China, said that with Trump loyalists in top government posts, “this could become the avenue of choice for some really questionable actions” by the leadership of the intelligence community. [Emphasis added.]

As if the intelligence “community” isn’t already politicized! And who sees Gabbard as allegedly “soft” on Russia and Syria? Hillary Clinton? The “queen of warmongers,” as Gabbard memorably described her?

Wow. We might get “some really questionable actions” by the IC (intelligence community). I’m glad we’ve never had any of those before.

Tulsi has a wealth of experience in the military (she remains a lieutenant colonel), she’s a former Congresswoman who’s served on important committees dealing with national security, and she’s tough as nails, having survived ruthless attacks on her character by the neocon Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. She is an excellent choice as Director.

What Tulsi has is integrity. Honesty. Poise. Perhaps even more importantly, she has Trump’s ear and his respect. As Director, she will oversee the preparation of Trump’s daily intelligence briefs. Trump was notorious in his first term in office for not paying much attention to those briefs. He should do better with Tulsi, somebody he trusts, preparing them.

Tulsi won my respect in 2016 when she supported Bernie Sanders and revealed how the Democratic presidential primary process was being fixed for Hillary Clinton. Tulsi has paid a high price for her principled stance, being smeared by Clinton and mainstream media outlets like NBC as a “Russian asset,” maybe even a stooge for Vladimir Putin. Politics is a rough game, but accusing a serving U.S. military officer and Congresswoman of being a “Putin puppet” is truly reckless and defamatory. Good for Tulsi for punching back.

The establishment Democratic party hates Tulsi because she refused to play their game. She refused to bow to the Clintons. Tulsi has also questioned America’s constant warmongering and knows a thing or two about the horrendous costs of war. She even has a normal life as a surfer. She has a connection to nature that I respect.

Her poise, her toughness, her integrity, makes her a superb choice as DNI. The more the intelligence “community” complains about her, the louder certain Democrats scream, the more certain I am that Trump has made a smart decision here.

Recall when Kamala Harris vowed to put a Republican in her cabinet? Well, Trump has made Gabbard his DNI and RFK Jr. will lead Health and Human Services. He’s picked two (former) Democrats for important posts and the Democrats can’t stand it.

On this occasion, with these appointments, I applaud Trump. You go, Tulsi. Ride the wave. Continue to serve our country as you always have.

Purge at the Pentagon!

W.J. Astore

It’s OK to Lose Wars, Not OK to be “Woke”

Purge at the Pentagon! Reuters reports that the incoming Trump administration is drawing up a list of generals to be fired. These are generals associated with former Chairman of the JCS Mark Milley and anyone else branded with a scarlet “W” for woke. The current Chairman, Air Force General C.Q. Brown, may also be fired, as some within the Trump camp suspect he may have been a DEI hire.

This is how Reuters put it: Hegseth [Trump’s nominee for Defense Secretary] has also taken aim at Milley’s successor, Air Force General C.Q. Brown, asking whether he would have gotten the job if he were not Black.

“Was it because of his skin color? Or his skill? We’ll never know, but always doubt – which on its face seems unfair to CQ. But since he has made the race card one of his biggest calling cards, it doesn’t really much matter,” he wrote.

Ouch. It does indeed seem unfair to CQ.

General C.Q. Brown, Chairman of the JCS

Retired General Milley is no fan of Trump, having called the president “fascist to the core,” so it’s time for vengeance against him and his cohort. General Brown might be collateral damage, but of course the general, if purged, will find seven-figure salaries available to him on the industrial side of the military-industrial complex, so don’t cry for him too hard.

What’s amazing about all this is reason for the purge. Wokeness. Vengeance. Not military incompetence.

Think about it. The U.S. military lost in Vietnam. Lost in Iraq. Lost in Afghanistan. And no general was fired for cause. Sure, Obama dismissed General Stanley McChrystal in 2010, but that was because McChrystal was an idiot. The last general I can remember who was fired for just cause by a president exercising true authority was Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War. That was over 70 years ago. 

As Army officer Paul Yingling famously wrote (“A Failure in Generalship”), a private is severely punished for losing a rifle but generals get promoted for losing wars. I doubt this is going to change. Instead, under Trump it appears the firing of generals is another leg of his vengeance tour, a purge of those who are perceived as disloyal.

Back in March of 2016, I wrote Trump had disqualified himself for the position of commander-in-chief because he had no understanding of the U.S. Constitution. For Trump, laws, principles, integrity, and character are far less important than loyalty and obedience to Trump.

If the Trump administration does indeed pursue a Pentagon purge based on vengeance, a courageous and principled officer corps should resign en masse in protest against this usurpation of authority. I’m no fan of the generals, but firing them because they’re associated with “woke” (whatever that means) and/or Milley is a misuse of power.

If you want to fire generals, fire them because they’ve failed in their primary duties, not because they’re allegedly “woke.”

Trump and the Warmongers

W.J. Astore

More Bombs for Bibi to Kill Babies

Trump and the war hawks. Or war sluts. Or war pigs. I thought about all three of these. Then I thought: Why insult hawks, sluts, or pigs?

Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz, seeing enemies everywhere while wearing their red power ties

Donald Trump is forming his cabinet by rounding up the usual warmongers. In 2016, he gathered the generals, men like James Mattis and John Kelly. This time around, he’s tapping people like Marco Rubio. “Little Marco” as Secretary of State, a man who’s rarely met a war he didn’t like. For Secretary of Defense he’s nominated Pete Hegseth, whose main concern seems to be waging a war on “woke” generals. One thing is certain: Rubio and Hegseth won’t challenge the military-industrial complex. They will feed it … and feed it again.

Other nominations include Elise Stefanik, a rabid Zionist, as UN ambassador, along with Mike Huckabee, a pro-Israel evangelical who believes in the “end times,” as U.S. ambassador to Israel. Trump may trump Biden as being more slavishly pro-Israel. “Bombs for Bibi to kill babies” should be their motto.

Kristi Noem, who shot and killed her own dog because she couldn’t train it, will run Homeland Security. (If you work for DHS, it might be a good idea to watch your back, or at least to avoid being alone with Noem at a gravel pit.) Mike Waltz will be the National Security Advisor; here’s how Caitlin Johnstone describes him:

Waltz is a warmongering freak. Journalist Michael Tracey has been filling up his Twitter page since the announcement with examples of Waltz’s insane hawkishness, including his support for letting Ukraine use US weapons to strike deep into Russian territory, criticizing Biden for not escalating aggressively enoughin Ukraine, advocating bombing Iran, opposing the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan, and naming Iran, North Korea, China, Russia and Venezuela as “on the march” against the United States toward global conflict. The mainstream press are calling Waltz a “China hawk”, but from the look of things he’s a war-horny hawk toward all the official enemies of the United States. 

Once again, Trump isn’t draining the swamp. He’s filling it with warmongers and Zionists who are even more extreme than the warmongers and Zionists of the Biden administration. 

Of course, the fundamental problem is that Republicans want to boost military spending even higher than Biden and Harris have.  Republicans are “all in” on revamping the nuclear triad, for example, which is likely to cost $2 trillion factoring in the usual cost overruns.

It’s possible Trump/Vance will be more likely to pursue diplomacy with Russia; perhaps the war in Ukraine will finally stumble to an end. But the imperial vision remains, aggravated perhaps by a war within to expel “illegal” immigrants, together with a coup within the military against “woke” officers.

That sounds pessimistic.  If I’m being optimistic, perhaps Trump can have a “Nixon goes to China” moment.  Trump can sell virtually anything to his followers. He is also driven by ego.  Maybe there’s a way to drive him toward peace, dangling the carrot of a Nobel Peace Prize for him.  Trump loves accolades, and if he could be influenced to stop throwing all of America’s chips into the Pentagon, that would be a good thing.

But, if personnel is policy, America had better prepare for more war, catastrophically so, even as more bombs are sent to Bibi to kill babies. There’s certainly nothing “woke” about that.

Blaming the Voters

W.J. Astore

Democrats Return to What They Do Best

The Democratic Party is returning to what they do best: blaming the voters for their defeat.

Why did Kamala lose? Racism and sexism. Duh. And white women. And Hispanics. And Black men. They just didn’t do what they were supposed to do, which was to vote for Kamala. After all, she was the candidate handpicked for you by the DNC elite. Geez, what more do you want? Look at the joy below!

You expected them to dazzle? Shame on you!

Remember Michelle Obama wagged her finger and scolded you not to expect Kamala to “dazzle”? Remember her husband berated Black men for not having Kamala’s back? I’m amazed that didn’t convince you to vote for Kamalove and Kamalot. Haters, all of you.

Of course, I channeled my hatred of women and Jews by voting for Jill Stein. But as a cis white male, nothing better was expected of me; I was always a lost cause. And by voting for Jill Stein, a Jewish woman dedicated to peace and against genocide in Gaza, I was obviously really voting not for Stein but for Trump. Duh.

I’m deplorable. I’m garbage. I’m a bad person. The only good people are those who voted for Kamala. End of story.

One thing is certain: It can’t be the candidate. It’s not her fault that she couldn’t inspire more voters to cast their ballots for her. It’s not her fault that she embraced the Cheneys. It’s not her fault she touted the “lethal” U.S. military and supported Israel and its genocide in Gaza. It’s not her fault that her track record in 2020 for winning support at the national level was abysmal. It’s not her fault she lost all seven battleground states despite more than a billion dollars spent on her campaign. It’s not her fault—it’s your fault. She didn’t deserve to be repudiated by voters—and you’re going to deserve your fate under Trump since you rejected her.

Some of you still want a populist like Bernie Sanders, don’t you? Sorry, that’s never going to happen. We the DNC would rather lose with a Cheney-endorsed neocon genocide-enabler like Harris than win with a principled populist like Sanders. Not just in 2016, not just in 2024, but in 2028 and all future elections.

Either you vote for the DNC Republican we give you or you get the RNC Republican we all deplore. Got a problem with that? Have you thought about leaving the country?

Addendum: If Democrats truly believe democracy dies in darkness under Trump, was a mediocre vice president with less-than-stellar political and speaking skills the best person to challenge him? If Trump=fascism, was anointing Kamala as the candidate without primaries the best way to demonstrate Democrats’ commitment to a fair process open to everyone within the party? Are voters really to blame when you give them no choice, no say, and no real power?

Donald Trump Wins Again

W.J. Astore

An unsurprising election result

I woke to the news that Donald Trump is the projected winner of the 2024 presidential election. What that means for the country and the world remains to be seen. Why he won, and why Kamala Harris lost, will surely be analyzed deeply.

It didn’t end well …

Readers here know my take. I didn’t think Harris was the best candidate for Democrats to run for several reasons:

  1. She was selected by the DNC rather than going through the normal primary process. In 2020, her campaign for the presidency flamed out quickly without her winning a single vote or delegate. She needed time to hone her message and develop her political chops, but she didn’t have that time.
  2. Her total support of Israel and her embrace of the Cheneys and Republican dissenters from Trump estranged her from progressives within her own party. If people want a Republican, they’re most likely to vote Trump, not a Cheney-endorsed Democrat.
  3. Harris had a muddled, “soft sell” message. It was unclear what she truly stood for. Words like “forward” and phrases like “We’re not going back” were vague to the point of meaninglessness.
  4. Harris was perhaps most closely associated with women’s rights, especially reproductive rights, but it’s hard for me to discern other issues that she well and truly believed in, issues she was willing to push for.
  5. She gained a reputation as a flip-flopper on issues like fracking and medicare for all, and her time as the immigration “czarina” connected her to a highly complex failure.
  6. She was far too closely linked to the doddering efforts of the Biden administration, and indeed she said she couldn’t think how she’d be different from Biden except for her pledge to put a Republican in her Cabinet. Again, if people want Republicans, they can vote for them.
  7. Too much of Harris’ message was focused on how she’s not Trump. We didn’t get a clear sense of what she stood for, what she was going to champion, how she was going to make America a better place. In the end, Harris didn’t communicate her message well enough to persuade enough voters to cast their ballots for her.

That’s my quick and dirty take. Before I’ve had my coffee! Readers, what do you think?

P.S. Apparently the Republicans have won the House and Senate as well. A rather stunning repudiation of Democrats and their shenanigans.

It’s Election Day!

W.J. Astore

Vote for me!

It’s Election Day in America and I really hope you get out and vote—or that you’ve voted already.

Sure, most of us wish the candidates were different, as in better. But don’t surrender to apathy and despair. Fill out a ballot. Let your vote be counted.

Often there are important state issues/referendums on the ballot and local offices up for grabs. Even though Trump versus Harris consumes most of the oxygen, these state issues and local offices deserve your attention as well.

The so-called experts keep warning us about the death of democracy and the rise of fascism. Deny them by voting. And then deny them further by doing even more, after the election.

I always feel better after voting. I hope you do too.

So, on this day especially I don’t care if you’re Red, Blue, Green, or some other color. I care that you’re engaged. That you’re willing to go on the record. That you’re ready to take a stand, express an opinion, if only on your ballot. It’s a start.

I know some people say voting only encourages the bastards within a thoroughly corrupt and corrupting system. I don’t believe that. Voting gives you a chance to send a message. You may think your one vote won’t matter, but it’s certain no vote by you won’t matter. It’s time for you to matter.

Be a citizen, not a subject. Exercise a citizen’s right to vote. Vote for me! Well, not literally *for* me, but for our mutual belief in having our voices heard. You have my thanks.

Remember, women couldn’t even vote for president until the 1920 election

Blame

W.J. Astore

When candidates lose an election, they are primarily responsible 

If Kamala Harris loses this election, can we please not blame Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon, Vladimir Putin, the usual suspects?

If Donald Trump loses this election, can we please not blame immigrants, voting machines, and various alleged forms of ballot- and ballot box tampering? And god knows what else Team Trump comes up with?

When candidates lose elections, they and their campaigns are primarily responsible. Sure, there’s always the possibility of bad breaks, bad luck, even occasional attempts at cheating. (Find me some votes in Georgia!) But usually one candidate and one campaign simply ran a better, smarter, more dynamic race.

For all you Kamala Harris and Donald Trump supporters out there, you should be prepared for your candidate to lose, and, if so, you should want them to lose with grace. No one likes a sore loser.

So, for example, Harris may win the popular vote but lose the election in the electoral college. If that happens, it will be likely due to her tepid campaign messaging and her total support of Israel, which is costing her votes in critical swing states.

If Trump loses, a critical factor will be Republican messaging on “women’s issues,” the biggest one being abortion. Trump’s own inconsistencies and inconstancy will also be a factor. Sure, MAGA loves Trump, but many other Americans see Trump as divisive, bombastic, and unreliable. Trump’s rallies, where he’ll say virtually anything, convinces more than a few Americans that he’s the very opposite of a “very stable genius.”

An excerpt from the New York Times (see below) yesterday explains why Harris may yet lose. Again, it’s not because Stein will steal “her” votes or Putin will brainwash his American comrades; rather, Harris has run a careful, often shallow campaign that simply may not generate enough voter enthusiasm on Nov. 5th.

Hopefully, we’ll know by Wednesday who won, and we’ll also witness the loser bow out with some grace and dignity. A man can dream …

The famous Rudyard Kipling quote featured at Wimbledon

The New York Times on the Harris campaign and its weakness:

Harris has run a strikingly cautious campaign. Game theorists would describe it as a low-variance strategy. She and her aides avoided moves that might have gone very well — and might have gone very poorly.

Can you name her campaign’s central theme, for example? Many of her main messages are vague (“when we fight, we win”), Trump-focused (“in it for himself”) or both (“turn the page”). Asked on television how her presidency would differ from Biden’s, Harris said, “There is not a thing that comes to mind.”

She could have taken a different approach. She could have run on the populist, anti-corporate message that is helping Democratic Senate candidates — or gone in the opposite direction and portrayed herself as a business-friendly centrist. She could have picked an issue, like housing, and signaled that it would be her No. 1 priority, much as health care was for Barack Obama. Instead of offering a bold, thematic message, Harris has announced a series of modest policies.

Her low-variance strategy is also evident in her decision not to explain why she reversed her stances on immigration and fracking. Many voters say they want to know more about Harris — who became a candidate only three months ago — and she hasn’t always filled in the blanks.

The strategy is evident with the Middle East, too. She didn’t pick as her running mate the popular Jewish governor of Pennsylvania partly because many Israel critics opposed him. Her campaign also didn’t invite any Palestinians to speak at the Democratic convention, which may hurt her in Michigan. When possible, Harris has avoided conflict.

All these decisions have benefits, to be clear. Making the Middle East more salient is rarely smart in American politics. Explaining why she changed her mind about the border could have made her look weak. Doing more town halls and interviews to explain her views could have exposed one of Harris’s weaknesses: Although she is an excellent debater, she can struggle in less structured settings.

But if Harris loses, her caution will look problematic. 

According to the Times, the basic weakness (and strength) of the Trump campaign is Trump himself. Are enough Americans ready for another four years of MAGA? We’ll know soon enough …

Multicultural Militarism

W.J. Astore

The Bombs Land Softer When a Latina Lesbian Drops Them

Listening to Chris Hedges and Cornel West the other day, I heard them use the term “multicultural militarism” to describe the Democratic Party’s embrace of war and the U.S. military. It fits. Consider Kamala Harris as commander-in-chief. She’ll be celebrated as the first woman of color, the first Black and South Asian president, even as she embraces and boasts about the “lethality” of the U.S. military and the utility of war. And by “utility,” I mean Harris’ support of Ukraine and Israel to the tune of $200 billion in weapons and other forms of mainly military aid.

But do the bombs and missiles land softer because a Latina lesbian Air Force pilot drops and launches them?

Speaking of the Air Force, my old service, I caught this cartoon by Pia Guerra:

The U.S. government really believes it can have it both ways. It can provide bombs to Israel to annihilate Gaza while at the same time dropping care packages among the wounded and desperate. Call it feel-good militarism. Have some MREs with your HE.* A new form of American (un)happy meal.

Harris and Trump reflect the bipartisan consensus in DC that Pentagon budgets must always go up. They both boast and brag about the U.S. military and its deadliness. They mainly disagree on which enemy is the most serious, with Harris favoring Iran and Russia while Trump hypes China. Neither candidate sees militarism as a problem: they see it as something to celebrate. It’s just that Harris and the Democrats prefer “diverse” militarism.

Trump, of course, has said he wants to end the Russia-Ukraine War. He also raised the specter of nuclear war. Harris, apparently, seems to think she must be more hawkish than Trump, hence her embrace of generals and her talk of lethality.

Whether Harris or Trump wins, higher military budgets are guaranteed and probably more war too. Interestingly, Trump talks more of the enemy within than the enemy without, though his “enemy within” is typically a caricature of woke liberals out to destroy America by forcing your kids to undergo gender-reassignment surgery. Just as Trump is using threat inflation for the enemy within, Harris is inflating the Iranian and Russian threats from without.

Civil discord within America or more war outside of America? That may be our “choice” on November 5th. Or maybe we’ll get both.

One thing is certain: A B-52 with a rainbow flag and a BLM slogan is still a B-52.

I suppose a Harris B-52 will be the first joyful bomber

* That’s meals ready to eat (MRE), or rations, with your high explosives (HE).

An Election Dominated by Fear

W.J. Astore

It’s “Take America Back” Versus “We’re Not Going Back”

This year’s presidential election is as grim as can be, and that grimness is reflected in the campaign slogans. Trump wants to “Take America back,” the implication being that bad people, I suppose the Democrats, have captured America and ruined it, and that only Trump can fix it. Harris says “We’re not going back,” meaning Trump can’t win again because he’d take America back to a hateful and brutal past.

Not a positive election, is it? How do you like your future, very bad or even worse?

It’s reflected in a story I saw in The Boston Globe this AM. Here’s an excerpt from a report on the swing state of Wisconsin:

Here in this key swing county of a key swing state [Wisconsin] that may well decide the presidency, voters across the political spectrum are gripped by fear over who will win the upcoming election.

Instead of expressing excitement about supporting their candidate — or simply relief that the election will soon be over — more than 50 voters interviewed here three weeks before Election Day repeatedly used words like “anxious,” “apprehensive,” “scared,” “worried,” and “terrified” to describe their feelings about the other party’s candidate winning.

Voters supporting former president Donald Trump said they fear that if Vice President Kamala Harris wins, inflation, crime, and illegal immigration will rise, leading to a fundamental change in American life. And Harris supporters say another four years of Trump would increase division and undermine the country’s democratic institutions.

Two memorable quotes about fear occur to me. One is from Master Po from “Kung Fu” who said, Fear is the only darkness. And then Frank Herbert from “Dune”: Fear is the mind-killer. And of course FDR who told us at the height of the Great Depression that the only thing we had to fear is fear itself.

It’s an incredible disservice to the American people for both candidates to be stoking fear. What cowardice by both the Blue and Red Teams!

That’s yet another reason why I like third parties and why Jill Stein and the Green Party appeal to me. Stein presents a positive vision of the future, a more peaceful one, one in which Americans come together to tackle common problems like climate change, health care, infrastructure, and the like.

I refuse to vote for parties and candidates that stoke fear, that promote darkness and that seek to kill my mind.

Trump supporters at a rally in Wisconsin (Scott Olson/Getty)

Sorry, Democrats and Republicans: I’m not going “back” to you and your fear.