November 2016

Have been surprised by the extreme vehemence of Hillary voters among peers, friends, and former friends, over her election loss.
Weeping, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, and if you don't share their pain, they get really personal and ugly. They come after you about who you are, what you are wearing, what you eat, etc.
What is driving this? Is it love of Hillary? A complete phony who had to spend hours with "the two most experienced debate prep specialists in Democratic politics" to go a few rounds with... Donald Trump?
Or is it fear of Trump? Sorry, but anyone who lived through eight years of Reagan can tell you there is no difference in the "empty suit," "not qualified for office," cranky man department. The Republicans spent decades burnishing the reputation of that animatronic doll but he was the Trump of 1980. And no one got upset about Carter's loss the way Hillary supporters are bleeding from every orifice. No one cursed John Anderson voters for "giving us Reagan." Well, maybe a few did, but nothing like this.
What is going on here? Hillary voters aren't interested in why anyone voted against her but perhaps they could do some self-analysis and explain why this election is such an emotional moment for them, as opposed to any other election where the "lesser evil" candidate lost.

Update: See this July 2016 Corey Robin post on the precedentedness of Trump (my word, in response to widespread claims that Trump's positions were unprecedented among conservative politicians). "It should be possible to talk about the very real and undeniable dangers of Trump without ignoring or reinventing the insanity of American history," Robin writes, offering a quick summary of wacky statements from Goldwater and Reagan.

Note the company isn't saying its product purifies water. The language is so calculatedly obscure it makes you suspect the opposite.

ProporNot sounds like a Ryder Ripps concept website -- is it propaganda or not? Click here.
In fact it appears to be the work of disgruntled Clinton supporters -- bitter-enders or dead-enders (as Rumsfeld called Iraqis who kept fighting after the US liberated them).
ProporNot publishes a ridiculous list of purportedly Putin-influenced US websites, which were supposedly scientifically studied (perhaps using Ada?) by someone -- we don't know who because it's anonymous -- looking for dissemination of obvious Kremlin memes, such as "Hillary Clinton $225,000 speaking fee" or "Hillary Clinton public and private position."
This garbage was then approvingly cited by the Amazon Washington Post and Clinton flunky Neera Tanden as "evidence" that Russians are back to their dirty old cold war tricks, and no one can be trusted.
If you've been reading any of these sites because the Amazon Washington Post, Conde Nast Reddit, and eBay Intercept aren't 100% reliable, you will laugh at who made it onto the list.
There's the libertarian lewrockwell.com and antiwar.com rubbing shoulders with the left-wing counterpunch.org and truth-out.org, and the left-leaning financial website Naked Capitalism alongside the right-leaning financial website David Stockman's Contra Corner. This ideologically diverse group can't all be Putin stooges, can they?
The main attribute these sites seem to have had in common was skepticism about the Clintons' need to return to power.