What if the American Revolution had failed?

This is one of many instances where the War for Independence could have fizzled out that I mentioned in the post on Canada not joining the War for Independence.

Why Did Canada Refuse to Join the American Revolution?

I like to point out how we already have a British North America: Canada. This points out some of the ways that the War for Independence could have fizzled: besides the ways it also came close to fizzling in on its own.

Independence wasn't as much of a certainty as people would like to think. The Colonies would have lost had it not have gained support from European powers: in particular, France. I would also add that there were some people in England who supported Independence for the Colonies.

Interestingly, most of the Loyalists who left the colonies ended up moving to what would become Canada.

And here's one of the scenarios where the British could have crushed the War for Independence early on.

What if Bernie had run in 2016?

I think he would have won. After all, he represents a state which is a historically red state. However, despite what Fox News tells you, The Democratic party is in no way "left wing". They preferred to lose with Clinton than win with Sanders.

After all, he is  a threat to the big donors for the duopoly.

Trump isn't.

How the Elite rigged Society (and why it’s falling apart) | David Brooks

OK, I can get alone with true conservatives since I share some of their values. But the US isn't conservative, or Christian, as David Brooks points out. I agree with him when he says, "A key factor of the educated elite is not that they are pro-conservative, they are anti-left. (@5 :00)".  Ths pretty much explains the differences.

French Guns, not private arms won the War for Independence

This myth needs to die a quick death.

'America Could Not Have Won The War Without France'

Tant pis pour vous, car ces singes mangeurs de fromage sont la seule véritable raison pour laquelle vous avez votre indépendance. Auriez-vous pu continuer à voler des provisions pour poursuivre votre révolte si les Européens n'étaient pas intervenus ? Pas de tout!

Loyalist Networks and the Coming of the American Revolution in New York ...

As I said in an earlier post: British North America isn't that hard an alternative reality since it's called Canada. The British North America Acts, 1867–1975, are a series of acts of Parliament that were at the core of the Constitution of Canada. Most were enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and some by the Parliament of Canada. So, being a tory didn't mean one was against "independence", it just meant that any change in status had to come through a lawful process. Rebellion is not a lawful means. 

I agree with Christopher Minty that the Loyalist side of the story needs to be told.

After all, this person was a Boston tory who said that he would prefer to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away than three thousand tyrants a mile away.

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter his enemies,
And make them fall!
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!

Would You Have Joined the American Revolution?

You might be surprised! And that's not my tory speaking. 

Britain's Forgotten Riflemen: Deadly Sharpshooters of the Revolution

Another myth about the war for independence bites the dust.

American Independence From the British Perspective

The move for independence wouldn't have happened had the French won in the Seven Years/French and Indian War. That opened up the west and got rid of a threat (the French and Indians). Of course, it opened up a bunch of other problems.

The main one being "who's gonna pay for this?"

But war was definitely not the answer.

Footnote to all this: The colonists weren't too keen on paying taxes anyway as Ben Franklin found out in 1759 with the Albany Plan. Franklin wrote: "The colonial assemblies and most of the people were narrowly provincial in outlook, mutually jealous, and suspicious of any central taxing authority."

American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World

I've been hearing that the War for Independence wasn't a war against a foreign foe, but was a civil war. Toss in how much it messed up the country whether the foe was domestic or foreign. Part of my fascination for this is that the scholars who address this issue point out that Tory meant conservative, as it still does.

Even more interesting to me is that there were many more loyalists out there than most people realise. Particularly in the southern states. I've seen comments where people from the south will say there were battles fought without a British presence during the War for Independence. I would also add the coercive nature of the rebels, particularly in New England.

Toss in that the militia needed to be under some form of civilian control, which is really what the "well-regulated" means. Even if you want to use the "well trained" meaning, there needs to be some form of structure because fighting a war requires a lot more than just being a good shot. There has to be discipline and serious drill, which comes from, well, organised training. Or as the Supreme Court said in Presser, which pretty much dealt with the militia:

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the State and Federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.

The issue was the common defence and how it would be structured. not personal weaponry.

Unless you can show me those exact words in the constitution, then you're wrong and I am right because it does make it clear if you go a little beyond "we the people"  that the document addresses the common defence.

Myth Busting the American Riflemen of the Revolution Part 2: The Septics were the better troops.

The myth is that the minutemen drove them out at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. Not at all. 

Myth Busting the American Riflemen of the Revolution

Yet another myth goes down the crapper.


And while we're at it, the guns used by the Rebels were either English Brown Besses or French Charleville. The Navigation Acts pretty much precluded any home made guns by the Americans. BTW, note that the Brown Bess has "Tower", as in Tower of London, which is where the Royal Armoury is located and GR with a crown showing it was property of the British Government. I think there broad arrows as well, which means this was British government property.

In other words, the guns were STOLEN!


And stop calling the French "Cheese eating, surrender monkeys" since the US wouldn't exist without their help. Besides, the Swiss fit the cheese eating description much better if you know Swiss history.

Tory during the American War for Independence didn't mean they were against independence.

 It sort of amuses me that one line of alternative history is the what if the 13 Colonies had remained united with Great Britain. The reason that it amuses me is that alternative played out: in Canada. Anyone familiar with Canadian history knows this, but the short form from Wikipedia:

The term Tory was first used to designate the pre-Confederation British ruling classes of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, known as the Family Compact and the Château Clique, an elite within the governing classes and often members within a section of society known as the United Empire Loyalists (UEL). The United Empire Loyalists were American loyalists from the Thirteen Colonies who resettled elsewhere in British North America during or after the American Revolutionary War.

Interestingly,  The terms "Tory" and "Loyalist" also were used in the American Revolution for those who remained loyal to the British Crown. Surprisingly, about 80% of the Loyalists remained in the United States after the war. The 60,000 or so Loyalists who settled in Nova Scotia, Quebec, the Bahamas, or returned to Great Britain after the American War of Independence are known as United Empire Loyalists. Unlike the UEL, Loyalists in the states didn't make as much of a fuss. In fact, they are incredibly hard to learn about.

 Tory conservativism is the type of conservativism that wants to follow the law and uphold the established social order, which is why Canada worked peacefully toward its "independence" from Britain. Hence, the British loyalty oath is:

I, [Insert full name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles (o whoever the monarch happens to be), his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

The loyalist take on US independence is vastly different with the British not spending much time on it and Canadians dealing with the movement from "la conquête" and a bit beyond. If you're lucky, you will be treated to the chaos which were the early years of the republic. I suggest the two series The War that Made America and Rebels and Redcoats.

The reason I would start the movement for independence starting with the French and Indian War. The easiest way for Britain to have kept the 13 colonies would have been to have said to General Braddock not to leave port until the colonists had come up with money to pay for their defence.

And to bugger off if they didn't.

Fortunately (Unfortunately?), the French weren't as interested in its North American territory as they were with the Caribbean ones. Had the Seven Years War turned out differently, the Colonists might have been incredibly tight with Britain realising that was their best bet for any serious defence.



When the bill arrived for the French and Indian War, the colonists were highly upset. They didn't learn their lesson: that war isn't the answer since it costs a lot of money. That is a lesson which is neglected in US history of the War for Independence.

The taxes weren't illegal, they were the bill for their defence.

But the colonists begged, borrowed, and stole their way through the War for Independence. And Louis XVI lost his head because its support for the colonists helped bankrupt France. 

The newly independent colonists sort of learned their lesson, but that also turned out to be a mess. After all, a few of the complaints from the Declaration of Independence were:

• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
• For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
• He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
• He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

And as the video above pointed out, they colonists weren't interested in paying taxes: even if it came from their own government. 

War was not the answer and the tories have been proven to be correct. The better course of action would have been to have worked peacefully within the legal framework since the War for Independence resulted in a mess which has lingered into modern times.

 

Aux Armes, citoyens!

 Imagine my surprise seeing this headline in Le Figaro after listening to gun nuts extol how the US is the beacon of "gun rights" and gun ownership. Here's the link, but you need to:

1. Be a subscriber to Le Figaro and
2. be able to understand French

to be able to read the article.

https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/face-a-l-insecurite-de-plus-en-plus-de-francais-s-arment-20220109

Yes, the French aren't "victims" to use the Gun Culture paradigm since they can get a firearm for protection. Sure, they have to undergo some form of serious background check before they can get permission to own them, but France is in 24th place for armed citizenry in the world with a ratio of 19.6 guns per 100 inhabitants. Or 12 million weapons in civilian hands in France.

Anyway, it was amusing to see an article like this in a French newspaper since the gun nuts like to claim that the US is somehow "unique" in the ability to own firearms. This article could have come from a US newspaper, which is the source of my amusement. Here are a few excerpts:

"Stop hoplophobia", chanted the activists of the Association for the Restoration of Citizen Carry of Arms (Arpac). Hoplophobia? "The irrational fear felt by some people at the mere mention of a weapon, where a normal person distrusts the one who carries it," they say. On Facebook, their page has more than 45,000 subscribers - three times as many as five years ago - who promote self-defence and the carrying of weapons for "responsible citizens". With a firearm, "you are no longer a victim, but an actor in your own safety", they insist...

Does he see himself shooting a potential burglar? I'm going to take all the necessary measures to prevent that from happening," he says. I'm going to install an armoured door and close the shutters every night. But I can imagine myself taking the gun out of the window and firing it into the air to scare the attacker. What is not possible is to stand by and do nothing...

Marie-Hélène, who lives alone in her house in the heart of a small town in the Hérault region, has the same desire to be safe. During the lockdown, "in the middle of the night, the municipal police rang my doorbell: they had seen a man loitering near my gate", reports this 60-year-old widow.

I think the "uniqueness" is less in the ability to own firearms and more in the irresponsible manner that they are owned in the United States. Or as the police advice mentioned in the article says:

Don't shoot if the man happens to be passing through your garden. You would be in more trouble than the offender.

Gun Control isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue it's one of public safety.

I am really sick of people who try to make this into anything other than the public safety issue that it actually is. Worse, they twist the Second Amendment to try and create a "right" which didn't exist until fairly recently.

Fortunately, even though Heller and McDonald removed the Second Amendment from its relationship to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the US Constitution: it made it clear that any "gun right" was subject to regulation.

In case you missed it all. From Heller.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5

Which has as a footnote (26):

We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Better yet:

But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Heller at 64

From McDonald:

It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40

So, let's forget the Second Amendment shit since even those "gun friendly" cases aren't on your side. Toss in how you harmonise them with the prior case law which made it clear the Second Amendment only applied to the Active (Organised) Militia (Presser and Miller).

You should feel really stupid if you find your Conservative cred is somehow tied to support for repealing the gun laws. You have been played since it was once a bi-partisan issue, but the powers that be figured out it was a good way to get you to vote against your interest (and sell some guns).

Richard Nixon is on record as saying:

     “I don’t know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house, The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth....why “can’t we go after handguns, period?”
    “I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it.” But “people should not have handguns.”

That's not the only anti-gun statement Nixon made.

Next, let's go to Conservative icon Ronald Reagan. Despite how he has been reformed, Reagan was a strong gun control advocate.

“Reagan last week declared his support for a bill requiring a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases. He did so at a George Washington University ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of the shooting that almost killed him and permanently disabled his press secretary, James S. Brady.

“It is called the Brady Bill, and Reagan said Congress should enact it without delay. ‘It's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun,’ the former president said.’”

“It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, ‘prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.’ The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

“Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. ‘I support the Brady Bill,’ he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, ‘and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay.’" SOURCE

Brady, as in "Brady Bill" and"the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence", is a reference to James Brady. James Brady was a victim of the 1981 attempt on Reagan's life.

Paul Helmke who was the head of the Brady Campaign, was mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana and a Goldwater Republican. In fact, a lot of the Brady people would call themselves conservative (that is a whole other post there).

Chief Justice Warren Burger, another Conservative, said this about the Second Amendment "scholarship" which is polluting this issue. In case the above clip gets yanked:

JUSTICE BURGER: That says a well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, people's rights to bear arms. This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word "fraud," on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. Now just look at those words. There are only three lines to that amendment. A well regulated militia -- if the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18 or any other age persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated? It's got to be registered, that you can't just deal with it at will. Someone asked me recently if I was for or against a bill that was pending in Congress calling for five days' waiting period. And I said, yes, I'm very much against it, it should be thirty days' waiting period so they find out why this person needs a handgun or a machine gun.

Next, the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 that expired in 2004 started out as an executive order by President George H.W. Bush. Somehow that got lost in all the polemic of this being a conservative v. liberal issue amongst all the other conservatives who backed gun control.

Let's put it this way, there is a reason that Gun Violence research has been banned: it's that it kills the "conservative" talking points on this issue.

Personally, you aren't conservative by any stretch if you can be conned into somehow supporting an issue which is harmful to yourself. 

Nor are you intelligent.

Another person's reasons for voting Green

I am posting this, which is the opinion of another Green Voter.  I don't agree with everything this person says, but the reasoning is pretty much what I was hearing from the people who didn't vote for Clinton.

I think these opinions need to get out there because there is too much nonsense being spread about what happened in 2016 without examining what really went on.

Open letter to Michelle Obama:
Dear Mrs. Obama,
At the Inbound 2017 conference in Boston you said;
"Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice,"
Over the last couple days, I've been thinking about your comments on women that didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.
I guess I'll start with saying I wanted to respond immediately, but was so angry I decided it would be best to let it sit for a bit while I processed my thoughts and emotions.
Looking at the words you chose to use is very telling-"voting against Hillary." In some way, it appears you recognize just how bad a candidate she was, that women would feel the need to "vote against" her.
I agree, many women did cast a vote against her. I have no doubt that a very large majority can tell you exactly why they did.
See Michelle, as a lifelong Democrat, I volunteered for Sen. Obama in '08. I used all of my vacation and sick time and took a leave of absence from my job at Kennedy Space Center to help get the good senator elected. I have art from the campaign office hanging in my kitchen; it has a nice positive message and in very large colorful letters it says "Yes We Can!"
There's a picture of now former VP Joe Biden, my husband, and myself at the campaign office on my fridge.
But I was not one of those that "voted against" Hillary Clinton even though there were plenty reasons to. Before my vote, there was a year of consideration, watching debates and speeches, knocking on doors, making phone calls, writing checks, discussing the candidates with friends and family, going to the DNC Convention, and don't forget crying. Oh, there was crying.
There was crying because of the missed opportunities, the lies and deceptions. I might not have voted against anything or anyone, but I sure as Hell was not going to vote for more of that.
My vote went to the other woman on the ticket, my vote went to the person I felt had the platform and moral integrity that most aligned with my beliefs.
I long for the day a woman sits behind the desk in the Oval Office of the White House, and I pray it happens in my lifetime. But it can't just be any woman, it has to be the right woman.
Hillary's loss had nothing to do with husbands telling their wives how to vote or not knowing one's voice. This was one of the most closely followed and well financed elections in our country's history. No, it has everything to do with Hillary's record and the Neo-Liberal agenda of your husband that at every turn, Hillary said she said she wanted to advance.
That brings me to my second point.
Where was your voice?
Where was your voice, Michelle, when your Peace Prize winning husband dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016 alone on a plethora of countries without even having the good grace or decency to declare war on these people? All told, he bombed 7 different countries. I'm curious, do you know the number of innocent women and children that were killed or maimed by these bombs? It must be in the 10's of thousands. Did you talk about this with your husband when you laid down at night?
Where was your voice when Barrack (our self proclaimed environmental president) signed off on a record number of natural gas, oil pipelines, and renewed drilling in the Gulf of Mexico?
Where was your voice when human rights violations were being committed on American and Native Peoples in Standing Rock by the same police President Obama allowed to become militarized, including using chemical agents that, according to the Geneva Convention, are illegal in warfare. As well as allowing private contractors to set dogs on peaceful people, using water cannons on them at well below freezing temperatures, shooting people with exploding devices that blew a large part of a young women's arm off. Where was your voice then Michelle?
Where was your voice when your husband gave trillions in taxpayers dollars to the big banks that caused the crash of '08 mere months after appointing the very cabinet that CitiGroup told him to? (thank you Wikileaks for that email)
I suppose it's no surprise that none of these bankers were jailed or that the rules are still in place that would allow the very same scenario to happen again.
Where was your voice when your husband, who was voted in on a platform of labeling GMOs, decided to side with Monsanto?
Where was your voice, Michelle, when record breaking numbers of People of Color were being shot down like dogs in the streets by the police your husband helped militarize? Where was your voice when for profit prison slavery continued on and on and on?
Where was your voice when newly elected President Obama didn't fight with everything he had for a public option? For me, this was the first indication that something was rotten in Rome. See, I'd just finished fighting for my life not only against breast cancer but having breast cancer with no health insurance.
Where was your voice when your husband deported 2.5 million undocumented people?
Where was your voice when your husband signed the NDAA making government propaganda legal and making it legal to assassinate and imprison Americans w/o charge or trial.
Where was your voice when he used Espionage Act to prosecute more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined? Or when he pushed the TPP?
Where Michelle, where was your voice when your husband said that our elections are not rigged when in one precinct alone, over 100,000 voters were purged from voter rolls, Donna Brazil was giving Hillary the questions to debates, or when DNC head Debbie Wasserman-Schultz resigned under the dark cloud of corruption from the DNC, only to be hired by Hillary?
Where was your voice when the Super Delegates declared their votes at the beginning of the primary?
Where was your voice when during the DNC Fraud Lawsuit Federal Judge Zloch said, "Democracy deserves the truth."
I could go on, but you know the record, you had a front row seat.
In closing, I'll acknowledge I've asked you a lot of questions, but my real question is this:
Michelle, do you know your voice?

Why I left the Democratic Party and went back to being independent.

OK, Hillary Clinton wasn't the only reason, but her candidacy was the final revulsion in a long string of signs that the Democratic party didn't want, or care about my vote.

I can really start this timeline with when I read a quote from Jomo Kenyatta something along the line of "does having two parties make you twice as democratic as we are?" Kenya was a one Party State and western democracies, such as the US, were trying to push "multiparty democracy".

One of the cold war staples was "free and fair elections", which seems laughable after the 2016 Presidential election.

I came up with this a while back (probably after the Philadelphia DNC).

My timeline is:
1980--Supported Anderson, but ended up voting for Carter, who lost anyway.
2000--Gore wins the popular vote, yet doesn't become president
2004--The Candidate I wanted to vote for, Gen. Wes Clark, dropped out before I had a chance to vote for him.
2008--Clinton v. Obama--Obama won and the pact was made for 2016
2015--Clinton is chosen to be democratic nominee before any votes are cast.  Sanders is "drafted" by popular demand.
2016--Sanders does well to my surprise, but the system is totally rigged against him.
--AP calls the primaries for Clinton before the largest state in the Union, California, has voted along with 6 other states and territories.
--Between AP calling the election and DNC in Philly, it becomes obvious that I have no voice in the primary selection process and I DEMEXIT.
--DNC Philly makes it clear the Democratic Party isn't.
--Clintonite overconfidence that Trump will lose.

US parties are supposed to be "coalitions", but that doesn't really work and the Republicans have become the party of the "right" (I won't call it conservative since it isn't),  The Democrats the party of the "Left": although many progressives and liberals are showing disgust with the Democratic Party (as are a lot of  conservatives with the Republican Party).

Sanders was willing to take his candidacy to the end of the cycle.  I have to admit that I was surprised he did as well as he did.  But the Democratic Party isn't truly "democratic" and Clinton was the chosen candidate.  It was said that the Dems preferred to lose with Clinton than win with Sanders.

But it is the lack of democracy in the process and unwillingness of either party to address this problem which drove me to the Greens.  The Greens were the only party talking election reform.  After all, Clinton was more about the big donors than the little guy (as the Sanders phenomenon pointed out).

It is the continued scapegoating with silly theories about Russian involvement, when it is pretty obvious that what cost the election was the electoral college.  Neither third party candidate on their own stole the vote from Clinton either: numbers here.

Quite frankly, the reason I voted for Jill Stein over Hillary Clinton was that Stein was the only candidate who was addressing the issues I cared for: including election reform.  I am not sure whether people who supported Clinton really knew, or cared, what she believed in.  I say this because one of the incentives for writing this is a run in with a Clinton supported who somehow believed Clinton wasn't a hawk.

Quite frankly, I don't think it made a lot of sense to try and debate hardcore Clinton supporters because I am not sure what they thought about Clinton or her politics.  I only know I didn't like what I saw when it came to her policies. 

They weren't what I believe in.

Or that I could trust her.

The problem with the Russian scapegoating is that if you analyse it, you find that the real failures were from the Democratic Party.  But it's a lot easier to blame someone else than address the systemic failings of US politics.  And I won't be voting for the two major parties unless some drastic changes happen.

Quite frankly, it was not the Russians, Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, or anyone beside the "Democratic" Party which drove me back into being independent.  I doubt I will bother with wasting my vote in a sham primary election (or showing much interest in that process).  Bernie and the Greens point out how much of a sham the current political situation is in the US, which is why I went with them.

Addition:

It was also influential that the Clinton camp (and pretty much everybody) was pointing out that

I would put money they are sorry they said things like this.

Trump would never win.  I can remember at least three predictions of a Clinton landslide.  Well, Clinton did get more popular votes, but the prediction of her winning was premature. I can say that most of the factors in my deciding to bolt from the Democratic party was due to their actions, not "Russian interference" of any sort. I think that goes for most people who voted for Third Parties.

Or just plain didn't vote.

Any real discussion of the election should try to address the real issues that led to Trump being President.

See also:

• The Democrats' performance as an opposition party? Pathetic 
• Why Did My Union Give an Early Endorsement to Hillary Clinton Over Bernie Sanders?