Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

Bernie Sanders Election Bulletin, 2016

Home 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 1999

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Mar 29, 2019] Trump Slams US Wars in the Middle East

During 2016 election campaign: "On foreign policy Hillary is trigger happy" says Trump and he is right 100%... And he continued Hillary policies.
And the he behaves as 100% pure militarist.
Notable quotes:
"... I've always thought that Hillary's support for the broader mission in Libya put the president on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach ..."
"... Had the secretaries of state and defense both opposed the war, he and others said, the president's decision might have been politically impossible. ..."
"... Except for that last minute of Trump_vs_deep_states, I almost thought that was a Bernie speech. An interesting general election plan is to take Bernie's ideas with a healthy dash of Trump spice in an attempt to coalesce the angry populist vote. ..."
"... Sanders is the last hope to avoid total disaster. Maybe he can help mitigate HRC's hawk stance in the ME. I think Israel is a lost cause though as the problem child with nukes. ..."
"... A political strategy based on xenophobia and divisiveness supports those who benefit from xenophobia and divisiveness – those who exploit labor (including Trump who outsources jobs, hires H2-B workers, and exploits workers domestically and overseas), and those who benefit from the military-industrial-security-serveillance complex; and harms the rest of us. ..."
"... Obama and the Democrats did everything they could to undermine and stamp out progressive organization. ..."
"... Except it's recent US actions which have undermined the Middle East in general. From Saddam to Libya to ISIS etc etc. ..."
"... if you pay them enough. ..."
"... "We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries for the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated." ..."
"... Good point. I keep wondering why Hillary the Hawk's actual illegal war and murdering of Muslims is worse than Trump's ban. ..."
"... Imagine Trump running to the left of Hillary on defense / interventionism, trade, and universal healthcare. That would sure make things interesting. He could win. ..."
"... James Carville, astute handicapper that he is, has already sniffed out that Hillary now needs Bernie more than Bernie needs Hillary. ..."
"... even in comparison with Hillary Clinton ..."
"... "core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support among veterans and active duty soldiers" ..."
"... "As a small business owner, not only are you trying to provide benefits to your employees, you're trying to provide benefits to yourself. I have seen our health insurance for my own family, go up $500 dollars a month in the last two years. We went from four hundred something, to nine hundred something. We're just fighting to keep benefits for ourselves. The thought of being able to provide benefits to your employees is almost secondary, yet to keep your employees happy, that's a question that comes across my desk all the time. I have to keep my employees as independent contractors for the most part really to avoid that situation, and so I have turnover" ..."
"... "We do not qualify for a subsidy on the current health insurance plan. My question to you is not only are you looking out for people that can't afford healthcare, but I'm someone that can afford it, but it's taking a big chunk of the money I bring home." ..."
"... "What you're saying is one of the real worries that we're facing with the cost of health insurance because the costs are going up in a lot of markets, not all, but many markets and what you're describing is one of the real challenges." ..."
"... "There's a lot of things I'm looking at to try to figure out how to deal with exactly the problem you're talking about. There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to the real world test, will this really help a small business owner or a family be able to afford it. What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't understand." ..."
"... You echo my feelings. My loathing of Clinton knows no bounds, and I cannot vote for her, no matter what. But I simply don't trust Trump. He's a gold-digger extrodinaire, and quite the accomplished showman. He knows how to play to the crowd, and he's clearly quite quick to shape shift. The wrecked tatters of what's called the USA "media" gives Trump a YOOOGE pass on simply everything and anything the man says or does. ..."
"... if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored, get nothing done ..."
"... Trump doesn't need to see the Zapruder film. He was alive then and knows the story, just like everyone else of a certain age. Nay, verily, he just means to cash in on it. ..."
"... Being Left of Hillary is a really really really low bar. He probably is, but thats probably because Hillary is right wing. You know, like almost all American politicians from both parties. Trumps not left of Bernie (at least not yet or not right now: I expect hes going to swing left in the general to scoop up Bernie voters), and Bernies just an Eisenhower Republican, which is admittedly to the left of basically all the other politicians today. ..."
May 18, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

There are good reasons to harbor serious reservations about The Donald, given that he changes his position as frequently as most people change their clothes. But so far, he has been consistent in making an argument that is sorely underrepresented in the media and in policy circles: that our war-making in the Middle East has been a costly disaster with no upside to the US. Trump even cites, without naming him, Joe Stiglitz's estimate that our wars have cost at least $4 trillion.

As Lambert put it, "I hate it when Trump is right."

If you think Trump is overstating his case on Hillary's trigger-happiness, read this New York Times story, How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk .

And on Clinton's role in Libya , which Obama has since called the worst decision of his presidency:

Mrs. Clinton's account of a unified European-Arab front powerfully influenced Mr. Obama. "Because the president would never have done this thing on our own," said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser.

Mr. Gates, among others, thought Mrs. Clinton's backing decisive. Mr. Obama later told him privately in the Oval Office, he said, that the Libya decision was "51-49."

"I've always thought that Hillary's support for the broader mission in Libya put the president on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach," Mr. Gates said. Had the secretaries of state and defense both opposed the war, he and others said, the president's decision might have been politically impossible.

And yes, that's this Ben Rhodes .

kj1313 , May 13, 2016 at 7:15 am

Best assessment yet. This is a great speech bite from Donald but I have no idea if he means it. (Though I don't agree with it just look at his Muslim Ban stance) Half the time he makes coherent reasonable arguments, the other half the time I think he definitely is a Clinton Mole. I don't know which Trump I'm getting hour to hour much less day to day.

MtnLife , May 13, 2016 at 8:02 am

Except for that last minute of Trump_vs_deep_states, I almost thought that was a Bernie speech. An interesting general election plan is to take Bernie's ideas with a healthy dash of Trump spice in an attempt to coalesce the angry populist vote. It'll be interesting to watch Hillary circle the wagons of the content, elite center in an attempt to hold off the marginalized hordes of angry "savage plebs", especially if the convention seems stolen. Still hoping for some miracle to pull Sanders through.

Jus' Sayin' , May 13, 2016 at 1:32 pm

Miracle indeed, Sanders is the last hope to avoid total disaster. Maybe he can help mitigate HRC's hawk stance in the ME. I think Israel is a lost cause though as the problem child with nukes.

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 8:22 am

In all seriousness, why is his Muslim ban idea bad? Or for that matter why would it, in principle, be a bad idea to ban nearly all foreigners from entering the US? After all, it's not as if the US has some actual need for foreigners to enter considering the large and growing desperately poor domestic population. Especially considering that heretofore (let's be real here) both legal and illegal immigration has been mainly exploited to destroy domestic labor conditions in the US.

This is a fact a lot of ostensibly good-hearted progressive and wealthy liberals conveniently ignore (they'd probably cry themselves to sleep if they could no longer help to improve the lot of that below minimum wage illegal immigrant maid they hired). Well, the working poor aren't ignoring it, and the lid is going to blow soon if this keeps up. Donald Trump and the popularity of his Muslim ban is only an early sign of the brewing discontent.

marym , May 13, 2016 at 9:24 am

He didn't propose banning Muslims as a way to address our jobs and economic problems (which it isn't), he proposed it as a way to address domestic terror (which it isn't). It's a political tactic to stir up and implicitly sanction hate, prejudice, divisiveness, and violence.

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 10:09 am

Not arguing your point, however how are Trump supporters reading this? These people are already against any immigrant coming into the US for economic reasons, and in all honesty they are looking for any excuse whatsoever to view immigrants in a bad light.

Just to add to that a bit, it's also why immigrant crime is always being hyped up and exaggerated by Trump supporters. The real issue deep down is that immigrants are threatening them economically, and they'll use any justification whatsoever to get rid of them.

Is it right? I don't really know how to objectively answer that. But for the people doing it, this could work out in economic terms for them. So at least from their perspective it's a good idea.

fresno dan , May 13, 2016 at 11:05 am

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers

AS WELL AS
https://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/

I think people are just so angry with how the squillionaries use "politically correct" proper thinking about immigration to hide their illegal suppression of wages that even outrageous and outlandish statements by The Donald will not dissuade his supporters – – after all, the supporters could ask why is this issue of wage suppression, "by any means necessary", that affects FAR, FAR more people who ARE US citizens so scrupulously IGNORED by the media (media owned by rich??? – of course). As disturbing as what The Donald says, what is NOT SAID by the ENTIRE (except Sanders) US political establishment, is far more disturbing, as I think it shows an utterly captured political caste. As well as the rank hypocrisy that if any of these immigrants don't have health care after they arrive, the squillionaires couldn't care less if they died in the streets – no matter how rich they are, they want to make more people poorer. They are such an evil enemy that people will put up with The Donald.

It is a fact that these tech billionaires engaged in an illegal activity. It is a fact the US government simply ignored enforcing laws and refuses to punish them.

Trump in my view will not be able to do even a quarter of some of this crap like banning Muslims – laws do have to be passed. But the fact remains that Trump will probably be the only presidential nominee (not presidential candidate, i.e., Sanders), and the last one in 40 years, to even merely talk about these issues.
The fact that Trump succeeds just shows how famished people are to some challenge to the war mongering, coddling of the rich that is passed off as something that the majority supports.

marym , May 13, 2016 at 11:46 am

A political strategy based on xenophobia and divisiveness supports those who benefit from xenophobia and divisiveness – those who exploit labor (including Trump who outsources jobs, hires H2-B workers, and exploits workers domestically and overseas), and those who benefit from the military-industrial-security-serveillance complex; and harms the rest of us.

It seems no more likely that Trump as president will actually promote policies that will "work out in economic terms" for ordinary people as it was to think Obama would put on this "comfortable shoes" and join a picket line (though I bought that one at the time).

NotTimothyGeithner , May 13, 2016 at 12:21 pm

Hillary basically won relatively well to do minorities who voted for her in 2008 just in smaller numbers. Poorer minorities stayed home in Southern states where Internet access is less available and progressive organizations are just churches. On the surface, Sanders sounds very much like the media perception of President Hope and Change who isn't as popular as much as no one wants to admit the first non white President was terrible or they actively applauded terrible policy.

Free college probably didn't appeal to people with junk degrees from for profit diploma mills. The damage is done. People need jobs not school at this point or incomes. A green jobs guarantee act would have been a better push front and center, but again, this is with hindsight. Many minority voters simply didn't vote, and Hillary pushed that "you don't know Bernie" line to scare voters that Sanders was another Obama.

Obama and the Democrats did everything they could to undermine and stamp out progressive organization.

jrs , May 13, 2016 at 2:22 pm

Agree that jobs should be the focus (or income and meeting basic needs). Education as the focus appeals to the under 25 years old college bound crowd, but not so much to anyone older having to survive out there in the work world everyday.

B , May 13, 2016 at 11:59 am

I am a Trump supporter and I am not against immigrants or immigration. I am opposed to doing nothing in the face of a broken immigration system. I do not think it is wise for any country to have millions and millions of undocumented workers in its midst. I believe we should legalize those that are here. Those that have committed crimes not related to immigrating or over staying visas should absolutely be deported and lose the privilege of living in the US. I live in Spain, but am an American. If I broke minor laws, such as drunk driving, assault or drug possession I would be deported too, seems fair to me. I believe we have to revamp border security, though I don´t think a wall spanning the entire border would be wise or effective I personally think Trump is speaking hyperbolically and symbolically about the wall. Nonetheless, our elites sure do love living behind big walls and gated communities, with armed security, maybe we should ask them why, walls are just racist anyways, no?

Immigrant crime is not some myth, its real and sometimes it is a very tragic consequence of a broken immigration system. The fact that the cartels also exploit our broken border and immigration system is not a myth either, it is reality.

And as for a temporary ban on Muslims coming from Syria, Libya and other locations that have been devastated by the covert and overt wars of the US I support it totally, for no other reason than public safety, which is the first reason we institute government. Remember this happened just after Paris, public safety is a very legitimate concern. Also, why are Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States taking in a single refugee? The Saudis have the money and the capacity to to do this. They have tents used only during the hajj that house thousands upon thousands. Where is that wonderful, charitable side of Islam?

I wish the world were different. I don´t harbor prejudice against anyone. Those that want to come and live, grow and contribute to American civilization, Come, please!! But our world is very dangerous, and we have created enemies that seek to do harm to our society and civilization in anyway that they can. We have to protect ourselves and our nation. I wish beyond wishing, that it was someone besides the Donald saying these things, but, it is what it is. I am not gonna shoot the messanger cuase I dont like his personality, or because I would not be friends with someone like him.

kj1313 , May 13, 2016 at 3:17 pm

Except it's recent US actions which have undermined the Middle East in general. From Saddam to Libya to ISIS etc etc.

jrs , May 13, 2016 at 2:17 pm

Illegal immigration could likely be enforced in some industries (on the lower paid scale in garment making sweatshops and so on). And this could probably best be done by prosecuting the employers doing the hiring. But I'm not at all convinced the country could run without immigrants entirely. Who would pick the crops? Ok maybe lots of people at a $15 an hour minimum wage. But at current compensation? Though I don't know if this really needs to be done via illegal immigration, it could be done by much more formalized guest worker programs I suppose.

Tony S , May 13, 2016 at 3:59 pm

Or, we could just let the market work. You WILL get American workers to perform just about any job if you pay them enough. Obviously, the reasonable price point for labor is currently well below what a US citizen will accept. But if I offered a million dollars to get my lawn mowed, I would have a line out the door of American workers begging to have the job.

Guest workers are just another way to depress US citizens' wages. And immigration reform is best tackled at the employer level, like you said - anybody who doesn't make this part of his or her "reform" plan is not to be taken seriously. (I regularly mention this to conservatives, and they always look for a way to justify going after the powerless immigrants anyway.)

John Wright , May 13, 2016 at 6:04 pm

High wages can encourage more automation or substitution of crops that require less manual labor or even cause people to exit farming as uneconomic.. But the number of workers employed in farming is relatively small.

Per this USDA document http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/259572/eib3_1_.pdf in 2000, 1.9 percent of the workforce worked in agriculture.

The World Bank has the USA workforce at 161 million in 2014 and if about 2% of this workforce is employed in farming, this is about 3.2 million people throughout the USA. And the 3.2 million count is probably not all illegal immigrant workers. This report suggests government price supports have encouraged more people to work in agriculture, implying that the government is indirectly creating low wage jobs by price supports.

From the above pdf. "For example, the institutionalization of what began as emergency income support in the 1930s has likely slowed the movement of labor out of the farm sector."

I am of the opinion that the law of one price will apply if there is relatively free movement of workers, legally or illegally, across borders.

Note, Trump never suggests e-verify and employer enforcement, which would be a low cost way of enforcing citizen employment and would avoid a costly "great wall".

Trump and HRC's investments are probably more profitable due to a lower labor cost influenced by low wage workers.

Katniss Everdeen , May 13, 2016 at 11:45 am

And people don't OPPOSE his restrictions on Muslim immigration because they feel so charitable towards and accepting of Muslims.

We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries for the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated. And we've allowed our own civil liberties to be radically infringed. All because " THEY hate us for our 'freedoms.' " Who the hell do you think THEY are?

But it's Trump who is hateful, prejudiced, divisive and bigoted? As if "welcoming" some immigrants from countries that we callously destroyed perfectly absolves those who were busy waiting in line for the newest i-gadget and couldn't be bothered to demand an end to the slaughter.

Get a clue. Trump's not talking about murdering anybody. And no amount of puffed up "outrage" and name-calling is going to get the stain out. Not to mention it's the most sane and humane way to protect the "homeland" from the "terrorism" that we, ourselves, created.

lindaj , May 13, 2016 at 3:09 pm

"We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries for the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated."

Good point. I keep wondering why Hillary the Hawk's actual illegal war and murdering of Muslims is worse than Trump's ban.

Pespi , May 13, 2016 at 9:26 am

"I'm against all immigration, as it's merely a lever to lower wages." "I'm against the immigration of muslims, because they're bad terrorists." There is a difference in these two statements.

Vatch , May 13, 2016 at 9:55 am

You are correct that there is too much immigration to the U.S., and it causes economic and environmental problems. However, Trump's Muslim ban would cover more than immigration. He would also ban temporary visits by Muslims (except for the mayor of London, I suppose).

I object very strongly to Muslim extremism, and a lot of Muslims have extremist views. But not all of them do. And many Christians, Hindus, and whatever also have extremist views which should be opposed. Trump's not proposing a bad on travel by extremist Christians; he's singling out Muslims because they scare millions of Americans. It's demagoguery.

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 10:39 am

You are not quite right there. Trump supporters do indeed want to ban Christian immigrants as well (the vast, overwhelming majority of immigrants from Mexico, central, and South America are Christians of some sort) although in the case of Christians the excuse is "violent crime" since obviously Trump supporters can not disparage Christians specifically for their Christianity. Seriously, watch any Trump speech and you'll see that he spends more time talking about why all American (Christian) immigrants need to be banned (crime) than why Muslim immigrants need to be banned (terror). Economic insecurity is at the root of all of it.

Vatch , May 13, 2016 at 3:56 pm

Has Trump demanded that Christians from Europe or Canada be prevented from entering the U.S.? I'm pretty sure he hasn't. If he's really motivated by economic reasons, there's no need to specify a particular religion, such as Islam, or a particular nationality, such as Mexicans.

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 5:09 pm

People from Europe and Canada already have high salaries. Or they are perceived to have high salaries in their home countries. IE they are not percieved as an economic threat. I guarantee you, show me a poor, third world country that is sending a lot of people to US right now and and I'll show you an ethnic groups that faces some prejudice. Come on, it's not well paid people with stable jobs and incomes who are going around being prejudiced against immigrants. It's the poor and the desperate who are doing it.

There is a reason for that. Ignoring that reason and pretending that it's some bizarre and unfathomable psychological illness just coincidentally affecting people who are also offing themselves from despair left and right isn't going to make it go away. Rather, you are inviting something terrible to happen. The Germans didn't decide to follow Hitler because times were good, and a friendly PR campaign encouraging openness and acceptance among the poor misguided racists and immigrant haters out there will do exactly nothing to help matters.

pictboy3 , May 13, 2016 at 10:56 am

I don't think anyone (most anyone anyway) would disagree that there are plenty of Muslims who are not extremists. The problem for us is, how do you tell the difference? The San Bernadino shooter was a health inspector, had a wife, kids, a middle class job, ties to the community and still decided to shoot up his co-workers with his wife in tow. Plenty of the European ISIS recruits come from middle class families that are seemingly well-adjusted. If these people (keep in mind Farook was a US citizen) can become terrorists, how can we possibly screen new entrants with any sort of efficacy?

I'd say it's probably worth the miniscule risk of possible immigrants turning out to be terrorists if there was some other benefit to having them come in, but if we agree there's too much immigration to the US already and it is hurting actual US citizens, what exactly is the upside to keep allowing Muslims in?

By the way, I've been lurking on this site for a few weeks now, first time commenter. It's nice to find some quality discussion on the internet. Nice to meet everyone.

Jim , May 13, 2016 at 11:29 am

Where are these "extremist Christians" burning and burying people alive, beheading hostages, blasting away at crowds in night clubs? "Christian extremism" is a figment of your imagination. The attempt to equate Moslem violence with conservative Christians is utterly absurd. Do you seriously believe that soime Amish dude is going to run amuck in a New York night club and slaughter hundreds of people?

Lambert Strether , May 13, 2016 at 2:38 pm

The Bush administration?

cm , May 13, 2016 at 2:45 pm

A cheap shot. Please explain how the Obama administration differs from the Bush administration.

Skippy , May 13, 2016 at 6:07 pm

Obama does not get is morning SITREP delivered with biblical headers

"The religious theme for briefings prepared for the president and his war cabinet was the brainchild of Major General Glen Shaffer, a committed Christian and director for intelligence serving Mr Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In the days before the six-week invasion, Major General Shaffer's staff had created humorous covers for the briefings to alleviate the stress of preparing for battle.

But as the body count rose, he decided to introduce biblical quotes.

However, many of his Pentagon colleagues were reportedly opposed to the idea, with at least one Muslim analyst said to be greatly offended.

A defence official warned that if the briefing covers were leaked, the damage to America's standing in the Arab world 'would be as bad as Abu Ghraib' – the Baghdad prison where U.S. troops abused Iraqis.

But Major General Shaffer, 61, who retired in August 2003, six months after the invasion, claimed he had the backing of the president and defence secretary. When officials complained, he told them the practice would continue because it was 'appreciated by my seniors' – Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Bush.

The briefing covers were revealed for the first time by GQ after they were leaked to the U.S. magazine by a source at the Pentagon."

Disheveled Marsupial . whilst I understand the acts committed transcend time and political party's . never the less in – The Name Of – can not be white washed away

cassandra , May 13, 2016 at 5:14 pm

cm has a point; you should have included Obama/Clinton.

Yves Smith , May 13, 2016 at 2:48 pm

Did you manage to miss Trump's point in the video that the US has killed millions in the Middle East, and that if US presidents had gone to the beach for the last 15 years. everyone would have been better off? And that we murder people by drone in addition to all our undeclared wars? You are seriously pretending Christians not only have blood on their hands, but started these wars and have killed people in vastly bigger numbers than we have? I'm not defending terrorists, but your position is a remarkable airbrushing.

Ulysses , May 13, 2016 at 3:31 pm

The worst domestic terrorist the U.S. ever produced, Timothy McVeigh, wasn't Amish, yet neither was he Muslim. Denying people the opportunity to immigrate here– based solely on religion– contradicts the principles of tolerance on which this country was founded.

JTMcPhee , May 13, 2016 at 3:42 pm

Yah, this is a Great Country, isn't it, where everyone has the right to own assault weapons, and the opportunity to assemble and detonate giant bombs hidden in rental trucks, and you can do pretty much whatever you can get away with, depending on one's degree of immunity and impunity and invisibility

But the Panopticon will Save us

Vatch , May 13, 2016 at 4:01 pm

Eric Rudolph and Robert Lewis Dear, Jr., are more examples of Christian terrorists. Outside the country, there's Anders Breivik (well, he's only partially Christian, but he's definitely not Muslim).

TG , May 13, 2016 at 12:20 pm

Kudos. Well said.

lyman alpha blob , May 13, 2016 at 2:16 pm

I get your point from a labor standpoint but who gets to decide to shut the door and say 'no more room at the inn'? Unless it's First Peoples I think it would be pretty hypocritical coming from the descendants of all the other immigrants who crossed over themselves at some point.

PS: I haven't heard this talked about much but does anyone really believe Trump is serious with all this immigrant-bashing rhetoric? If he is anywhere near as rich as he claims to be, he got there at least in part, and likely in large part by exploiting cheap labor. While I've never stayed in a Trump property to see for myself I'm guessing that all the hotel employees aren't direct descendants of the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Vatch , May 13, 2016 at 2:23 pm

Unless it's First Peoples I think it would be pretty hypocritical coming from the descendants of all the other immigrants who crossed over themselves at some point.

Everybody outside of Africa, including "First Peoples" (if I understand that phrase correctly), is a descendant of immigrants. The ancestors of the Amer-Indians (probably) came from Siberia over the Bering land bridge during the late ice age.

It might be hypocritical for an actual immigrant to advocate restrictions on immigration, but that's not the case for descendants of immigrants. But if there are restrictions, they shouldn't be based on religion or race.

lyman alpha blob , May 13, 2016 at 11:14 pm

I don't really think shutting down immigration is the answer. It's not practical and isn't likely to solve the problems blamed on immigration even if you could keep people out.

People don't leave their countries en masse unless there's some kind of disaster. A little less imperialism turning nations to rubble would be a much better solution.

anon , May 13, 2016 at 2:37 pm

So you believe that no people, anywhere, ever, have a right to determine who can join their community, contribute to their community, or undercut their community's wages and values. Except if some "First Peoples" show up and endorse the idea? Do they have divine right of kings or something? What if we got one Indian to agree? A plurality of them?

If it was right for the natives to resist the destruction of their way of life in 1492-1900, and it was, it is right for the natives to resist of the destruction of their way of life now. Even if those natives' skin now comes in multiple colors.

Tony S , May 13, 2016 at 4:09 pm

Well, I have trouble believing that Trump is serious about his TPP-bashing and Iraq-war-bashing, I have trouble believing Trump's words are credible on just about any issue.

It's going to be a rough four years, whether Trump wins or loses.

Vatch , May 13, 2016 at 4:50 pm

Well, Sanders still has a chance, although he's a long shot. Democratic voters in Kentucky, Oregon, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the District of Columbia have a chance to save the nomination for him.

In Puerto Rico, Montana, and North Dakota, the election events are open, so anyone who's registered can vote for Sanders. In California, registered independents can also vote for Sanders.

different clue , May 13, 2016 at 9:50 pm

If its hypocritical, perhaps we should live with that if it is also reality-based and pragmatic. As in " we've got a good thing going here and we don't need nobody else muscling in on our sweet racket".

Separately, many advocates of ILLEGAL immigration carefully pull a sleight-of-mouth bait-and-switch between ILLEGAL immigration and legal immigration. Accepters of carefully controlled legal immigration can still reject ILLEGAL immigration for pragmatic social-survival reasons.

steelhead23 , May 13, 2016 at 5:28 pm

Quite simply, the idea of banning Muslims entry to the U.S. is an affront to the very nature of the American experiment, of plurality, equality, and religious freedom. However, recent events in Europe, specifically the sexual assaults in Cologne and elsewhere show that some young Muslim men are a problem. So are some young American men. An issue we need to wrestle with is how to reduce this problem. Such problems are not about religion, they are cultural, they are about interpersonal respect and behavior. But, the West, broadly speaking, has shown horrendous disrespect to Moslems. The U.S. has attacked wedding parties and funerals, destroyed cities and countries, behaving like Crusaders. Perhaps were the West to display less barbarism toward Moslems, they would express more respect toward us. Seems worth a try.

NotTimothyGeithner , May 13, 2016 at 9:29 am

He doesn't have to mean anything. Trump needs to drive potential Democratic turnout down. On one hand, reminding people how awful Hillary is effectively destroys volunteer efforts which is how voters get registered and identified for gotv. The other side is what is the perception of the average Democratic voter of Hillary's record. Hillary supporters have pushed the "tested," "likely to win, " and "inevitable" arguments for a long time now. How many people in the potential electorate understood Hillary was a hawk when they voted or didn't bother to show up? Bernie used words such as "poor judgement" for fear of being labeled sexist. Trump won't hold back.

Perhaps, Trump was a mole, but what can Bill offer that the GOP can't? Air Force One might not be the most luxurious plane, but its the Air Force plane wherever the President is. Thats respect no one can buy. Reagan was carted through the White House, so why not Trump?

MikeNY , May 13, 2016 at 7:17 am

Imagine Trump running to the left of Hillary on defense / interventionism, trade, and universal healthcare. That would sure make things interesting. He could win.

bowserhead , May 13, 2016 at 9:22 am

It ain't over. She's got one countermove left which is to somehow get Bernie on the ticket and grab the enthusiastic and politically correct (if not fully-informed) millenial vote. Otherwise the dilution of the blue vote in the swing states will loom large. James Carville, astute handicapper that he is, has already sniffed out that Hillary now needs Bernie more than Bernie needs Hillary.

NotTimothyGeithner , May 13, 2016 at 10:19 am

Sanders on the ticket would only undermine Sanders. This Is about the DLC or the status quo. The length of Sanders career has made him credible, but Hillary has already lost this same race to an empty suit. The Democrats have bled support since Obama went full Reagan, but in many ways, this is a conflict between Democratic elites and their loyalist followers and everyone else. Accepting assimilation will only hurt Sanders. Forcing a Vice President onto Hillary such as Gabbard would be a far better aim. Sanders supporters aren't interested in a status quo candidate, supported by the usual list of villains.

Hillary can get a begrudging vote, but she will never endive enthusiasm. Bernie and Hillary uniting will only annoy people.

Michael Fiorillo , May 13, 2016 at 7:29 am

Yes, and then, as his long history with customers, contractors, vendors and creditors has shown, he'll fuck us.

Please don't take this as advocacy for the Other One, but Donnie's entire career is based on screwing people over; this is just another, albeit far bigger, hustle.

Don't think for a second that you could rely on him to follow through honestly about anything; it's always and forever about Donnie.

anon , May 13, 2016 at 7:51 am

As if HRC wont?

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 8:43 am

Hey, there's at least a 1% chance that Trump won't go out if his way to screw the American people considering the blackbox nature of his candidacy, whereas there is at least a 100% chance that HRC will screw the American people hard. And add in the fact that she is a known psychopath with an itchy trigger finger who will have the Red Button on her desk if she gets into the oval office Yeah. Trump isn't looking too bad now, is he?

Ian , May 13, 2016 at 9:05 am

I gotta admit that Trump has always been a wild card for me, and while he is likely to screw us, Hillary definitely will. Still the only candidate worth supporting in any conceivable sense is Bernie.

Jason , May 13, 2016 at 2:54 pm

Given his gleeful endorsement of torture, advocacy for war crimes, nods to totalitarianism and fascism, his own clear psychopathy, along with his racism, xenophobia, and apparent ignorance on everything from medicine to the environment, and nuclear weapons, yes he looks bad, even in comparison with Hillary Clinton , which says a great deal about just how awful he truly is.

Ulysses , May 13, 2016 at 3:17 pm

They are both truly awful!! If they turn out to be the top two candidates on the ballot, I will have no choice but to write in Bernie, or vote Green.

Jason , May 13, 2016 at 3:49 pm

I'm personally more frightened by Trump than Clinton. I've lived through almost 8 years of Obama, plus Bush and Clinton how much worse than those could another 4-8 years of the same be? Trump is a terrifying like my house on fire. But at the same time, I can certainly understand the desire to vote for the Green with a clear conscience.

Perhaps we'll get lucky, and Hillary's campaign will collapse before the convention. Bernie would be the first candidate I could really vote for (and who'd have a real chance at winning).

steelhead23 , May 13, 2016 at 6:29 pm

Why not put your vote where your words are? We're Senator Bernie Sanders to be the candidate, my vote would be his. If he's not, and he endorses Secretary Clinton, then my vote goes to Doctor Jill Stein, my favorite candidate anyway. Given the momentum Sanders has generated, were he, instead of supplicating himself to Clinton following her coronation, to stand behind Ms. Stein Only in my dreams. Sigh

different clue , May 13, 2016 at 9:56 pm

The DLC Third-Way Clintonite Obamacrats will not let Bernie become nominee no matter what. If the party can't coronate Clinton, the party will try to bolt the severed head of Joe Biden onto Clinton's headless body . . and run THAT.

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 3:58 pm

"We came. We saw. He died. [Raucous laughter]"

That right there is what convinced me that the woman is a psychopath. She should have been carried out out of the interview in a straight jacket, and yet there are some people who trying to make her president. Trump may be a narcissist, but I would not say that he's psychotic.

If nothing else you need to support Trump for the survival of humanity.

flora , May 13, 2016 at 10:52 am

Thinking about a Trump/hillary_clinton. contest reminds me of the movie 'The Sting'; where a couple of honest con men take down a dishonest con man who killed their friend. I see Hillary as the dishonest con man.

jrs , May 13, 2016 at 2:34 pm

In reality Trump is NOT to the left of Hillary on universal healthcare. Read his website.

Look since the guy is a major presidential candidate whether one likes that or not, I have no problem directing people to his website. See how he puts his actual policy positions, such as they are, in his own words.

Interventionism and trade remain to be seen as personally I think his positions on them are likely to still uh evolve as they say during the campaign season. So I'm leaving the verdict out there.

MtnLife , May 13, 2016 at 8:06 am

I brought up this idea right when he became the presumptive nominee but this isn't really a pivot left. He's always been less of a hawk than Hillary. One of the few positions he has been relatively consistent on. I see him biding his time for a full pivot until Bernie is out of the picture. Here's to hoping that doesn't happen.

MikeNY , May 13, 2016 at 8:18 am

Like all of my best thoughts, unoriginal. :-p

MtnLife , May 13, 2016 at 10:00 am

My apologies, my friend. Didn't mean to step on you. Meant it as a concurrence. Sipping coffee slowly today. You're one of my favorite people here for your regularly spot on, insightful comments.

MikeNY , May 13, 2016 at 10:10 am

Kind words, TY.

Yves Smith , May 13, 2016 at 8:24 am

Yes, my big effort to tell myself that Life Under Trump may not be as horrible as I fear is that the record of outsider presidents (Carter) and celebrity governors (Schwarznegger and Jesse Ventura) is they get very little done.

NotTimothyGeithner , May 13, 2016 at 9:57 am

Modern governors are bound by devolution and mandates. They are just glorified city managers with the staff to do the city manager's job. Even popular, insider governors can do very little. The President can set the terms by which the governors operate.

John Wright , May 13, 2016 at 10:02 am

I'm concerned that HRC will get more done than the Donald, but little of HRC's actions will be positive.

California handled Schwarznegger without too many problems as he tried unsuccessfully to "break down boxes".

He replaced, via recall, the forgettable democratic Governor Gray Davis who simply disappeared from politics.

As I recall, Davis papered over the CA energy crisis until after the election, figuring that when the s**t hit the fan, he'd have been safely reinstalled in office.

The recall campaign proved this a bad assumption.

Schwarznegger actually tried to do something about climate change, see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/big-energy-gamble.html

I see HRC as possibly getting more wars started, TPP/TTIP approved, a grand bargain done on SS, and providing more coddling to the financial, medical and insurance industries.

If many or all of HRC's possible negative accomplishments will not be done by Trump, then that could justify electing a president who accomplishes little..

jrs , May 13, 2016 at 2:46 pm

Yea Schwarznegger was ok. He made a few very devoted enemies in a few unions. But he was probably far better on pushing environmental issues than Jerry fracking Brown ever was or will be. If it was him versus Jerry at this point, I might very well prefer Arnold.

jsn , May 13, 2016 at 11:37 am

I think Trump at least understands that you can't take money from people who don't have any. His casino enterprise in Atlantic City may have taught him that.

Like Anne Amnisia's link yesterday, I feel like I know where I stand with a Mussolini and can envision taking a bullet honorably in resistance where the DNC method has been slowly killing me my whole adult life and, short of Bernie, I can't see how to resist!

If he's ineffectual and doesn't start more wars, at least its more time to organize and Trump's the kind of "leader" that might give focus to resistance.

Deloss Brown , May 13, 2016 at 4:08 pm

Yves, I wish I thought you were right. But The Duck is so bizarre, so definitively unhinged, that no one can predict what he'll do. He changes positions as the wind blows. And when he follows any philosophy at all, it's the "Conservative" philosophy. He doesn't believe in global warming. He once said that there should be NO minimum wage. I'm a Bernie fan, not a Hillary fan, but I would never, ever take the risk of letting the Hare-Brained Jabberwocky into any position of power, which means, probably, that I have to vote for Hillary, and even start sending her money after the primaries. Probably.

marym , May 13, 2016 at 8:48 am

His healthcare plan on his campaign website is the usual Republican gibberish – repeal Obamacare, sell insurance across state lines, block grant Medicaid.

He suggested 20-30,000 troops to Syria in response to a debate question, then said he would never do that, but send " air power and military support" instead. ( LINK )

marym , May 13, 2016 at 8:57 am

edit: Position on the website is also to give veterans the ability to "choose" healthcare outside the VA system. (I'm not knowledgeable to say if this would actually help current pressing VA issues, but it is a move from a national public health service model to a private care model, so not leftward).

MikeNY , May 13, 2016 at 9:30 am

Thanks for that. I think the general idea holds, though: it's a populist remake of politics, and I think if Trump stakes out some 'unconventional' positions that are to the 'left' of HRC, he could beat her.

marym , May 13, 2016 at 12:39 pm

Well, if by left you meant 'left' then we agree :) His appeal is much broader, though IMO a combination of rightward demagoguery and leftward populist-i-ness.

MikeNY , May 13, 2016 at 5:05 pm

You're right about the demagoguery. So again, we agree!

JTMcPhee , May 13, 2016 at 9:43 am

That VA notion is a dagger pointed at the heart of all those people who for whatever reason, "took the King's shilling" or drew the short straws in the draft lotteries or, before that, were nailed and "inducted" just by living in heavy-draft-quota areas. And of course the Greatest Generation, so many of whom got drug into earlier US imperial wars (Narrative notwithstanding.)

Sending GIs to docs outside the VA system (itself under siege for generations now by the same shits who bring on the Forever War that generates ever more damaged people needing those "services"), to docs who in my experience pretty uniformly have zero knowledge of vet-specific problems and diseases and injuries, who will be paid how much to treat what quota of veterans, again? Crucifying GIs on the HMO cross, so people can pretend there's "care" for them, via docs who are even more likely than VA docs (who at least have some protections against arbitrary rules and policies and firings, in a "system" run by many who institutionalize actual CARE as the main idea) to "go along with the minimization-hurry-up-and-die program"?

The whole notion is straight Rule #2: "GO DIE, FOKKER! And do it quietly, out of sight, and with minimum fuss, in a structure that so diffuses the abuses over space and time that it's extremely difficult for the affected population to even gather the numbers to show how bad it is." Straight "more continuing more opaque fog of war" bullshit. The same kind of sales BS as used to sell the rest of neoliberalist misery ("Don't whine now, fools - you voted for it, I have the validated results of the elections right here, so now it's All Nice And Legal, seeee?) from NAFTA and preceding frauds and vast FIREs, on up to the present scams.

In the meantime, the Military-Industrial Juggernaut continues to gain mass and momentum. Trump can natter about "war in the Mideast is a bad deal for the US" (Mideast seemingly not including AfPak, China, Africa, South America, etc.) as a "bad deal." But will he have any interest in spooling down the turbines on the enormous Milo Minderbinder Enterprises machine that is daily being "upgraded" and "up-armored" and "re-weaponed" and "re-doctrined" and "mission-creeped," with the happy participation of every business, large and small, that can wangle or "extend" a procurement or "study" contract to expand and lethality and simple bureaucratic-growth size and incompetence (as a military force, in the old sense of what armies are supposed to do for the Emperoro) of the monster, even as we blog participants do our mostly ineffectual (if intellectually pleasing) nattering?

Civilian Control of the Military is a dishonest myth - true only in the sense that the Captains of MICIndustry and drivers of "policy" are not currently Active Duty, though they all, along with the generals (who live like kings, of course) belong to the same clubs and dip deeply into the same MMT Cornucopia. And the MIC, from what I read, is quite open and pleased about the state of affairs

whine country , May 13, 2016 at 10:07 am

I would argue that the MIC is simply part of the 20 percent that derive their middle class existence by serving at the beck and call of the 1 percent. You are describing the symptoms and not the disease.

Lambert Strether , May 13, 2016 at 2:35 pm

Yep.

Felix_47 , May 13, 2016 at 10:41 am

We are in the grip of "credentialled" doctors and lawyers. Just as most litigation and most of what lawyers do is destructive to the average person, it is estimated that half of all surgeries done in the US are unnecessary. the HIC (health industrial complex) has brainwashed the public to believe that we need $20,000 per month medications and artificial discs. As you have doubtless seen the third leading cause of death in the US is medical mistakes. They happen in the VA and in the private sector. Maybe the notion of more medical care is better is simply not valid. At some point we will have to realize that rationing in a rational way is going to have to happen. I would rather have someone who went to medical school decide on what is going to be rationed than some lawyer or business administrator.

JTMcPhee , May 13, 2016 at 2:46 pm

There sure is a lot packed into that comment. But my experience with VA doctors and other caregivers (speaking as a retired "private sector" nurse, VA care recipient and former attorney) is that except for the psychiatrists and some of the docs that perform disability examinations, the VA caregivers actually provide care, and they seem to do it pretty well, given the constant attrition of resources and burgeoning case load the neolibs are imposing. Personal tale: the Medicare 'provider" at the full-spectrum clinic I used to use was all hot to perform a "common surgical procedure that most older men need." A fee-generating TURP, which pretty rarely improves the victim's life. The VA doc, looking at the same condition and presentation, noted the down-sides pretty carefully and said that until I was a lot more "restricted," there was no way I "needed" any such invasive procedure. But then his income is not influenced by the number of cuts he makes

Most of what lawyers do any more, and this has been true for a long time, is combat over wealth transfers, economic warfare. Ever since partnership was killed off as the mandatory form of lawyer business operations, with attendant personal liability for partner actions, the rule is "eat what you kill, and kill all you can." Most doctors I know have caregiving as their primary motivation in going into medicine. (Most nurses, the same to a much greater extent, and since they start with smaller debt and fewer chances to bleed the patient and the system that bleeds the nurse pretty badly, they can carry that decency forward.)

Interesting, of course, that more and more doctors have joint MD and MBA credentials. And working with other operatives, are gradually and maybe inexorably forcing more of their fellows into "medical cooperatives" like HCA and JSA, where they become salaried wage slaves with productivity targets and metrics, and thus "rationers" de facto, by having to respond to "metrics" that are all driven by the basic business model: "More and more work, from fewer and fewer people, for less and less money, for higher and higher costs, with ever more crapified outcomes for the mope-ery." Although, I might offer, there are some of my fellow mopes who actually do benefit from those back surgeries (yes, maybe most of them are unwarranted, but not all) and meds that only cost "$20,000 per month" because of MARKETS.

Jim Haygood , May 13, 2016 at 11:27 am

'Imagine Trump running to the left of Hillary on defense / interventionism, trade, and universal healthcare.'

It would be like FDR vs Hoover - with Goldwater girl Hillary playing the role of Hoover.

inode_buddha , May 13, 2016 at 6:41 pm

Imagine Trump winning as a GOP canidate by running to the left of the DNC canidate. The vision of the GOP having a collective ulcer/Rovian Meltdown is making me giggle like a schoolgirl all day.

Frankly, I'm *much* more worried about HRC in the Whitehouse than I am about Trump. Reason why is that he's a relative outsider, not an Establishment guy - and there is always Congress to deal with. Its not like he would have a total dictatorship, whereas HRC would be able to do far more and deeper damage to the nation.

My position is Sanders or bust, and I say that as a 20-year member of the GOP (now independent).

Nick , May 13, 2016 at 7:22 am

Like you said, he changes his positions all the time, and Clinton is no doubt a serious warmonger/war criminal, but he did also say that he would "bomb the s- out of ISIS," which one might also be inclined to characterize as trigger happy.

I am equally terrified at the prospect of having Clinton or Trump at the nuclear controls, which is why we should all send Bernie a few bucks today. The MSM have already gone into full Clinton v Trump general election mode, though that is certain to change once Bernie wins California.

Yves Smith , May 13, 2016 at 7:30 am

If you read what Trump has said about our foreign policy, he has been consistent in his view that the US can't and shouldn't be acting as an imperalist. He does not use those words, but he's said this often enough that I've even linked to articles describing how Trump is willing to depict America as being in decline, and this as one manifestation. In addition, his foreign policy speech was slammed basically because it broke with neocon orthodoxy. I have not read it but people I respect and who are not temperamentally inclined to favor Trump have, and they said it was sensible and among other things argued that we could not be fighting with China and Russia at the same time, and pumped for de-escalating tensions with Russia as the country whose culture and interests were more similar to ours than China's.

Having said that, calling out our belligerence and TPP as bad ideas seem to be the only issues on which he's not been all over the map (well, actually, he has not backed down on his wall either .)

The other reason to think he might stick with this position more consistently than with others is that his core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support among veterans and active duty soldiers, and it's due to his speaking out against these wars.

Trump can probably get away with continuing to shape shift till Labor Day, since most voters don't make up their minds till close to the election. It's not pretty to watch him make a bold statement and then significantly walk it back in the next 24 hours, particularly if it's an issue you care about and he's said something that is so nuts that it sounds like he cares more about his Nielsen rating than what makes sense for the country. If he can't put enough policy anchors down by the fall and stick to them, he will lose a lot of people who might give him a shot out of antipathy to Clinton.

P , May 13, 2016 at 7:45 am

This guy has been writing some great stuff this cycle.

http://theweek.com/articles/622864/how-hillary-clinton-could-blow

miamijac , May 13, 2016 at 8:06 am

like's bait and switch.

Nick , May 13, 2016 at 8:05 am

That may well be the case and he was right to call out the Iraq war as a "mistake" during that debate (given his otherwise unconventional rhetoric, however, I was actually a bit disappointed that he didn't use the more correct term war crime), but he has also said that he wants to bring back torture and then some.

As far as I'm concerned though, the race right now is between Clinton and Bernie and I'm fairly confident that Bernie still has a good chance since he is sure to take California (which, luckily for Bernie, will seem like a huge surprise).

In a match up between Trump and Clinton my own personal thoughts (that a democratic – i.e. neoliberal – white house will at least continue to move people to the left, whereas a republican white house will only galvanize people around bringing another neoliberal to the white house) are irrelevant because I have virtually no doubt that Trump will win.

Yves Smith , May 13, 2016 at 8:30 am

Yes, his enthusiasm for torture is pretty creepy and you get a taste of it here indirectly: "That Saddam, he was a really bad guy but he sure could take care of those terrorists!" While Trump does seem to genuinely disapprove of all the people our wars have killed for no upside (a commonsense position in absence among our foreign policy elites), he seems overly confident that we can identify baddies well and having identified them, we should have no compunction about being brutal with them.

bowserhead , May 13, 2016 at 8:50 am

"That Saddam, he was a really bad guy but he sure could take care of those terrorists!"

His meaning here is we should have stayed out of it and let the "really bad guy" (Saddam) handle Al Quaeda. Of course, the Bush neocons dishonestly morphed Saddam into Al Quaeda. You know the rest of the story.

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 9:34 am

I'm willing to bet that he's saying a lot of this stuff for his audience–people who are generally a pretty angry and bloodthirsty lot. I'm not saying that he's not going to come out for peace, love and contrition when he's elected president, but I think it is safe to say that his rhetoric now is completely unrelated to how he'd go about actually governing.

OK, so normally that'd be a horrible admission–if the Democrats hadn't had the brilliant idea of foisting Hillary onto the American people. What a brain-dead move! I myself could have been persuaded to support Bernie, but Hillary is the Devil incarnate as far as I'm concerned.

fresno dan , May 13, 2016 at 11:23 am

One fact that we have to remember is all the people who designed, advocated for, implemented, and defended "enhanced interrogation" and than who use "Clintonisms" to say we no longer use torture (because we never did – "enhanced interrogation") AND because we are "rendering" them someplace else and our friends are doing the enhanced interrogation – well, such lying devious people in my view are far, far worse than The Donald.
In my view, there appears to be considerable evidence that the US still defacto tortures – and that is far, far worse than the appalling, but at least truthful statement of how Trump feels. And of course, pink misting people may not be torture, but it can't be separated.

Again, which is worse:
A. The Donald up front advocates a policy (of torture), people can be mobilized to oppose it. No legalisms, dissembling, and every other term that can be used to obfuscate what the US is REALLY doing.
B. The US government asserts it no longer tortures. How many readers here have confidence that that is a factually true statement, that can be said without word games?
Is saying we should torture WORSE than saying we don't torture, but WE ARE???

ggm , May 13, 2016 at 2:17 pm

I feel the same way. It's preferable to have someone take the morally reprehensible pro-torture stance than to pretend to be against it while secretly renditioning prisoners and so forth.

jrs , May 13, 2016 at 2:51 pm

A good argument for reelecting George W Bush I suppose. Everything was pretty out in the open in the W administration you have to admit.

pretzelattack , May 13, 2016 at 4:16 pm

except for the fake wmds that started it. and abu ghraib. and the reasons the contractors were hung in fallujah. and the fake alliance between saddam and al quaida. and outing valerie plame when joe wilson blew the whistle on the fake purpose of the aluminum tubes.

Lambert Strether , May 13, 2016 at 7:44 pm

Let's not forget the warrantless surveillance program!

Also, Wilson blew the whistle on the yellowcake uranium. The aluminum tubes were another mole in the whack-a-mole game.

Seas of Promethium , May 13, 2016 at 7:44 pm

Everything was pretty out in the open in the W administration you have to admit.

"The United States does not torture." -GWB

Ian , May 13, 2016 at 9:10 am

Enough electoral fraud has been evidenced that I think that the numbers are going to be gamed to be closer to the non-representative polling that flood the MSM. He may win, but they aren't going to allow him to win by a lot in such a delegate heavy state.

Rhondda , May 13, 2016 at 11:22 am

Unfortunately, I think you are quite right that the California numbers will be rigged/gamed. I had become quite cynical about American politics, thanks to Obama the More Effective Evil's reign and the Bush and the Supremes Florida gambit back in 2000. But this primary vote rigging has really moved my marker so far that I am not even sure what word to use what's more cynical than super duper cynical?

I no longer believe - any of it .

jrs , May 13, 2016 at 2:54 pm

So here's an idea I've been pondering how can the people try to prevent or find this? Could we exit poll outside the voting places? Yes it would be a limited sample of just one local place but it's something and in aggregate if lots of people were doing this

I too think they might try to game California. And this is quite alarming considering California is usually too unimportant to even game. I figure the elections are usually honest here, probably because they just don't matter one whit. But this time it might matter and they might steal the vote.

Northeaster , May 13, 2016 at 8:45 am

"core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support among veterans and active duty soldiers"

This.

People tend to also forget that there's a lot of us Gen-X'ers that were deployed over there over 25 years ago, when it was popular, for the same damned thing. Nothing has changed. Sure, some leadership folks have been taken out, but the body count of Americans soldiers has only risen,and the Region is now worse off.

The "first time" we had more folks die from non-combat related accidents than from actual combat. Some of us are sick of our political and corporate establishment selling out our fellow soldiers and Veterans, even worse is the way they have been treated when they come home. I'm not a Trump supporter, but this part of his message not only resonates with me, but angers me further. Why? Because I know that if Hillary Clinton walks into The Oval Office, even more Americans are going to die for lust of more power and influence.

HRC is simply the evilest human being I have ever seen in politics in my lifetime. Trump may be an idiot, crass, authoritarian, and any number of negative things, but he is not "evil" – she is.

Roger Smith , May 13, 2016 at 7:25 am

If the mash up continues as Clinton v. Trump and barring any character sinking actions of Trump, this man will win in November. To paraphrase Shivani, Clinton is speaking entirely in high minded self-interest, while Trump has latched onto and is pressing a actual truths of reality (regardless of his personal convictions or what he wlll actually do if elected).

Trump is more liberal than Clinton here. What exactly are her redeeming qualities again?

Pavel , May 13, 2016 at 8:01 am

I can't really think of any HRC redeeming qualities. "Retail politicking" doesn't seem to be one of them. Lambert, you no doubt saw this video of her confronted with rising health insurance costs post-ACA? Her word salad response doesn't begin to address the real issues

During a recent town hall event, a small business owner explained to the Democratic front-runner that her health insurance has gone up so significantly for her family that the thought of providing benefits to her employees is secondary at this point.

"As a small business owner, not only are you trying to provide benefits to your employees, you're trying to provide benefits to yourself. I have seen our health insurance for my own family, go up $500 dollars a month in the last two years. We went from four hundred something, to nine hundred something. We're just fighting to keep benefits for ourselves. The thought of being able to provide benefits to your employees is almost secondary, yet to keep your employees happy, that's a question that comes across my desk all the time. I have to keep my employees as independent contractors for the most part really to avoid that situation, and so I have turnover"

"We do not qualify for a subsidy on the current health insurance plan. My question to you is not only are you looking out for people that can't afford healthcare, but I'm someone that can afford it, but it's taking a big chunk of the money I bring home."

To which Hillary responded, to make a long story short, that she knows healthcare costs are going up, and doesn't understand why that would ever be the case.

"What you're saying is one of the real worries that we're facing with the cost of health insurance because the costs are going up in a lot of markets, not all, but many markets and what you're describing is one of the real challenges."

"There's a lot of things I'm looking at to try to figure out how to deal with exactly the problem you're talking about. There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to the real world test, will this really help a small business owner or a family be able to afford it. What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't understand."

"What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't understand." - this from a woman who ostensibly is an expert on health care delivery?

The link is from Zero Hedge but in any case watch the video. Or wait for it to appear in a Trump campaign ad:

"What Could Have Possibly Raised Your Costs" – Hillary Can't Answer Why Obamacare Costs Are Soaring

Roger Smith , May 13, 2016 at 9:16 am

"Or wait for it to appear in a Trump campaign ad" Haha!

I am surprised she didn't pull out the "90% coverage" false-positve. We haven't seen that pony enough. The notion of imploring "scientific" method here is interesting in light of the party's blood oath to meritocracy. "There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to the real world test ". It also implies that the process is natural and no accountability is necessary.

Another great DNC experiment. Throwing the blacks in jail for 20 years over nothing "oh well, we need to try more!" I cannot imagine being in prison right now for some minor drug offense and hearing the Clintons spew this nonsense.

That bagel spread though

P , May 13, 2016 at 7:37 am

This is going to be one hell of an election If nothing else those slimeballs that Clinton represent will be killed off. Finally.

samhill , May 13, 2016 at 7:41 am

joe-stiglitz-tells-democracy-now-that-war-cost-will-reach-5-to-7-trillion

It's a cost to the 99%, to the 1% it's profit – a damn whole lot of profit.

bowserhead , May 13, 2016 at 8:13 am

Jeff Gundlach, one of the few iconoclasts and reigning king of bonds on Wall Street:

"People are going to start putting greater focus on Hillary (Clinton). Voters are going to say, 'No. I don't want this,'" he told Reuters. "Hillary is going to evolve into an unacceptable choice. If she is such a great candidate, how come (Bernie Sanders) is beating her?"

JustAnObserver , May 13, 2016 at 10:05 am

IIRC Gundlach's outfit is based in California, not Wall Street. Left coast plutos for Bernie ?

bowserhead , May 13, 2016 at 10:54 am

Good point.

JustAnObserver , May 13, 2016 at 1:40 pm

Even more. He's based in LA so there's a 400 mile air gap between him in the goldbugging, glibertarian, wannabe John Galt culture of the Valley exemplified by Peter Theil.

How about a picture of Gundlach for tomorrow's antidote ?

Yaacov Kopel , May 13, 2016 at 9:29 am

It is warm heartening to see this site who consistently leaning left warming for the Donald. Clinton is a horrible candidate, flawed human being and her presidency is guaranteed to be marred by scandal after scandal and deep polarization.
Bern would be a great choice but he has no chance, the corrupt Democratic establishment will stick with Clinton.

Lambert Strether , May 13, 2016 at 2:34 pm

The post has nothing to do with "warming" to the Donald. It's policy focused.

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 4:24 pm

I inuited months ago that the warming to Donald thing would happen. I have a growing conviction that most of the people here, maybe even you, are going to vote for Donald in November. Even Jason will vote for Donald (unless he is being employed by that pro-Hillary super pac which I don't think is the case but just throwing it out there since there are empirically speaking people being paid to produce pro Hillary comments on the internet). Barring something truly interesting and novel happening between now and then that is.

The way things are going now this plane seems set for an effortless autopilot victory for Trump. I have no doubt that everyone will regret too. They'll even regret before they cast the vote, and do it anyway. Oh man, that's some truly black humor. OK I'll make an even grander prediction: Trump will inaugurate the post postmodern era (whatever historians eventually decide to call it) where our entire conception and perception of reality as a society undergoes a radical and unpleasant change. It's a unique time to be alive. Aren't we lucky?

jgordon , May 13, 2016 at 5:38 pm

Wait. I just had an incredible insight. We're already out of the postmodern era, and I can date it from Sept. 11, 2001as the exit. Historian are going to say that this was a short era, a transitional era of illusions, delusions and fear, where complete non-reality Trumped the real for an ever so short period of time. But now we're going to be shocked awake, and what's coming next is going to be incredible and horrific. Damn, it's such an awesome and strange feeling to see things so clearly all of a sudden! It's really happening. So this why I've been obsessing over this stuff much recently.

Lambert Strether , May 13, 2016 at 7:42 pm

I tried to find a short clip of Brunhilde riding her horse into the flames in Gotterdammerung right before Valhalla collapses, which is what voting for Trump would be like for me, but I couldn't find out.

Noonan , May 13, 2016 at 9:38 am

The worst result of the Obama presidency is the disappearance of the anti-war left from every form of mainstream media.

NotTimothyGeithner , May 13, 2016 at 9:52 am

There was an antiwar left on the msm during the Bush years? Kerry's campaign message was "Ill be W 2.0." Kerry himself was that awful, but there was no antiwar left in the msm. I thought the absence was the direct cause for the rise of blogs. The real crisis is the shift of websites such as TalkingPointMemo and CrooksandLiars to Team Blue loyalist sites or when Digby brought on Spoonfed.

Lambert Strether , May 13, 2016 at 7:40 pm

Yep. 2006 was when the Dems decapitated the left blogosphere, and as a result we have no independent media, except for lonely outposts like this one, and whatever those whacky kidz are doing with new media.

TedWa , May 13, 2016 at 10:01 am

I keep donating to Bernie because even if he somehow doesn't win the nomination, he can force Hillary to be much more like him – if HRC wants Bernie voters to clinch the deal for her. Bernie staying in and fighting to the end (and my money says he wins) is great and if Hillary doesn't become Bernie, then the only one that can beat Trump is Bernie, and the super-delegates have got to see that.
Bottom line, Hillary has to become Bernie to beat Trump. Is that going to happen? We'll see.

Praedor , May 13, 2016 at 10:34 am

Bernie staying in until the very end serves two purposes (he CAN still win, especially when he carries California). The first is, again, he CAN win. The second purpose is to prevent Hillary from shifting right the way she REALLY wants to for the general. She will have to keep tacking left to fend off a major slide towards Bernie. The "center" (actually right wing) is out of reach for her as long as Bernie is there.

TedWa , May 13, 2016 at 10:43 am

Exactly, and I'm loving it :^)

ewmayer , May 13, 2016 at 6:49 pm

Sorry to rain on your thesis, but absent the nomination, all Bernie can do is to force Hillary to *message* more like him. With her, the operative phrase is "words are wind". There is nothing whatever to keep her from immediately ditching every progressive-sounding campaign stance once she is in office, just as Obama did. And I guarantee you that if she does become president, that is precisely what she will do.

ke , May 13, 2016 at 10:13 am

Trump knows the counterweight better than anyone. He's the guy you keep on the job because he's entertaining, knowing he will sell you out if you let him, and you let him, when it serves a purpose, to adjust the counterweight.

POLITICS, RE feudalism, is a game, and he loves it, despite the heartburn. All that debt inertia.preventing the economic motor from gaining traction is psychological. That much he knows, which is a lot more than the rest of the politicians, making him a better dress maker. But like the others, he has no idea what to do about it.

He vascillates to maintain options, including a path to the future, while others rule themselves out. Of course hiring good people is the answer, but most Americans are politicians, like anywhere else, wanting to know little more than their cubicle, because the net result of majority behavior is punishing work, in favor of consumers, competing for advantage.

If you spent this time developing skills and finding a spouse that won't cut your throat, you will do quite well. The casino isn't life; it just keeps a lot of people busy, with busy work. Government is hapless.

dingusansich , May 13, 2016 at 10:31 am

It's hard to know if Trump sees militarization and imperialism as bad because they're bad or bad because it's not Donald Trump in charge, with a great big straw sucking Benjamins between those rectally pursed lips. It may take an agent provocateur bullshitter to call bullshit, but that says nothing about what Trump will do as president. What's likeliest, given his record, is an opportunistic seizure of the Treasury to rival the occupation of Iraq. When I gaze into my crystal ball at a Trump administration I see cronyism, graft, corruption, nepotism, and deceit of monumental dimensions, just like the gold letters spelling Trump plastered over everything he lays his stubby little hands on. Because the Clintons are appalling doesn't make Trump appealing. It's a farcical contest, and every way, we lose.

RUKidding , May 13, 2016 at 2:43 pm

You echo my feelings. My loathing of Clinton knows no bounds, and I cannot vote for her, no matter what. But I simply don't trust Trump. He's a gold-digger extrodinaire, and quite the accomplished showman. He knows how to play to the crowd, and he's clearly quite quick to shape shift. The wrecked tatters of what's called the USA "media" gives Trump a YOOOGE pass on simply everything and anything the man says or does.

I don't trust Trump, and although, yes, he has says a few things that I agree with – and usually stuff that no one else at his level will ever say – it's essentially meaningless to me. I think Trump would be a disaster as President, and my "take" – which is based on my own opinion – is that he'll be Grifter El Supremo and make sure that he walks off with stacks and gobs and buckets of CA$H. For him. And if the country really tanks and goes bankrupt? So What?

Plus all this about Trump not being a War Hawk? I don't trust it. With the other breath, he's constantly spewing about "building up" the damn military, which, allegedly Obama has "weakened." Like, we really need to be spending another gazillion of our tax dollars "building up" the Military??? WHY? If The Donald is so against all these foreign wars, then why do we need to spend even more money on the Military??? All that signals to me is that Donald expects to go large on MIC investments for HIMSELF.

Won't get fooled again.

Lambert Strether , May 13, 2016 at 7:38 pm

"cronyism, graft, corruption, nepotism, and deceit of monumental dimensions"

Rather like the Clinton Foundation, though the Clintons have more tasteful building fixtures

"Because the Clintons are appalling doesn't make Trump appealing"

Very true, and vice versa.

hemeantwell , May 13, 2016 at 10:32 am

The Saudi 9/11 connection is now front stage:.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/13/september-11-saudi-arabia-congressional-report-terrorism#comment-74155478
Trump can legitimately harp on this and likely will as part of his battle both with the R establishment and the Ds. HRC will probably respond "judiciously" in a way that will make her claim to "expertise" appear to be nothing more than what it is, lockstep parroting of neocon positions. Sanders?

ke , May 13, 2016 at 11:38 am

Story time: so, when I married the Mrs, I offered to fix the mother in laws old bug. She turned me down and has since demand that I fix what is now a rust bucket, not worth one manhour of my time, going around to the neighbors, all critters on govt checks rapidly falling behind RE inflation, to build consensus to the end, among women using men and men using women, all of them having thrown their marriages under the bus, as if majority vote is going to get me to do something I have no intention of doing.

When hospital gave Grace that shot and sent her to the ICU, per Obamacare expert protocol, all the critters went into CYA mode, and ultimately called the family, to confirm that the wife and I must be on drugs, which they did. I don't blame the morons running the court system, and she's the mother in law.

That debt is nothing more than psychology, but it is more effective than a physical prison. Silicon Valley is the as is abutment, simply reinforcing stupid with ever greater efficiency, but it is the endpoint on a collapsing bridge with no retreat, because automation has systematically destroyed the skill pool and work ethic required to advance further, replacing them with make work and make work skills.

Competing with China and the Middle East to build carp infrastructure to keep As many economic slaves as busy as possible is not the path forward. As you have seen, govt data is far closer to being 180 degrees wrong than being correct, as designed, which you should expect, from those holding out ignorance as a virtue.

There are far more elevators that need fixing than I could ever get to, and I am quite capable of fixing them in a manner that generates power. Who becomes president is irrelevant.

ke , May 13, 2016 at 11:54 am

My family in Ohio is massive, they made a killing on RE and currency arbitrage, after selling all the family farms, and have nothing real to show for it, but rapidly depreciating sunk costs, waiting to do it again. Rocket scientists.

Watt4Bob , May 13, 2016 at 12:30 pm

The way I read this situation is this;

If the GWOT has cost us $4 Trillion, somebody made $4 Trillion.

That/those somebodies are not about to give up the kind of behavior that makes that kind of money.

If there is any real, actual third-rail in American politics, it's the MIC budget.

This fact has never been openly acknowledged, even though the American people are pretty sure that threatening the will of the MIC cost the life of at least one well known politician.

Trump may talk about that enormous waste now, but after his private screening of the Zapruder film he's going to STFU and get with the program like all the rest.

OTOH, like Yves has pointed out, if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored, get nothing done, and I'm not sure I see a down-side to that.

Roger Smith , May 13, 2016 at 1:35 pm

if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored, get nothing done

Exactly my feeling. He will be hated and fought constantly, whereas Clinton (if nominated) is guaranteed to screw things up. Like her husband (who by the way will be there whispering in ears and making passes at maids) she will triangulate on issues and pass destructive GOP legislation and likely drag this country into another foreign policy blunder, where I am betting more young, under-educated, poor citizens with no prospects or options will be sent to slaughter (themselves and others).

RUKidding , May 13, 2016 at 2:49 pm

EH? I think The Donald will just go Large on MIC investments for himself. He talks a good game, but he keeps saying that he's going "build up" the Military, even as he's stating that we shouldn't be fighting in all of these wars. Why, then, do we need to "build up" the Military?

No one ever said Trump was stupid. I'm sure he's rubbing his grubby tiny vulgarian mitts with glee thinking about how he, too, can get in on that sweet sweet SWEET MIC payola grift scam. Count on it.

Trump doesn't need to see the Zapruder film. He was alive then and knows the story, just like everyone else of a certain age. Nay, verily, he just means to cash in on it.

fresno dan , May 13, 2016 at 6:31 pm

Watt4Bob
May 13, 2016 at 12:30 pm
"OTOH, like Yves has pointed out, if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored, get nothing done, and I'm not sure I see a down-side to that."

I too view that as a feature and not a bug. Seriously, in the last 10, 20, 30 years, I would ask, what law is viewed as making things better? Was Sarbanes Oxley suppose to do something??? Maybe the law is OK, they just won't enforce it

I know Obamacare is relentlessly disparaged here, others think it is better than nothing.
Many of you youngsters don't realize this, but there was a time, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, that there were no deductibles, co-pays, narrow networks, and that you had confidence that your doctor may have over treated and tested you, but you weren't afraid that you would die because it was too expensive to treat you.
Just like I don't care if GDP goes up because i won't see any of it, I don't care about all the cancer research because I am certain I won't be able to afford it, even though I have health "insurance" .

fresno dan , May 13, 2016 at 7:44 pm

And this
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-retiree-health-insurance-20160511-snap-story.html

"Employer-sponsored retiree health coverage once played a key role in supplementing Medicare," observe Tricia Neuman and Anthony Damico of the foundation. "Any way you slice it, this coverage is eroding."

Since 1988, the foundation says, among large firms that offer active workers health coverage, the percentage that also offer retiree health plans has shrunk to 23% in 2015 from 66% in 1988. The decline, which has been steady and almost unbroken, almost certainly reflects the rising cost of healthcare and employers' diminishing sense of responsibility for long-term workers in retirement.
.
Financial protection against unexpected healthcare costs is crucial for many Medicare enrollees, especially middle- and low-income members, because the gaps in Medicare can be onerous. The deductible for Medicare Part A, which covers inpatient services, is $1,288 this year, plus a co-pay of $322 per hospital day after 60 days. Part B, which covers outpatient care, has a modest annual deductible of $166 but pays only 80% of approved rates for most services.
====================================================
80% of 100,000$ means 20K is left over – with cancer treatments*, kidney treatments, cardiovascular treatments, such a scenario is more likely than a lot of people will imagine.

*treatments don't include those foam slippers that they charge you 25$ for .

fresno dan , May 13, 2016 at 7:48 pm

AND

But the consequences of the shift away from employer-sponsored retiree benefits go beyond the rise in costs for the retirees themselves. Many are choosing to purchase Medigap policies, which fill in the gaps caused by Medicare's deductibles, cost-sharing rates and benefit limitations. That has the potential to drive up healthcare costs for the federal government too. That's because Medigap policies tend to encourage more medical consumption by covering the cost-sharing designed to make consumers more discerning about trips to the doctor or clinic. Already, nearly 1 in 4 Medicare enrollees had a Medigap policy - almost as many as had employer-sponsored supplemental coverage.
..
The trend is sure to fuel interest on Capitol Hill in legislating limits to Medigap plans. Such limits have supporters across the political spectrum: Over the past few years, proposals to prohibit Medigap plans from covering deductibles have come from the left-leaning Center for American Progress, the centrist Brookings Institution and conservatives such as Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

================================
please stop going to the doctor, its expensive .just expire

singfoom , May 13, 2016 at 2:44 pm

First time poster, long time lurker. You don't think that Sanders success in the race pushed HRC to embrace debt free 4 year public college?

We'll see what specific policy commitments come out of the convention, but I don't think the current campaign would have the same issues if Bernie wasn't there.

Please don't mistake me either, ideologically I'm with Sanders and was supporting him until the NYDN article and the delegate math became pretty much impossible. If I had my druthers, he'd be the candidate, but it looks quite quite unlikely now.

I'm concerned that HRC will pivot after the election and give support to the TPP but even then I'm still anti-Trump more.

Lambert Strether , May 13, 2016 at 10:50 pm

Actually, a poster with your email commented in 2014 under another handle. There seems to be a rash lately of infrequent or new commenters who "support Sanders but" or "supported Sanders until" lately. For some reason.

That said, you could be right on college ( see here for a comparison of the plans ). It's just that Clinton's talking point about not wanting to pay for Trump's children is so unserious I can't believe the plan is serious.

Paper Mac , May 13, 2016 at 6:40 pm

I dunno. I see a lot of people decry Trump's immigration ban on Muslims, but Hillary's record as SecState was incredibly violent toward Muslims internationally and also includes presiding over a defacto immigration ban from specific "problem" states- banning people for security reasons being much more tactful than banning Muslims per se.

The nativist appeal Trump is making doesn't go much farther than naming the intent of policy Hillary has been actually pursuing. Trump wants to use the demonisation of Muslims since 9/11 as a political lever to gain power and will use anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant (weird to see the two conflated so frequently) sentiment to achieve specific political goals, preferably sublating it into keynesian infrastructure programs (wall building or whatever). Hillary intends to keep bombing societies that are increasingly visibily disintegrating from the cumulative effects of climate change, colonial oppression and marginalisation, foreign intervention, etc. It's not obvious who gets the benefit of the doubt in a lesser evil contest.

Code Name D , May 13, 2016 at 1:24 pm

Trump is breaking the "lesser of two evils" argument.

Let's be clear about something here. The "lesser of two evils" is not an argument to find which candidate is "the less evil." It's an argument used to justify the assumption that your candidate is the less evil of the other. While else is it that Democrats say Clinton is the less evil while Republicans argue that Trump is the less evil.

It's obvious watching leftist pundits (many of whom I respect) come out and flatly assert "Clinton is the better of the two." And there heads usually explode right off their shoulders when they run into someone who disagrees or is simply skeptical of the claim.

The real problem is when Trump dose speak on trade and war policy, he exposes the fallacy of the argument. We can't take Trump's word for it – even though we already know Hillary is likely lying, so it's still a tie. The notion that Trump might actually be honest here isn't even permitted to be considered because that would make Trump the less evil of the two.

The problem I keep running into is just how do you measure "evil?" This gets even harder to do when you can't take either at their word. There is always some deeper calculous we are expected to project on the candidates in order to arrive at our pre-supposed conclusion that our candidate is always the less evil.

It's the main reason I will not be voting for either.

bowserhead , May 13, 2016 at 1:43 pm

Forgive me for piling on today Btw,.anyone know who this Carmen Yarrusso is? Excerpt from Counterpunch (today)

"Trump may be a (loose-cannon) unpredictable evil. But then, based on her long track record, Clinton is a very predictable evil. In fact, Trump is left of Clinton on such things as legal marijuana, NATO aggression, and trade policy. His crazy proposals (e.g. Mexican wall, banning Muslims) are just bluster with zero chance of becoming reality. If Congress can stop Obama, it can stop Trump. But Clinton has a predictable pro-war track record (Iraq, Libya, Syria) and a predictable track record of changing positions for political expediency (e.g. Iraq war, NAFTA, Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000, immigration, gun control, the Keystone XL pipeline, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, same-sex marriage). How can you be sure she won't conveniently change her current progressive positions as president? A Trump presidency just might force Democratic Party elites to start seriously addressing the populist concerns they now arrogantly ignore.

If you vote for Clinton as the lesser of two evils, you're compromising your moral values, you're condoning the Democratic Party's shoddy treatment of millions of progressives, and you're sabotaging future real change. You're virtually guaranteeing the Democratic Party elites will put you in this position again and again. If you refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, maybe you'll help elect Trump (or maybe your write-in or third party choice will win). But you'll certainly send a very clear message to Democratic Party elites that you'll no longer tolerate being ignored, marginalized, or shamed with false lesser of two evil choices."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/13/lesser-of-two-evils-vote-is-counterproductive-and-morally-corrupt/

Bernard , May 13, 2016 at 1:44 pm

lol watching people attack Trump well, not sure if it's Clinton's army out to scare us about the horrors Trump will cause. now it's like the Devil we know vs the Devil we don't know. Kind of hard to compare Trump to Hillary. Hillary's effective brand of evil is well established and is quite thorough, shown by the primary votes in NY and AZ, for example. watching the Elites attack, belittle and completely ignore the existence of Bernie gives us a little clue of what is in store if Hillary gets her way. Trump is the "known unknown" to use Rumsfeld terminology.

Evil is as evil does. aka Hillary

this is perhaps the one and only time I ever will vote Republican. and I abhor Republicans. Hillary has earned her reputation, Trump.. well Trump or no Trump, it won't be Hillary getting my vote. Keeping Bernie out, we all lose.

singfoom , May 13, 2016 at 2:54 pm

No, I don't support the current administration's drone war, nor did I support the horrible Iraq war of 2003, but that doesn't answer my question. I don't understand "Hillary is lying" as a tautology and the conclusion being that Trump is a better bet than HRC because of that.

But in regards to your question, do you think that the drone war stance will change in the next administration whether's it's HRC or Trump? Trump said he wants to get more aggressive on terrorists than we currently are, explicitly endorsing torture.

jrs , May 13, 2016 at 3:09 pm

Well even Sanders has come out in favor of drones, so probably, unless one is die hard Jill Stein all the way. Then one's hands are entirely clean if also entirely ineffective.

Massinissa , May 13, 2016 at 7:06 pm

Yeah, because voting for drone strikes, imperialism and corruption is more effective at getting rid of those things than not voting for drone strikes, imperialism and drone strikes

Massinissa , May 13, 2016 at 7:04 pm

Because its totally impossible for Republican talking points to be true right?

If you havnt noticed, the Republicans are liars, but so are Clintonista Democrats.

Massinissa , May 13, 2016 at 7:09 pm

Hey, let me tell you a secret

Theyre both liars. If youre trusting Donald to not drone strike or trusting Hillary to not torture, youre being duped.

As for your comment further down about Trump saying he wants to torture people more Its not as if Obama has stopped Bush's torture regime or closed Guantanamo. Hillary too would continue more things.

Honestly I still dont understand why Trump is so much scarier than Hillary. Their differences are mostly kayfabe. All that xenophobic racist demagogy Trump is doing? More kayfabe. Im still voting Stein, because I dont vote for corrupt imperialists.

Seas of Promethium , May 13, 2016 at 8:04 pm

Stein is likewise kayfabe. If the party had gone with Anderson he might well have pulled a Bernie in the last general election. That just wouldn't do, so the party was rather brazenly railroaded into nominating Stein.

Jerry Denim , May 13, 2016 at 2:01 pm

Just as the best lies are 99% truth the best con-jobs are the ones containing the maximum amount of truthiness. Some days I like the things I hear Trump saying, the next he gives me a sick feeling with chills down my spine. Sure, he's not sticking to the approved neo-con, neo-lib, Washington consensus script but just how stupid do you have to be to not know that Saddam Hussein was a secular Bathist dictator who executed anyone who he saw as a threat to his power, especially muslim extremists. Just because Trump can spout off a truthy factoid that is only news to the brain-dead Fox News masses doesn't mean he is any more of an honest dealer than Bush Jr. Does anyone think Bush, Cheney or Rumsfield were operating under any illusions that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11? Of course not, they either saw an opportunity or they engineered an opportunity to do what they wanted to do. Trump has shown himself to be a bully comfortable with marshaling mob violence or the threat of mob violence. He is an authoritarian and no defender of civil liberties, habeous corpus or the Geneva convention. He's exactly the type of megalomanic that would try and seize power in an ailing democracy like our own, and I have no doubts that if elected he will create some sort of Constitutional crisis that could end in a military coup or Trump installed as a dictator. He already has a silent pissed-off army of violent brown shirts on his side. I don't like the way this situation looks and people on the left with intelligence and a grasp of history are deluding themselves if they think Trump isn't a very dangerous person.

In a possibly unrelated note, I'm 99% sure someone deeply keyed the full length of my car (truck actually) yesterday while I was surfing for no other reason than my Bernie Sanders bumper sticker right here in sunny, liberal southern California. Could it have been a Clinton supporter or a joy vandal who likes keying random people's cars – sure. But if Trump wins I wonder how long it is before halal restaurants and muslim dry cleaners start getting their windows smashed, then burned. How long before Hindus and brown people start getting attacked (as a common occurrence, not outlier events that are punished as they are now) because they are confused as being Muslim or Mexican or deliberately because they just aren't white and should go home. There's a very nasty underbelly to this Trump thing and I don't like it.

Lambert Strether , May 13, 2016 at 2:28 pm

I agree on the nasty underbelly. On the other hand, I find it refreshing that Trump mentions the millions of people slaughtered by our foreign policy. I don't hear that from Clinton, at all.

Jerry Denim , May 13, 2016 at 3:25 pm

" I find it refreshing that Trump mentions the millions of people slaughtered by our foreign policy. I don't hear that from Clinton, at all."

Ditto, me too, but I'm not about to cherry-pick Trump's schizophrenic and ever shifting talking points then soft-peddle candidate Trump while telling people not to worry. I like silver-linings, staying optimistic and being contrarian (I wouldn't hang out here otherwise) but why ignore the very troubling subtext in the rest of Trump's speech? The anti-democratic, sneering remarks about suspected terrorists being executed immediately in Saddam's Iraq instead of "on trial for fifteen years" in pansy-cakes weak, habeas corpus America. Trump offhandedly mentions; 'Oh by the way, don't buy the lowball collateral damage numbers you hear from the Pentagon, we're unnecessarily killing a lot of brown people abroad.' But then he fans the flames of racism with stump speeches about building a wall and banning all muslims from entering the USA. I can tell you which message his supporters are comprehending if you're unsure. Despite being a politically heterodox chameleon Trump is showing his true colors. Just because Trump is willing to break with the orthodoxy while he is campaigning doesn't mean he isn't an aspiring tyrant. Don't be fooled. Trump isn't enlightened or altruistic, he's a talented demagogue pulling a Con on America- that's it.

Jerry Denim , May 13, 2016 at 3:33 pm

By the way, I wanted to add I am not in any way considering a vote for Hillary if she does in fact become the Democratic nominee. I am very troubled by the prospect of a President Trump but I will not allow my vote to be held hostage by the DNC and the very tired "lesser of evils arguments" I realized my last comment might be construed as a "Trump must be stopped at all costs" Clinton rationalization. It was not. Trump will be on the conscience of those who vote for him and those who have enabled him.

Ron Showalter , May 13, 2016 at 2:20 pm

Maybe we should look at what Trump recently said at AIPAC – y'know, that itsy bitsy little lobby that seems to strike fear into the hearts of all US politicians Trump included – to get a sense of his ME policy, shall we ?

snip

'In Spring 2004, at the height of violence in the Gaza Strip, I was the Grand Marshal of the 40th Salute to Israel Parade, the largest single gathering in support of the Jewish state."

"My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran. I have been in business a long time. I know deal-making and let me tell you, this deal is catastrophic – for America, for Israel, and for the whole Middle East."

"First, we will stand up to Iran's aggressive push to destabilize and dominate the region. Iran is a very big problem and will continue to be, but if I'm elected President, I know how to deal with trouble. Iran is a problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon, a problem in Yemen, and will be a very major problem for Saudi Arabia. Literally every day, Iran provides more and better weapons to their puppet states.

Hezbollah in Lebanon has received sophisticated anti-ship weapons, anti-aircraft weapons, and GPS systems on rockets. Now they're in Syria trying to establish another front against Israel from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights."

Just last week, American Taylor Allen Force, a West Point grad who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, was murdered in the street by a knife-wielding Palestinian. You don't reward that behavior, you confront it!

It's not up the United Nations to impose a solution. The parties must negotiate a resolution themselves. The United States can be useful as a facilitator of negotiations, but no one should be telling Israel it must abide by some agreement made by others thousands of miles away that don't even really know what's happening.

When I'm president, believe me, I will veto any attempt by the UN to impose its will on the Jewish state.

Already, half the population of Palestine has been taken over by the Palestinian ISIS in Hamas, and the other half refuses to confront the first half, so it's a very difficult situation but when the United States stands with Israel, the chances of peace actually rise. That's what will happen when I'm president.

We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem – and we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel."

Yup, it's like he and Hillary are just night and day, huh?

I mean other than the fact that Hillary actually BACKS the Iran Deal but don't let that get in the way of a good "but Hillary" meeting.

The two candidates will be identical where it's most important – e.g. w/ Israel and the ME – just like all of the presidential candidates.

You would think the Obama administration may have taught us something about perceiving reality oh wait that's right, it really was Hillary and not poor Obama who's been doing all that killing over the last 8 years and the Donald's really a renegade "outsider" billionaire who's just scaring the pants off of the Establishment, right?

Wow. Just wow.

Obama Hope Junkies so desperate that they're shooting Trumpodil straight into their minds.

Lambert Strether , May 13, 2016 at 2:24 pm

I'm confused. What does this have to do with the topic of the post? The YouTube has nothing to do with the deplorable Beltway consensus on Israel, of which Trump is a part.

Ron Showalter , May 13, 2016 at 2:40 pm

Why, I am glad you asked.

War Is Realizing the Israelizing of the World

snip

As US-driven wars plummet the Muslim world ever deeper into jihadi-ridden failed state chaos, events seem to be careening toward a tipping point. Eventually, the region will become so profuse a font of terrorists and refugees, that Western popular resistance to "boots on the ground" will be overwhelmed by terror and rage. Then, the US-led empire will finally have the public mandate it needs to thoroughly and permanently colonize the Greater Middle East.

It is easy to see how the Military Industrial Complex and crony energy industry would profit from such an outcome. But what about America's "best friend" in the region? How does Israel stand to benefit from being surrounded by such chaos?

Tel Aviv has long pursued a strategy of "divide and conquer": both directly, and indirectly through the tremendous influence of the Israel lobby and neocons over US foreign policy.

A famous article from the early 1980s by Israeli diplomat and journalist Oded Yinon is most explicit in this regard. The "Yinon Plan" calls for the "dissolution" of "the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula." Each country was to be made to "fall apart along sectarian and ethnic lines," after which each resulting fragment would be "hostile" to its neighbors." Yinon incredibly claimed that:

"This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run"

According to Yinon, this Balkanization should be realized by fomenting discord and war among the Arabs:

"Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon."

And another link:

The Unfolding of Yinon's "Zionist Plan for the Middle East": The Crisis in Iraq and the Centrality of the National Interest of Israel

And another:

Who is Israel's Biggest Enemy?

So, you can see that Trump has said the right things into the right ears – read: AIPAC – as far as anyone of import is concerned – read: not any of us – and so now he's free to say whatever else he thinks he needs to.

I mean, Sheldon Adelson endorsed him so he can't be THAT scary to Israel-first billionaires and their bed-buddies, right?

Ooops, I forgot he's an outsider that everyone's scared of. My bad. Hillary will be so much worse.

Lambert Strether , May 13, 2016 at 7:31 pm

You may be glad I asked, but that doesn't mean you answered.

Chauncey Gardiner , May 13, 2016 at 2:21 pm

Robert Parry at ConsortiumNews has written an insightful article about the damage that has been caused by both the neocon ideologues' control of US foreign policy and the neoliberals' control of economic policy, their powerful political and propaganda apparatus, and what we can expect from the legacy political party candidates for the presidency, focusing on Clinton and her past positions regarding the Middle East.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/11/neocons-and-neolibs-how-dead-ideas-kill/

It is noteworthy that the dominance of failed neocon and neoliberal policies over the past few decades has coincided with consolidation and concentration of ownership of corporate media in very few hands. As with restoring the Glass-Steagall Act and breaking up the TBTFs, reinstating limits on media ownership and control is an important and necessary measure to breaking the influence these few individuals have had over national policy.

John , May 13, 2016 at 2:59 pm

I'm actually considering the possibility that Trump is to the left of Hillary. He appears to be on foreign policy, at least. What do you guys think?

Massinissa , May 13, 2016 at 7:01 pm

Being Left of Hillary is a really really really low bar. He probably is, but thats probably because Hillary is right wing. You know, like almost all American politicians from both parties. Trumps not left of Bernie (at least not yet or not right now: I expect hes going to swing left in the general to scoop up Bernie voters), and Bernies just an Eisenhower Republican, which is admittedly to the left of basically all the other politicians today.

Lambert Strether , May 13, 2016 at 7:55 pm

Quoting from memory, context foreign policy: "If our Presidents had gone to the beach every day of the year fifteen years ago, we would have been in much better shape." (Note this includes Bush.)

He's right, you know.

[Mar 02, 2019] Trump is millions of Republican voters' judgment against a party that failed them.

Not so quick. He proved to be Bush III. But illusions after his election were abundant.
Notable quotes:
"... I see Trump's success as proof that "the people who run [the GOP] and the institutions surrounding it failed." They not only failed in their immediate task of preventing the nomination of a candidate that party leaders loathed, but failed repeatedly over at least the last fifteen years to govern well or even to represent the interests and concerns of most Republican voters. ..."
"... Party leaders spent decades conning Republican voters with promises they knew they wouldn't or couldn't fulfill, and then were shocked when most of those voters turned against them. ..."
"... Trump is millions of Republican voters' judgment against a party that failed them, and the fact that Trump is thoroughly unqualified for the office he seeks makes that judgment all the more damning. ..."
www.theamericanconservative.com
Trump officially secured the Republican nomination last night:

Mr. Trump tallied 1,725 delegates, easily surpassing the 1,237 delegate threshold needed to clinch the nomination. The delegate tally from his home state of New York, announced by Mr. Trump's son Donald Jr., put him over the top.

Like Rod Dreher, I see Trump's success as proof that "the people who run [the GOP] and the institutions surrounding it failed." They not only failed in their immediate task of preventing the nomination of a candidate that party leaders loathed, but failed repeatedly over at least the last fifteen years to govern well or even to represent the interests and concerns of most Republican voters.

Had the Bush administration not presided over multiple disasters, most of them of their own making, there would have been no opening or occasion for the repudiation of the party's leaders that we have seen this year. Had the party served the interests of most of its voters instead of catering to the preferences of their donors and corporations, there would have been much less support for someone like Trump.

Party leaders spent decades conning Republican voters with promises they knew they wouldn't or couldn't fulfill, and then were shocked when most of those voters turned against them.

Trump is millions of Republican voters' judgment against a party that failed them, and the fact that Trump is thoroughly unqualified for the office he seeks makes that judgment all the more damning.

[Mar 02, 2019] Unhappy with the Obama economy, voters are buying what Trump s selling

They bought in 2016 was Trump was selling not realizing that this was Obama-style bait and switch
Notable quotes:
"... With paychecks remaining disappointingly small and layoffs reaching a seven-year high , many have subscribed to Trump's narrative instead the one presented by Obama's administration. It's a horror story about an American economy in terminal decline, its workers sold down the river to China and Mexico. ..."
"... "It's a horror story about an American economy in terminal decline, its workers sold down the river to China and Mexico." You forgot India. ..."
"... Mr Obama has the distinction of running the biggest soup kitchen in living memory - 46 million on food stamps. Quite an economic accomplishment ..."
"... In the US the Democratic party has lost touch with the working class. The media in the US are even worse. The Democrats are now the party of cosmopolitan elites, college students, and identify politics adherents. ..."
"... Blue collar workers have long know they didn't have a voice in the beltway. That their "champions" viewed them as lower beings, children that needed to be taken care of. The fact that Trump annoys these very people is viewed as a great positive. So these former Demcrats crashed the Republican party. ..."
"... So now we have a populist vs a establishment Democrat. Standard Republicans are now left scratching their heads wondering "what the hell just happened?" ..."
"... Trump proposes to get rid of the National Debt in eight years. Since that money resides in the pockets of the private sector the net outcome in getting rid of the "debt" (government money injection into the private sector) will be to substantially reduce the amount of money in active circulation and could result in excessive private borrowing to compensate for that loss resulting in an unsustainable debt build-up and a re-run of the 2008 financial crash. ..."
"... Consecutive Bushes did too much damage economically and socially to be fixed ..."
"... Unfortunately, they cannot return what they bought from President Dubya and President Hope and Change.... the same thing that Hillary is peddling, but with a nice girly twist this time. ..."
"... There has been much talk about Donald Trump being the "elephant in the room" that cannot be ignored when discussing the presidential election. The Donald is a wizard at dispensing outrageous but irrelevant comments which the news media are drawn to like cats to catnip. For example "Elizabeth Warren is NOT 1/32 Cherokee!" As far as I know, Elizabeth Warren is not running for President. If Donald Trump said that "Micky Mouse is NOT 1/32 gerbil", it would make many headlines. He's brilliant at manipulating the media. Or, is he simply colluding with the news media? ..."
"... What journalists are not reporting is who is doing the dirty work in Congress and in the Obama Administration to skew the economy toward benefitting the wealthy. Big campaign contributors, lobbyists, and conniving legislators have worked hard to "stack the deck against the average American" as Elizabeth Warren has rightly said. ..."
"... Why aren't Washington journalists unpacking and describing the many, many financial deals being made in the halls of Congress to benefit the politically connected few? The reason is simple. They are afraid to. They have to provide food, clothing, and shelter for themselves and their families. The big media corporations they work for would not be pleased by any discomforting of their political allies, and the corporations themselves may be involved. Many are conglomerates made up of many businesses with their fingers in many pies. ..."
May 07, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

With paychecks remaining disappointingly small and layoffs reaching a seven-year high , many have subscribed to Trump's narrative instead the one presented by Obama's administration. It's a horror story about an American economy in terminal decline, its workers sold down the river to China and Mexico.

"People don't really want to hear that it could have been worse. Sometimes such statements anger people and make the president seem out of touch. It doesn't resonate because they can't observe that alternative outcome," explained Lawrence Mishel, president at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. "It's progress in their weekly paychecks that resonates."

"Wages are the unfinished business of the recovery," the US labor department has noted repeatedly over the last few months as jobs report after jobs report have shown wage growth to be in the vicinity of just 2%. In addition to jobs, wages are one of the most important parts of this recovery.

In order for working class Americans to feel its effects, wage growth would have to be closer to 3% to 4%. When the US census last released its data about median household incomes in the US, it found that the average American was bringing home the same paycheck as Americans in 1997.

With rents and food costs going back, wages from 20 years ago are no longer cutting it. As a result, working Americans are tired of what they think of as "status quo" politics.

"People are feeling ornery and that's the result of stagnant wages for the vast majority for at least the last dozen years," said Mishel. "That may explain why among conservative GOP voters Trump has made headway. This is the first election I ever heard any GOP candidates talk about wages."

AmyInNH, 7 May 2016 09:39

Nailed it, Ms. Kasperkevic. Bravo.

"It's a horror story about an American economy in terminal decline, its workers sold down the river to China and Mexico." You forgot India.

salfraser, 7 May 2016 08:54

Mr Obama has the distinction of running the biggest soup kitchen in living memory - 46 million on food stamps. Quite an economic accomplishment

DJROM 7 May 2016 08:39

Good article. Seemed like an honest effort to explain the appeal of Trump without lazily using racism, misogyny, or stupidity as a half baked rationalization.

In the US the Democratic party has lost touch with the working class. The media in the US are even worse. The Democrats are now the party of cosmopolitan elites, college students, and identify politics adherents.

Blue collar workers have long know they didn't have a voice in the beltway. That their "champions" viewed them as lower beings, children that needed to be taken care of. The fact that Trump annoys these very people is viewed as a great positive. So these former Demcrats crashed the Republican party.

So now we have a populist vs a establishment Democrat. Standard Republicans are now left scratching their heads wondering "what the hell just happened?"

The Guardian had an article about how Labor should not dismiss the grey haired blue collar workers that were joining UKIP. It was in 2014,long before the Trump phenomenon, but when i recently read it i thought " that is Trump.

wormtownspawn -> Hendrik Bruwer 7 May 2016 08:12

12 Donald Trump businesses that no longer exist

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/12-donald-trump-businesses-that-no-longer-exist-204923129.html

The Bankruptcies

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2068227_2068229_2068209,00.html

frontalcortexes 7 May 2016 08:10

Trump's ultimately selling recession, despite his opposition to unfair global trading tactics, but hardly anybody understands this because they're clueless about how their money system works. Trump proposes to get rid of the National Debt in eight years. Since that money resides in the pockets of the private sector the net outcome in getting rid of the "debt" (government money injection into the private sector) will be to substantially reduce the amount of money in active circulation and could result in excessive private borrowing to compensate for that loss resulting in an unsustainable debt build-up and a re-run of the 2008 financial crash.

As for Clinton and Sanders, you can't trust the former and the latter sends a mixed message in regard to how well he understands how the country's money system works. Like the UK the US is in a pickle with politicians who should rightly say "I'm not an idiot but I've got a few parts missing!"

TheBBG -> Hendrik Bruwer 7 May 2016 08:08

You obviously are oblivious to the concepts of and necessity for tact and diplomacy, two basics for foreign policy as well as cajoling congress. Be careful what you wish for, and even more so what you vote for - you might get what you want - the US going down the toilet.

Madranon 7 May 2016 08:03

Consecutive Bushes did too much damage economically and socially to be fixed by either Clinton or Obama administrations. It is like running down someone's immune system that it is unable to fight off aggressive and opportunistic germs.

bcarey 7 May 2016 07:58

Unfortunately, they cannot return what they bought from President Dubya and President Hope and Change.... the same thing that Hillary is peddling, but with a nice girly twist this time.

dallasdunlap -> Solomon Black 7 May 2016 07:56

The dislike of Trump stems from his remarks re illegal immigration. That triggered an organized effort by left wing groups, abetted by media organizations, to depict him as a racist and, by extension a fascist, fascist being the designation for any moderate of conservative politician who is obviously popular.


GeorgeFrederick 7 May 2016 07:43

There has been much talk about Donald Trump being the "elephant in the room" that cannot be ignored when discussing the presidential election. The Donald is a wizard at dispensing outrageous but irrelevant comments which the news media are drawn to like cats to catnip. For example "Elizabeth Warren is NOT 1/32 Cherokee!" As far as I know, Elizabeth Warren is not running for President. If Donald Trump said that "Micky Mouse is NOT 1/32 gerbil", it would make many headlines. He's brilliant at manipulating the media. Or, is he simply colluding with the news media?

What journalists are not reporting is who is doing the dirty work in Congress and in the Obama Administration to skew the economy toward benefitting the wealthy. Big campaign contributors, lobbyists, and conniving legislators have worked hard to "stack the deck against the average American" as Elizabeth Warren has rightly said.

Why aren't Washington journalists unpacking and describing the many, many financial deals being made in the halls of Congress to benefit the politically connected few? The reason is simple. They are afraid to. They have to provide food, clothing, and shelter for themselves and their families. The big media corporations they work for would not be pleased by any discomforting of their political allies, and the corporations themselves may be involved. Many are conglomerates made up of many businesses with their fingers in many pies. Yes, the average American may not be doing well, but the gravy train in Washington is running on schedule and doing very well, thank you. (I'll let someone else comment on all this nonsense about how many jobs have been created by Obama.)

[Mar 02, 2019] What Trump_vs_deep_state Means for Democracy by Andrew J. Bacevich

Notable quotes:
"... None of this will matter to Trump, however. He is no conservative and Trump_vs_deep_state requires no party. Even if some new institutional alternative to conventional liberalism eventually emerges, the two-party system that has long defined the landscape of American politics will be gone for good. ..."
"... Should Trump or a Trump mini-me ultimately succeed in capturing the presidency, a possibility that can no longer be dismissed out of hand, the effects will be even more profound. In all but name, the United States will cease to be a constitutional republic. Once President Trump inevitably declares that he alone expresses the popular will, Americans will find that they have traded the rule of law for a version of caudillismo ..."
www.theamericanconservative.com
Whether or not Donald Trump ultimately succeeds in winning the White House, historians are likely to rank him as the most consequential presidential candidate of at least the past half-century. He has already transformed the tone and temper of American political life. If he becomes the Republican nominee, he will demolish its structural underpinnings as well. Should he prevail in November, his election will alter its very fabric in ways likely to prove irreversible. Whether Trump ever delivers on his promise to "Make America Great Again," he is already transforming American democratic practice.

Trump takes obvious delight in thumbing his nose at the political establishment and flouting its norms. Yet to classify him as an anti-establishment figure is to miss his true significance. He is to American politics what Martin Shkreli is to Big Pharma. Each represents in exaggerated form the distilled essence of a much larger and more disturbing reality. Each embodies the smirking cynicism that has become one of the defining characteristics of our age. Each in his own way is a sign of the times.

In contrast to the universally reviled Shkreli, however, Trump has cultivated a mass following that appears impervious to his missteps, miscues, and misstatements. What Trump actually believes-whether he believes in anything apart from big, splashy self-display-is largely unknown and probably beside the point. Trump_vs_deep_state is not a program or an ideology. It is an attitude or pose that feeds off, and then reinforces, widespread anger and alienation.

The pose works because the anger-always present in certain quarters of the American electorate but especially acute today-is genuine. By acting the part of impish bad boy and consciously trampling on the canons of political correctness, Trump validates that anger. The more outrageous his behavior, the more secure his position at the very center of the political circus. Wondering what he will do next, we can't take our eyes off him. And to quote Marco Rubio in a different context , Trump "knows exactly what he is doing."

♦♦♦

There is a form of genius at work here. To an extent unmatched by any other figure in American public life, Trump understands that previous distinctions between the ostensibly serious and the self-evidently frivolous have collapsed. Back in 1968, then running for president, Richard Nixon, of all people, got things rolling when he appeared on Laugh-In and uttered the immortal words, "Sock it to me?" But no one has come close to Trump in grasping the implications of all this: in contemporary America, celebrity confers authority. Mere credentials or qualifications have become an afterthought. How else to explain the host of a "reality" TV show instantly qualifying as a serious contender for high office?

For further evidence of Trump's genius, consider the skill with which he plays the media, especially celebrity journalists who themselves specialize in smirking cynicism. Rather than pretending to take them seriously, he unmasks their preening narcissism, which mirrors his own. He refuses to acknowledge their self-assigned role as gatekeepers empowered to police the boundaries of permissible discourse. As the embodiment of "breaking news," he continues to stretch those boundaries beyond recognition.

In that regard, the spectacle of televised "debates" has offered Trump an ideal platform for promoting his cult of personality. Once a solemn, almost soporific forum for civic education-remember Kennedy and Nixon in presidential debates now provide occasions for trading insults, provoking gaffes, engaging in verbal food fights, and marketing magical solutions to problems ranging from war to border security that are immune to magic. For all of that we have Trump chiefly to thank.

Trump's success as a campaigner schools his opponents, of course. In a shrinking Republican field, survival requires mimicking his antics. In that regard, Ted Cruz rates as Trump's star pupil. Cruz is to Trump what Lady Gaga was to Amy Winehouse-a less freewheeling, more scripted, and arguably more calculating version of the original.

Yet if not a clone, Cruz taps into the same vein of pissed-off, give-me-my-country-back rage that Trump himself has so adeptly exploited. Like the master himself, Cruz has demonstrated a notable aptitude for expressing disagreement through denigration and for extravagant, crackpot promises . For his part, Marco Rubio, the only other Republican still seriously in the running, lags not far behind. When it comes to swagger and grandiosity, nothing beats a vow to create a " New American Century ," thereby resurrecting a mythic past when all was ostensibly right with the world.

On two points alone do these several Republicans see eye-to-eye. The first relates to domestic policy, the second to America's role in the world.

On point one: with absolute unanimity, Trump, Cruz, and Rubio ascribe to Barack Obama any and all problems besetting the nation. To take their critique at face value, the country was doing swimmingly well back in 2009 when Obama took office. Today, it's FUBAR, due entirely to Obama's malign actions.

Wielding comparable authority, however, a Republican president can, they claim, dismantle Obama's poisonous legacy and restore all that he has destroyed. From "day one," on issues ranging from health care to immigration to the environment, the Republican candidates vow to do exactly this. With the stroke of a pen and the wave of a hand, it will be a breeze.

On point two: ditto. Aided and abetted by Hillary Clinton, Obama has made a complete hash of things abroad. Here the list of Republican grievances is especially long. Thanks to Obama, Russia threatens Europe; North Korea is misbehaving; China is flexing its military muscles; ISIS is on the march; Iran has a clear path to acquiring nuclear weapons; and perhaps most distressingly of all, Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is unhappy with U.S. policy.

Here, too, the Republican candidates see eye-to-eye and have solutions readily at hand. In one way or another, all of those solutions relate to military power. Trump, Cruz, and Rubio are unabashed militarists. (So, too, is Hillary Clinton, but that's an issue deserving an essay of its own). Their gripe with Obama is that he never put American military might fully to work, a defect they vow to amend. A Republican commander-in-chief, be it Trump, Cruz, or Rubio, won't take any guff from Moscow or Pyongyang or Beijing or Tehran. He will eradicate "radical Islamic terrorism," put the mullahs back in their box, torture a bunch of terrorists in the bargain, and give Bibi whatever he wants.

In addition to offering Obama a sort of backhanded tribute-so much damage wrought by just one man in so little time-the Republican critique reinforces reigning theories of presidential omnipotence. Just as an incompetent or ill-motivated chief executive can screw everything up, so, too, can a bold and skillful one set things right.

♦♦♦

The ratio between promises made and promises fulfilled by every president in recent memory-Obama included-should have demolished such theories long ago. But no such luck. Fantasies of a great president saving the day still persist, something that Trump, Cruz, and Rubio have all made the centerpiece of their campaigns. Elect me, each asserts. I alone can save the Republic.

Here, however, Trump may enjoy an edge over his competitors, including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. With Americans assigning to their presidents the attributes of demigods-each and every one memorialized before death with a library-shrine -who better to fill the role than an egomaniacal tycoon who already acts the part? The times call for strong leadership. Who better to provide it than a wheeler-dealer unbothered by the rules that constrain mere mortals?

What then lies ahead?

If Trump secures the Republican nomination, now an increasingly imaginable prospect, the party is likely to implode. Whatever rump organization survives will have forfeited any remaining claim to represent principled conservatism.

None of this will matter to Trump, however. He is no conservative and Trump_vs_deep_state requires no party. Even if some new institutional alternative to conventional liberalism eventually emerges, the two-party system that has long defined the landscape of American politics will be gone for good.

Should Trump or a Trump mini-me ultimately succeed in capturing the presidency, a possibility that can no longer be dismissed out of hand, the effects will be even more profound. In all but name, the United States will cease to be a constitutional republic. Once President Trump inevitably declares that he alone expresses the popular will, Americans will find that they have traded the rule of law for a version of caudillismo . Trump's Washington could come to resemble Buenos Aires in the days of Juan Perón, with Melania a suitably glamorous stand-in for Evita, and plebiscites suitably glamorous stand-ins for elections.

That a considerable number of Americans appear to welcome this prospect may seem inexplicable. Yet reason enough exists for their disenchantment. American democracy has been decaying for decades. The people know that they are no longer truly sovereign. They know that the apparatus of power, both public and private, does not promote the common good, itself a concept that has become obsolete. They have had their fill of irresponsibility, lack of accountability, incompetence, and the bad times that increasingly seem to go with them.

So in disturbingly large numbers they have turned to Trump to strip bare the body politic, willing to take a chance that he will come up with something that, if not better, will at least be more entertaining. As Argentines and others who have trusted their fate to demagogues have discovered, such expectations are doomed to disappointment.

In the meantime, just imagine how the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library, no doubt taller than all the others put together, might one day glitter and glisten - perhaps with a casino attached.

Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. He is the author of the new book America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History (Random House, April 2016).

[Dec 18, 2017] Can The Deep State Be Cured

Notable quotes:
"... The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the disease, as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak perspective (truly, we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your pick or get a combo, it's all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It can and should be cured. ..."
"... The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state. ..."
"... Because inflated salaries , inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business. ..."
"... Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media. Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command. ..."
"... Watch an old program like"Yes, Minister" to understand how it works. Politicians come and go, but the permanent state apparatchiks doesn't. ..."
"... The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences. The social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally susceptible to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on Wall St; pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. ..."
www.zerohedge.com

Submitted by Karen Kwiatkowski via LewRockwell.com,

So, after getting up late, groggy, and feeling overworked even before I started, I read this article . Just after, I had to feed a dozen cats and dogs, each dog in a separate room out of respect for their territorialism and aggressive desire to consume more than they should (hmm, where have I seen this before), and in the process, forgot where I put my coffee cup. Retracing steps, I finally find it and sit back down to my 19-inch window on the ugly (and perhaps remote) world of the state, and the endless pinpricks of the independent media on its vast overwhelmingly evil existence. I suspect I share this distractibility and daily estrangement from the actions of our government with most Americans .

We are newly bombing Libya and still messing with the Middle East? I thought that the wars the deep state wanted and started were now limited and constrained! What happened to lack of funds, lack of popular support, public transparency that revealed the stupidity and abject failure of these wars?

Deep state. Something systemic, difficult to detect, hard to remove, hidden. It is a spirit as much as nerves and organ. How do your starve it, excise it, or just make it go away? We want to know. I think this explains the popularity of infotainment about haunted houses, ghosts and alien beings among us. They live and we are curious and scared.

The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the disease, as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak perspective (truly, we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your pick or get a combo, it's all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It can and should be cured.

My summary of the long Jeffrey Goldberg piece is basically that Obama has become more fatalistic (did he mean to say fatal?) since he won that Nobel Peace Prize back in 2009 . By the way, the "Nobel prize" article contains this gem, sure to get a chuckle:

"Obama's drone program is regularly criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability, especially considering incomplete intelligence means officials are often unsure about who will die. "

[M]ost individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names," Micah Zenko, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations told the New York Times."

This is about all the fun I can handle in one day. But back to what I was trying to say.

The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state.

Because inflated salaries , inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business.

Can a lack of public support reduce the deep state, or impact it? Well, it would seem that this is a non-factor, except for the strange history we have had and are witnessing again today, with the odd successful popular and populist-leaning politician and their related movements. In my lifetime, only popular figures and their movements get assassinated mysteriously, with odd polka dot dresses, MKULTRA suggestions, threats against their family by their competitors (I'm thinking Perot, but one mustn't be limited to that case), and always with concordant pressures on the sociopolitical seams in the country, i.e riots and police/military activations. The bad dealings toward, and genuine fear of, Bernie Sanders within the Democratic Party's wing of the deep state is matched or exceeded only by the genuine terror of Trump among the Republican deep state wing. This reaction to something or some person that so many in the country find engaging and appealing - an outsider who speaks to the growing political and economic dissatisfaction of a poorer, more indebted, and more regulated population – is heart-warming, to be sure. It is a sign that whether or not we do, the deep state thinks things might change. Thank you, Bernie and especially Donald, for revealing this much! And the "republicanization" of the Libertarian Party is also a bright indicator blinking out the potential of deep state movement and compromise in the pursuit of "stability."

Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media. Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command.

Maybe we will one day soon be able to debate how deep the deep state really is, or whether it was all just a dressed up, meth'ed up, and eff'ed up a sector of society that deserves a bit of jail time, some counseling, and a new start . Maybe some job training that goes beyond the printing of license plates. But given the destruction and mass murder committed daily in the name of this state, and the environmental disasters it has created around the world for the future generations, perhaps we will be no more merciful to these proprietors of the American empire as they have been to their victims. The ruling class deeply fears our judgment, and in this dynamic lies the cure.

Jim in MN Tallest Skil Aug 20, 2016 8:22 PM

I made a list of steps that could be taken to disrupt the Beast. It's all I can offer but I offer it freely.

https://www.scribd.com/document/67758041/List-of-Demands-October-6-2011

4:00 AM October 6, 2011

Kitchen Table, USA

LIST OF DEMANDS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM FINANCIAL CATASTROPHE

I.CURB CORRUPTION AND EXCESSIVE POWER IN THE FINANCIAL ARMS OF THE US GOVERNMENT

A. FEDERAL RESERVE

1. Benjaman Bernanke to be removed as Chairman immediately

2. New York Federal Reserve Bank and all New York City offices of the Federal Reserve system will be closed for at least 3 years

3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation

4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels

5. Interest rate manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years

6. Balance sheet manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years

7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years

B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT

1. Timothy Geithner to be removed as Secretary immediately

2. All New York City offices of the Department will be closed for at least 3 years

3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation

4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels

5. Market manipulation/intervention to be prohibited for at least five years

7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years

II. END THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF GIANT BANKS AND PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FURTHER EXPOSURE TO THEIR COLLAPSE

A. END CORRUPT INFLUENCE

1. Lifetime ban on government employment for TARP recipient employees and corporate officers, specifically including Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase

2. Ten year ban on government work for consulting firms, law firms, and individual consultants and lawyers who have accepted cash from these entities

3. All contacts by any method with federal agencies and employees prohibited for at least five years, with civil and criminal penalties for violation

B. PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM FURTHER HARM AT THE HANDS OF GIANT BANKS

1. No financial institution with assets of more than $10billion will receive federal assistance or any 'arm's-length' bailouts

2. TARP recipients are prohibited from purchasing other TARP recipient corporate units, or merging with other TARP recipients

3. No foreign interest shall be allowed to acquire any portion of TARP recipients in the US or abroad

III. PREVENT CORPORATE ACCOUNTING AND PENSION FUND ABUSES RELATED TO THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS

A. CORPORATE ACCOUNTING

1. Immediately implement mark-to-market accounting rules which were improperly suspended, allowing six months for implementation.

2. Companies must reserve against impaired assets under mark-to-market rules

3. Any health or life insurance company with more than$100 million in assets must report on their holdings and risk factors, specifically including exposure to real estate, mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, and other exotic financial instruments. These reports will be to state insurance commissions and the federal government, and will also be made available to the public on the Internet.

B. PENSION FUNDS

1. All private and public pension funds must disclose their funding status and establish a plan to fully fund accounts under the assumption that net real returns across all asset classes remain at zero for at least ten years.

Winston Churchill -> Sam Clemons Aug 20, 2016 7:26 PM

Watch an old program like"Yes, Minister" to understand how it works. Politicians come and go, but the permanent state apparatchiks doesn't.

sinbad2 -> Winston Churchill Aug 20, 2016 7:58 PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby: You know what happens when politicians get into Number 10; they want to take their place on the world stage.

Sir Richard Wharton: People on stages are called actors. All they are required to do is look plausible, stay sober, and say the lines they're given in the right order.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Some of them try to make up their own lines.

Sir Richard Wharton: They don't last long.

rlouis Aug 20, 2016 7:47 PM

The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences. The social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally susceptible to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on Wall St; pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

The failed coup in Turkey is a significant indication of institutional weakness and also vulnerability. The inability to exercise force of will in Syria is another. The list of failures is getting too long.

[Dec 01, 2017] Elite needs a kill switch for their front men and women

marknesop.wordpress.com
Patient Observer , July 23, 2016 at 7:07 pm
An interesting article on John McCain. I disagree with the contention that McCain hid knowledge that many American POWs were left behind (undoubtedly some voluntarily choose to remain behind but not hundreds ). However, the article touched on some ideas that rang true:

Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.

An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky.

One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.

The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women).

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-tokyo-rose-ran-for-president/

Cortes , July 24, 2016 at 11:16 am

Seems to be a series of pieces dealing with Vietnam POWs: the following linked item was interesting and provided a plausible explanation: that the US failed to pay up agreed on reparations…

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-relying-upon-maoist-professors-of-cultural-studies/

marknesop , July 24, 2016 at 12:29 pm
Remarkable and shocking. Wheels within wheels – this is the first time I have ever seen McCain's father connected with the infamous Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights.
Cortes , July 25, 2016 at 9:08 am
Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. The conclusion regarding aspiring untenured historians is quite downbeat:

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-will-there-be-a-spotlight-sequel-to-the-killing-fields/

marknesop , July 25, 2016 at 10:40 am
Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the Cover-Up.

yalensis , July 25, 2016 at 3:40 pm

So, McCain was Hanoi Jack broadcasting from the Hanoi Hilton?

[Dec 31, 2016] What Happened to Obamas Passion

This was written in 2011 but it summarizes Obama presidency pretty nicely, even today. Betrayer in chief, the master of bait and switch. That is the essence of Obama legacy. On "Great Democratic betrayal"... Obama always was a closet neoliberal and neocon. A stooge of neoliberal financial oligarchy, a puppet, if you want politically incorrect term. He just masked it well during hist first election campaigning as a progressive democrat... And he faced Romney in his second campaign, who was even worse, so after betraying American people once, he was reelected and did it twice. Much like Bush II. He like another former cocaine addict -- George W Bush has never any intention of helping American people, only oligarchy.
Notable quotes:
"... IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. ..."
"... We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues. ..."
"... These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community, opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power. ..."
"... Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to lead us back ..."
"... he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality, where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all Americans. ..."
"... I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator. ..."
"... Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson, have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed are even worse off than my family is. ..."
"... So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not the leader I thought I was voting for. ..."
"... I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans ..."
"... He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people. That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible, avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation. ..."
"... I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the country as Republicans are. ..."
Aug 06, 2011 | nytimes.com

When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters. Americans were scared and angry. The economy was spinning in reverse. Three-quarters of a million people lost their jobs that month. Many had lost their homes, and with them the only nest eggs they had. Even the usually impervious upper middle class had seen a decade of stagnant or declining investment, with the stock market dropping in value with no end in sight. Hope was as scarce as credit.

In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and suffering, and that he would restore order and safety. What they were waiting for, in broad strokes, was a story something like this:

"I know you're scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn't work out. And it didn't work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods, with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can't promise that we won't make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that your government has your back again." A story isn't a policy. But that simple narrative - and the policies that would naturally have flowed from it - would have inoculated against much of what was to come in the intervening two and a half years of failed government, idled factories and idled hands. That story would have made clear that the president understood that the American people had given Democrats the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the mess the Republicans and Wall Street had made of the country, and that this would not be a power-sharing arrangement. It would have made clear that the problem wasn't tax-and-spend liberalism or the deficit - a deficit that didn't exist until George W. Bush gave nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest Americans and squandered $1 trillion in two wars.

And perhaps most important, it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters, but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share for it.

But there was no story - and there has been none since.

In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden, he thundered, "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred."

When Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he stepped into a cycle of American history, best exemplified by F.D.R. and his distant cousin, Teddy. After a great technological revolution or a major economic transition, as when America changed from a nation of farmers to an urban industrial one, there is often a period of great concentration of wealth, and with it, a concentration of power in the wealthy. That's what we saw in 1928, and that's what we see today. At some point that power is exercised so injudiciously, and the lives of so many become so unbearable, that a period of reform ensues - and a charismatic reformer emerges to lead that renewal. In that sense, Teddy Roosevelt started the cycle of reform his cousin picked up 30 years later, as he began efforts to bust the trusts and regulate the railroads, exercise federal power over the banks and the nation's food supply, and protect America's land and wildlife, creating the modern environmental movement.

Those were the shoes - that was the historic role - that Americans elected Barack Obama to fill. The president is fond of referring to "the arc of history," paraphrasing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous statement that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics - in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness and just punch harder the next time - he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for at least a generation.

When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his true and repugnant face in public.

IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that decision to the public - a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his temperament just didn't bend that far.

Michael August 7, 2011

Eloquently expressed and horrifically accurate, this excellent analysis articulates the frustration that so many of us have felt watching Mr...

Bill Levine August 7, 2011

Very well put. I know that I have been going through Kübler-Ross's stages of grief ever since the foxes (a.k.a. Geithner and Summers) were...

AnAverageAmerican August 7, 2011

"In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it,...

cdearman Santa Fe, NM August 7, 2011

Unfortunately, the Democratic Congress of 2008-2010, did not have the will to make the economic and social program decisions that would have improved the economic situation for the middle-class; and it is becoming more obvious that President Obama does not have the temperament to publicly push for programs and policies that he wants the congress to enact.
The American people have a problem: we reelect Obama and hope for the best; or we elect a Republican and expect the worst. There is no question that the Health Care law that was just passed would be reversed; Medicare and Medicare would be gutted; and who knows what would happen to Social Security. You can be sure, though, that business taxes and regulation reforms would not be in the cards and those regulations that have been enacted would be reversed. We have traveled this road before and we should be wise enough not to travel it again!

SP California August 7, 2011

Brilliant analysis - and I suspect that a very large number of those who voted for President Obama will recognize in this the thoughts that they have been trying to ignore, or have been trying not to say out loud. Later historians can complete this analysis and attempt to explain exactly why Mr. Obama has turned out the way he has - but right now, it may be time to ask a more relevant and urgent question.

If it is not too late, will a challenger emerge in time before the 2012 elections, or will we be doomed to hold our noses and endure another four years of this?

farospace san francisco August 7, 2011

Very eloquent and exactly to the point. Like many others, I was enthralled by the rhetoric of his story, making the leap of faith (or hope) that because he could tell his story so well, he could tell, as you put it, "the story the American people were waiting to hear."

Disappointment has darkened into disillusion, disillusion into a species of despair. Will I vote for Barack Obama again? What are the options?

Richard Katz American in Oxford, UK August 7, 2011

This is the most brilliant and tragic story I have read in a long time---in fact, precisely since I read when Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt. When will a leader emerge with a true moral vision for the federal government and for our country? Someone who sees government as a balance to capitalism, and a means to achieve the social and economic justice that we (yes, we) believe in? Will that leadership arrive before parts of America come to look like the dystopia of Johannesburg?

We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues.

These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community, opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power.

Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to lead us back to America's traditional position on the global economic/political spectrum. He's brilliant and eloquent. He's achieved personal success that is inspirational. He's done some good things as president. But he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality, where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all Americans.

Taxes, subsidies, entitlements, laws... these are the tools we have available to achieve our national moral vision. But the vision has been muddled (hijacked?) and that is our biggest problem. -->

An Ordinary American Prague August 7, 2011

I voted for Obama. I thought then, and still think, he's a decent person, a smart person, a person who wants to do the best he can for others. When I voted for him, I was thinking he's a centrist who will find a way to unite our increasingly polarized and ugly politics in the USA. Or if not unite us, at least forge a way to get some important things done despite the ugly polarization.

And I must confess, I have been disappointed. Deeply so. He has not united us. He has not forged a way to accomplish what needs to be done. He has not been a leader.

I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator.

Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson, have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed are even worse off than my family is.

So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not the leader I thought I was voting for. Which leaves me feeling confused and close to apathetic about what to do as a voter in 2012. More of the same isn't worth voting for. Yet I don't see anyone out there who offers the possibility of doing better.

martin Portland, Oregon August 7, 2011

This was an extraordinarily well written, eloquent and comprehensive indictment of the failure of the Obama presidency.

If a credible primary challenger to Obama ever could arise, the positions and analysis in this column would be all he or she would need to justify the Democratic party's need to seek new leadership.

I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans, he said "we don't disparage wealth in America." I was dumbfounded.

He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people. That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible, avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation.

I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the country as Republicans are.

Perhaps all of these are true.

[Dec 29, 2016] The neoliberal MSM narrative that it is a well established fact that Russia influenced US election is nonsense.

Dec 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
sanjait -> DeDude... , December 28, 2016 at 06:26 PM
"Russia tampered with vote tallies to help Donald Trump"

Yeah, that seems like a clear statement, but when you consider that the vast majority of people do not habitually read closely and interpret things literally, I can see how this would easily be misinterpreted.

Russia tampered with the election to help Donald Trump. That's a fairly well established fact. It's not the same as "tampered with vote tallies" but an inattentive poll respondent might assume the question was about the former. And most people are inattentive.

likbez -> sanjait... December 28, 2016 at 09:40 PM , 2016 at 09:40 PM
Sanjait,

"Russia tampered with the election to help Donald Trump. That's a fairly well established fact."

You are funny. Especially with your "well established fact" nonsense.

In such cases the only source of well established facts is a court of law or International observers of the elections. All other agencies have their own interest in distorting the truth. For example, to get additional funding.

And that list includes President Obama himself, as a player, because he clearly was a Hillary supporter and as such can not be considered an impartial player and can politically benefit from shifting the blame for fiasco to Russia.

Also historically, he never was very truthful with American people, was he? As in case of his
"Change we can believe in!" bait and switch trick.

There were several other important foreign players in the US elections: for example KAS and Israel. Were their actions investigated? Especially in the area of financial support of candidates.

And then FYI there is a documented history of US tampering in Russian Presidential election of 2011-2012 such as meetings of the US ambassador with the opposition leaders, financing of opposition via NGO, putting pressure by publishing election pools produced by US financed non-profits, and so on and so forth. All in the name of democracy, of course. Which cost Ambassador McFaul his position; NED was kicked out of the country.

As far as I remember nobody went to jail in the USA for those activities. There was no investigation. So it looks like the USA authorities considered this to be a pretty legal activity. Then why they complain now?

And then there is the whole rich history of CIA subverting elections in Latin America.

So is not this a case of "the pot calling the kettle black"?

I don't know. But I would avoid your simplistic position. The case is too complex for this.

At least more complex that the narrative the neoliberal MSMs try to present us with. It might be Russian influence was a factor, but it might be that it was negligible and other factors were in play. There is also a pre-history and there are other suspects.

You probably need to see a wider context of the event.

[Dec 27, 2016] Neopopulism

Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs -> Peter K.... December 26, 2016 at 07:15 AM neopopulism: A cultural and political movement, mainly in Latin American countries, distinct from twentieth-century populism in radically combining classically opposed left-wing and right-wing attitudes and using electronic media as a means of dissemination. (Wiktionary)

[Dec 26, 2016] Young Sanders Campaign Aides Plan Anti-Trump Permanent Protest Base in Washington

Notable quotes:
"... "Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the very rich become much richer. ..."
"... "To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him." ..."
Dec 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Sanders betrayed them, but they still use him as a flag...
PlutoniumKun , December 25, 2016 at 6:27 am

This is inspiring, but I hope they realise that opposing Trump is just one side of a two-front battle. Trump needs to be opposed when (as seems very likely) he will start to drive a very right wing pro-billionaire set of policies. But its increasingly obvious that there is an equally difficult battle to be fought against the 'centrists' in the Dems and elsewhere. If all the focus is on Trump, then there is the danger they just become the useful idiots of the Dem mainstream.

Wyoming , December 25, 2016 at 8:18 am

I would go so far to say that their greatest opponent and biggest danger is not Trump and the Republicans at all. It is the Democratic Party and pretty much every significant office holding Democrat and their staffs.

Revolution starts at home. Fighting with Republicans will not accomplish much when the fifth columnists from the Democratic Party are going to sabotage every effort they make which shows promise of having an effect. They need to show their power by hamstringing targeted Democrats and thus herding the rest into line through fear. You do what we say and how we say it or we replace you. They have to own the left. No more liberal's in name only. You are against us or you are with us.

johnnygl , December 25, 2016 at 8:38 am

Primary them all! Schumer, pelosi, the whole bunch.

Win in 2020 and redraw those districts to wipe out those super-safe ones that are drawn to wipe out competition.

Vatch , December 25, 2016 at 11:17 am

I agree - they must be opposed in the primaries. That's tough to do, and will take real dedication and money. The deplorable Debbie Wasserman Schultz won against Tim Canova in the 2016 primary, and the equally deplorable Chuck Schumer won reelection in 2016, so he won't be facing a primary opponent until the 2022 election season. Pelosi, of course is vulnerable every two years.

Please need to be willing to do more than just post comments on blogs. And lets not have any more of those comments bewailing the impossibility of overthrowing the status quo - it's difficult, but it's not impossible. (This paragraph isn't directed specifically to you, JohnnyGL or PlutoniumKun. I'm just concerned that some other commenters seem to try to prevent people from taking an active role in politics, and that is just plain wrong.)

Katharine , December 25, 2016 at 9:12 am

I think opposing Trump will naturally entail telling the centrists to shape up. That is of course only a start, but it is a start.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 25, 2016 at 11:37 am

Sanders started, many moths ago, with the goal of taking over/reforming/remaking/revolutionizing the D party.

That start is not completed yet.

jrs , December 25, 2016 at 12:06 pm

uh why fight against a party with NO federal power? (state power in a few states so maybe relevant there)

Even if you get unanimous Dem opposition how much does it matter? Ok the Rs don't quite have a super-majority yet I guess but it is Rs who will be passing legislation. Fighting Dems is about like fighting WWII after it's all over. They have mouthpieces and foundations it is true, but no power.

Sorrynotsorry , December 25, 2016 at 6:43 am

Bwah ha ha ha ha! What are they doing? Anything except, you know, voting

Synoia , December 25, 2016 at 7:16 am

Better message is to be pro a set of policies:
1. Medicare for all
2. SS are a real retirement system
3. Job Guarantee
4. College for all – student debt
5. Taxes as social and business policy
6. No permanent standing military

Merry Christmas to all

Direction , December 25, 2016 at 7:43 am

7. Money out of politics
8. Corporations are not people with inalienable rights.

Dirk77 , December 25, 2016 at 11:58 am

Irritated by the identity politics of the main article. That and would they have opened an office if Hillary had won? If not, I fear they don't understand and are doomed to repeat the same mistakes of their elders.

+1 to you and Synoia. Merry Christmas!

Reify99 , December 25, 2016 at 10:01 am

Sanders is always on point moving toward the goal with minimal time spent talking about moving away from what Is opposed. Here's a sometime humorous case in point–

A candid conversation: Bernie Sanders and Sara Silverman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP5xavI0d_o&sns=em

Knifecatcher , December 25, 2016 at 11:23 am

Waaaaay too many bullet points already, and I see that others are adding more. Not that I'm saying any of those are unimportant, but when you have a dozen goals you actually have none at all. My ideal progressive movement would hammer relentlessly on 3 major initiatives:

– Medicare for all
– $15 minimum wage
– Post office banking

All 3 provide tangible benefits to the majority of Americans, with the added bonus of poking a sharp stick in the eye of the oligarchs.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 25, 2016 at 11:39 am

Perhaps these 2:

– Medicare and one Single Pesion (Socia Security) for all
– Basic Income (before retirement) for all

Steeeve , December 25, 2016 at 1:28 pm

I definitely agree about keeping the list of priorities short, but I feel that these two areas are foundational and systemically corrupting, and little else is likely to be accomplished without major reforms of both

– MIC/"Defense" spending (mostly spent on offense, not defending the borders of the USA from invasion)
– Campaign Finance – big money in politics

floatingcopy , December 25, 2016 at 8:15 am

9. Lifelong job education and skills-building for all unemployed and under-employed, paid for directly from corporate taxes.
10. Universal two-year commitment to the military or a full-time volunteer public service program.

johnnygl , December 25, 2016 at 8:43 am

11. Rewilding and reforesting polluted and abandoned land.
12. Anti-trust! More trust-busting needed!
13. Agricultural reform to ban feedlots, fertilizers and pesticides and reorganize farms to restore and rebuild soil. And yes, this will create jobs.

Marco , December 25, 2016 at 1:45 pm

13 points already? We're toast.

jrs , December 25, 2016 at 12:20 pm

"9. Lifelong job education and skills-building for all unemployed and under-employed, paid for directly from corporate taxes."

people don't know what a nightmare such scenarios are, ok it sucks if you are underemployed and have no way to retrain because finances, but it also sucks big league if you have to spend your entire life working full time AND pursuing more and more formal education, forever until you die. Is any of our utopias going to care about human beings being able to BE human beings? We are so so much more than just useful labor machines forever aquiring labor market useful skills.

Ok course a basic income guarantee or a labor market tilted for labor not capital (including government job creation sure – and sure there's other things that can tilt it for labor – lower Social Security age, unionization etc.) would nullify this objection as the competition for jobs would lessen enough perhaps.

"10. Universal two-year commitment to the military or a full-time volunteer public service program."

well this is even more self-evidently nightmarish but it hardly needs unpacking. 2 years of becoming hired killers for the imperialist murder machine. Yea I know you didn't specify military as mandatory, I'm just saying what is being encouraged.

DJG , December 25, 2016 at 12:48 pm

jrs: Agreed. Points 9 and 10 are non-starters. They will not lessen class warfare. Only a jobs policy and a commitment to full employment will. And this idea that U.S. citizens have to be drafted into some regimented public-service program isn't helpful.

But let's talk about reopening the Civilian Conservation Corps, as in point 11. Now that is a genuinely good idea. And people would gladly join–without feeling regimented.

Direction , December 25, 2016 at 8:28 am

There was an interesting debate around the water cooler links on Festivus. I would like to recap and extend it here because I want to know more. First about how you, Lambert, see the take over of a single state Democratic party office breaking open a path to reform the party from within. I would like to hear what scenarios you feel are possible.

Walden pond wrote
"The elite control the D party (which is nothing but a criminal organization at this point). They will allow outsiders to have dog-catcher, but get uppity and run for a state position and that person will be out in an instant. The Ds are factually/legally a private club and they can select their membership and candidates in any way they choose or get a court to back them on every petty legal change they make to block outsiders. They change rules (legal contract) retroactively, they violate their own rules repeatedly and someone thinks they are going to get any farther than a few school board positions or city council is going to fail.

Taking over the D party is similar to proposing infiltrating gangs (fully backed by the legal system) with 13 year olds to 'save the neighborhood'."

I whole heartedly agree. I think it's important that people understand that the party is not just a "machine" waiting for someone new to guide it. It is not a set of empty offices and poster printing machines with helpful local people waiting for guidance. At the top, it is much more like an exclusive country club whose membership passes down through wealthy families who think they know what's best for the nation.

Anyhow, if you have a strategy on how to break it, I would like to support that discussion. I would like to hear more.

Montanamaven , December 25, 2016 at 12:47 pm

I'm glad you carried this discussion over to today. People hear have heard my sad tales of woe when I decided in 2004 to stop being inattentive and to actually try "to change the party from within" that talk show hosts like Thom Hartmann and "The Nation" gang call for every 4 years. Yes, I discovered what Walden Pond wrote; that there is an "elite" control of the state parties. They are almost hereditary positions. Yes, they will get excited by a newbie like me who was articulate, worked in Hollywood, married to a rancher for conservative creeds. But then I started to challenge their positions by advocating for single payer; stronger labor stances that they all paId lip service to but didn't really seem to care about. So no longer was I allowed to talk to the press at the DNC Convention. As I recall in 2006 or 2007 they changed a rule to make it harder to challenge Jon Tester in a primary.
Affairs like "Campaign for America's Future" conventions were always in D.C. And during the 2nd one I went to, I confirmed by observations that they were just big job fairs for people wanting jobs in the next administration or becoming lobbyists. That was actually what the convention in 2004 was too that I attended as a delegate. "Agriculture Salutes Tom Harking"; brought to you not by The Grange but by Monsanto and Carroll. Lavish party with handsome young men shucking tons of oysters. Ick.
I went in naive as I suspect many well meaning millennials will do now to this "house". But boy did I start to wake up and finally by 2009 after the failed single payer health care movement, I quit this dead donkey.

JohnnyGL , December 25, 2016 at 1:31 pm

Christmas Rant!!! ***You've been warned***

There's a lot of contentious debate on whether to fight in the Democrat Party or build a 3rd one. The answer is both, always and constantly.

1) Start the fight within the Party, as seen in MI. What happened there is important to expose and embarrass the local party officials. I consider the incident an encouraging sign and hope there are more like it around the country (not happy with the guy getting assaulted, of course, but if it shows 'they are who we thought they were', then that's progress of a sort).

2) If you can fight within the party and the party leadership at the state level understands the need to change and gets on board (getting on board as defined by fighting for specific policies, organizing and party building, and going against the wishes of big donors), then work with them.

3) if the big donors and dinosaur party leaders don't get on board, then then need to be A) removed, if possible. Or, if not possible, B) they should be isolated. If Schumer and Pelosi can't be primary-ed out of existence (a-la Eric Cantor) then they should be stripped of leadership positions and isolated. Primary all of their allies in congress. Pelosi still got around 2/3 of the vote. Let's get it below 1/2. We're not starting from scratch, there's a base of opposition to work with.

4) Part of the contention between points 2) and 3) is protests like those seen recently protesting at Schumer's office by BLM and Occupy folks. Again, make them come to us on policy. Life should get increasingly uncomfortable for Party leaders and members that don't play ball. It should be clear that their current attitudes and policies are untenable and they need to get with the new program. Hassle them in their offices, at their public events. Anti-fracking protestors who harassed Cuomo over several years showed what to do. I think one of his kids joked that when they got lost on the way to an event, they could always find where they were going because the anti-fracking protestors were there waiting for them.

People like Pelosi and Schumer will cave to public pressure, they've done it in the past. Pelosi said no to medicare changes when Obama wanted to put entitlement reform on the table. These people are different than ideologues who will push their agenda regardless of public opinion. They're snakes, but they'll play ball under pressure.

5) Now in the case where we can't with the fight within the party, go outside. Socialist Alternative, Working Families and other 3rd parties that are built up at the local level can threaten and do real damage. Does anyone think Seattle gets a $15/hr min. wage without Sawant and Socialist Alternative? Working Families Party demonstrated exactly what NOT to do during NY Governor election. If Cuomo won't come to us and meet our demands, bring him down. Suck it up, deal with a Republican for a few years, if necessary. While the Republican is in charge, pressure them, too. Don't think about the election right now .that's short termism. Let's think 2, 3, 4 elections out. If you're not winning now, clear out the deadwood to win later.

6) Now, to face up to the 'lesser evil' arguments regarding 5). It's over, there's no more 'lesser evilism'. It's dead. Hillary Clinton and the elite Dems killed it. They put it all on display for all to see. They were willing to crush the left (again), squash voting rights through a variety of means, and risk Trump or another whacky 'Pied Piper' candidate in order to get their anointed candidate put in charge. THAT should tell you EXACTLY who we're dealing with here. They were perfectly willing to risk Trump to win, so that means if a 3rd party can get 3%-5% in a close election and play a spoiler role, then that 3rd party should DO it. Every time. Again, keep doing it until the Democrats adopt the platform of a 3rd party (which, presumably includes fight for $15, medicare for all, no wars, etc). Again, until the Dems come to us on policy, they will be opposed.

But, but Nader brought us Bush who brought us Iraq War! You cannot take risks like that! Must vote lesser evil!!! Oh really? Dems voted for Patriot Act, Dems voted for AUMF over and over again. Dems voted to keep funding the war, too. When Dems don't win the Presidency they want to sit back and wait for Repubs to do awful stuff so that Dems will be back in charge as seen in 2006-8. Pelosi and Reid did NOTHING to deserve a win, they just waited it out until people voted for change again. They want to do this again. We can't let them. Make them do their job. Make them act in opposition. Make them earn their next win, otherwise we'll get the same group and the same policies that have just been discredited.

7) From the article, I like Ahmed's strategy/tactics, but the concept of attacking Trump the person, seems flawed. Remember, policy is what matters!
Nixon passed an amendment that created the EPA. That doesn't happen if you oppose Nixon for who he is. Also, wikipedia reveals that the Clean Water Act got passed in spite of Nixon's veto! If Trump wants to move in the right direction, he should be praised for doing so. If he doesn't, go around him!

Trump is a guy that just slapped the Repub establishment silly and clearly is running at least partially out of vanity more than he wants to collect fat checks when he leaves office (like the Clintons, and probably Obama soon enough). There's value in this, by itself, and there's value on policy grounds, too.

Okay, I'm done. I hope anyone who bothers to read found this enjoyable. Happy for comments. Also, to be clear, I've got no experience in organizing or any kind of playbook to carry this plan out. :) So, feel free to mock my credentials, because they don't exist!

funemployed , December 25, 2016 at 8:49 am

Sigh. We millennials might be smart about policy and pragmatic, but if this is our moonshot, we don't know jack about how to organize a successful social movement. Protesting "Trump" is stupid. Trump is not a policy. He is a person. Is our goal to make him feel bad about himself? And he did win the election. So his administration is, in fact, "legitimate" in any meaningful sense of the word.

I'd have slightly different lists, but I entirely agree that a pro-policy platform is an essential starting point. That said, protests basically always fail, and more often then not IMO, strengthen the opposition. When they succeed, or even make headway like NODAPL, they always share a common set of features.

1) One very specific policy. Today, if I were in charge, I'd choose Federally funded Medicare for all. Never mind details for protesting purposes.

2) A simple, clear message that appeals to values that most people in a body politic can agree on "Health Care is a Civil Right!"

3) A symbol that presents a clear, binary, moral choice. Sorry people, it makes me feel icky too, but this is where we go hunting for a dying grandma or kid with cancer who can't get medical care and make him/her our mascot (ideally, in a purely strategic realm, such person would refuse any care until it was guaranteed to all, then die at a decisive moment, thus becoming a martyr).

4) The ability to bring different folks together to agree on ONE thing. Organized bitch sessions about Obamacare in Trump country might work here, but we'd have to throw shit at the wall and see what stuck. I know for a fact that most Trump supporters, if pressed, will say that a family should not have to choose between impoverishment and treating mom's cancer. But protesting "Trump" is protesting them too, with the main goal of feeling like you are a better person because you know that gender is socially constructed or whatever (as if there is something magical in who you are that is the reason you got to go to a private liberal arts college, and you totally never would have been racist no matter what life circumstances you were born into).

It's not that I'm a single issue person, it's just protesting lots of things at once just makes a lot of noise, and a bunch of people trying to work together with competing agendas (lack of shared vision, in corporate speak), makes all human organizations dysfunctional. Basically, I support many issues, but think mixing them all together is not a good recipe for success.

Steven Greenberg , December 25, 2016 at 9:20 am

Didn't read the article. Seems like a misdirected effort to me. You don't win voters by being against something. You win them by being for something. I am getting tired of the "Ain't It Awful" game. Give me a vision to be for.

There is something called target fixation. When you concentrate on what you want to avoid, you end up going right toward it. Concentrate on where you want to go rather than spend all your time thinking about where you don't want to go.

Reify99 , December 25, 2016 at 10:33 am

This can be demonstrated by asking someone to follow your instructions and then issuing a number of imperative sentences:
Don't think of blue
Don't think about your left earlobe
Don't think about what Crazyman will do with this
Don't think of Trump
Etc

One has to think of those things in order to make sense of the words. Moving away from can be a powerful motivator but only toward will get you there. Sorry, clarifying the obvious again.

Katharine , December 25, 2016 at 10:38 am

This effort is not about winning voters but about blocking really bad policy changes that will hurt millions of people. Organizing for an election campaign and organizing for issue-based activism are not the same. If Barb Mikulski forty-odd years ago had just gone around the city talking about her vision of good communities and good transportation policy, a lot of Baltimore neighborhoods would have been wiped out as the city was cut apart by an ill-placed interstate. She stopped it by organizing a fight against it. More recently, Destiny Watford, still in high school at the time, was the prime mover in the successful fight against an incinerator in her Curtis Bay neighborhood in south Baltimore.

There is a time and a place for everything. There are at least two other organizations focusing on electoral politics. This one has a different purpose.

jrs , December 25, 2016 at 12:34 pm

Yes to be opposed to Trump is because they think a bunch of bad policies will come from his administration and they are likely not wrong. It doesn't need to be about Trump the person at all, though for some deluded people it may be. Now they could broaden it to opposing Paul Ryans congress etc. since they are hardly better but if any legistlaton is actually going to be passed a Republican congress and Trump will be working together.

A single issue focus, say it was Medicare for all, even if it was sucessful, would have let all the other issues a Trump administration will represent slide. Ok so if Trump passes tax cuts say that further enrich the plutocrats, an ever more unequal society might even destroy Medicare for all (the rich will just buy their way out). If Trump passes even more obviously anti-environmental legistlation, the fact Medicare for all was achieved would be a goal of it's own but would not change this. Maybe there are people enough for all movements, I don't know.

craazyman , December 25, 2016 at 10:00 am

Oh man. More identity politics yada yada.

It'll never work & for good reason. It's a form of ideation contrary to gnostic principles and therefore to the highest spiritual values on this plane of existence.

Sad to see hopeful inspired people get lost in that maze of misery. Trust your perceptions in the silence of your mind without looking to anybody else for affirmation. People are people. That's what everybody who can figure things out figures out when they grow up.

Grow up & Merry Christmas. LOL

I'm wishing Trump well & am somewhat hopeful that - through the odd feedback loops in complex systems - the provocations of his originality will shape things in a direction even progressives will find appealing. Maybe I'll be wrong, I admit. But I'm usually not wrong. LOL. (Although I am sometimes, no lie.)

alex morfesis , December 25, 2016 at 10:03 am

Firecracker puppies professional trainer who isists she knows about how people of color feel..hmmm a bunch of photos of ms nadine and her fellow associates something about dc that tells me the demographics are not the same as iowa does not look as she thinks there are any people of color who can train on what "she" calls "non violence" and her "famous" black female puppet to represent and protest against the military because the military is so black and female seems a bit tone deaf

Same old same old chameleons bending to the new hot button funding to keep the lights on

"As the international director of the committee to make noise and get nothing done, we strive to "

And ms bangladeshi her nov 27 tweet that anyone right of the democrats is a fascist does this child have an idea what that word means, or is it something she picked up at one of the "people" conventions she attended or spoke at

Not looking to be hyper cynical on this of all days but seems moumita has spent her entire adult life posing with her megaphone and for someone who is so "out there" mekantz find much about her except her self proclaimed relevance and for a person who claims this large network somewhat smallish set of followers on her chyrping account

I hope I am wrong

Peace on earth and goodwill to all

jrs , December 25, 2016 at 12:39 pm

movements often outgrow their leaders

mad as hell. , December 25, 2016 at 10:40 am

The Washington police will now have to use a search warrant or a battering ram unlike Zuccotti park where night sticks and pepper spray were used. I don't see a problem getting those. Especially after agents have infiltrated. Well at least it is a start which I hope snowballs!

dcblogger , December 25, 2016 at 10:42 am

enter the sans coullottes! I am thrilled and will try to get in contact with them. depend upon it, the American people will turn to those who demonstrate the best ability to push back against Trump. Which is why Bernie has been doing that since the election.

beth , December 25, 2016 at 11:42 am

No, I disagree. Bernie does not push back against Trump. No identity politics, no focus on personalities. Bernie pushes back against wrong-headed policies. Bernie wants policies that benefit the majority.

Let's pray our new president does some good that most of us do not expect. I hope he is more unpredictable than that. I may be wrong but I can hope.

Montanamaven , December 25, 2016 at 10:53 am

Sounds like the Alternet crowd is up to its sheepdogging tactics again. Let's corral young energy and co-opt it for the Democrats. Co-opting is what I call "Skunking" because it sure stinks up the joint.

I'm with the majority here in finding this sad that these "organizers" have decided to go all negative. They are "going to hold him [Trump] accountable and delegitimize literally everything he is doing and not let him succeed." Well, how has that worked out so far.
New thinking and new solutions ae called for, not the same old feel good "protests" and voter drives that professional organizers love to do. If they had done any real introspection they would have come up with ways of forming new coalitions; and also realize the need to keep Schumer and Pelosi as accountable as Trump. But these are still party operatives in younger sheep's clothing. Many are poli sci majors who want to be in politics in Washington as a vocation. See, they are the wise "behind the scenes" people that will guide the "activists" . Ugh. Same old; Same old story.
And this smells of the same DLC Clinton gang since they are calling Trump's victory and presidency illegitimate. Again, they don't want to delve into why she lost. They wants jobs in D.C. And spend their energy "resisting" rather than coming up with anything remotely interesting. This is not Occupy. And I doubt they will embrace young Anarchists.

Denis Drew , December 25, 2016 at 10:55 am

Re: How the Obama Coalition Crumbled, Leaving an Opening for Trump By NATE COHN
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html

Wonderful shakeout by Cohn: Trump won by trading places with Obama . O appealed to less educated whites as their protector against the Wall Street candidate (47% time) Romney. (Crackpot) Trump appealed to them with same promise versus Wall Street candidate (true enough) Hill.

Upshot: Dems only have to get busy rebuilding labor union density at the state by progressive state level (or not so progressive; but be seen trying hard). Repubs will have no where to hide: once and for all political checkmate.

For some beginning thoughts and angles on what and how to - see here:
http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2016/12/wet-backs-and-narrow-backs-irish.html

We are only asking state legislatures to make possible joining a union if you want to - without running an impassable gauntlet - no complicated policy issues at all.

fosforos , December 25, 2016 at 10:55 am

Totally unpromising that they start with the calamitous premise of the whole Sanders campaign: "a campaign where Bernie specifically said, 'Do not attack the other person." Sanders knew he could run a campaign that would destroy the Clinton, a proven loser on the merits, and thereby make it possible to defeat any of the GOP's dumpster of deplorables, especially the Trumpe-l'oeil. But that would involve a political break with the whole record of the Obama administration in both domestic and foreign policy. So instead Sanders wound up saying the falsest single thing anyone said in the whole campaign–"nobody cares about those damn e-mails."

Yves Smith , December 25, 2016 at 11:56 am

*Sigh*

Sanders did not lose as a result of his position on the e-mails. The GOP was guaranteed to make a big issue of them and did.

walt , December 25, 2016 at 11:21 am

Youth may wish to have their bragging rights for their old age, but Trump has proven that power lies with the voters, who will be driven away to the likes of Reagan by this posturing.

Ahmed has not learned all the lessons of the 1960s.

Gaylord , December 25, 2016 at 11:23 am

We-The-Ppl rejected Gold Sacks's "shitty deal" Hillary, foisted on us by the Dems whose elites "assassinated" the best candidate since JFK; Repubs rejected "fool me again" Jeb in the Primary. Nasty Trump was put there to shoo-in Hill, but it backfired. Democracy? all gone. The Wild West is back.

PhilK , December 25, 2016 at 11:26 am

They're still trying to grab Sanders' mike and take over his show.

Katharine , December 25, 2016 at 11:41 am

He was always the first to point that this show is not about him but about all of us.

Reify99 , December 25, 2016 at 1:12 pm

True, otherwise we're lost in celebrity.

We need both "away from" and "toward" bullet points. The "away from" will naturally target Trump's onerous policies and will generate lots of energy. The "toward" bullet points will also "target" the "fake news" neoliberals because their support will prove to be tepid faint praise and lots of how it can't be done. Energy wise it will be more of a slog. They will also covertly seek to undermine progressive change. They will be called out on their crap.

Billy-bob , December 25, 2016 at 12:48 pm

To the naysayers I say: just shut up and fund it–I just did. It's an experiment and it might work.

At least these yunguns are DOING something.

Reify99 , December 25, 2016 at 1:18 pm

+1

Jamie , December 25, 2016 at 1:11 pm

Why didn't they set up this "permanent base" when Sanders voted for the 700 billion dollar F35 or when Obama claimed the legal right to indefinitely detain or kill anyone without judicial oversight?

"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image,
when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."

– Anne Lamott

Elizabeth Burton , December 25, 2016 at 2:00 pm

I assume all of those who have so arrogantly dismissed the efforts of these young people are all, therefore, engaged in alternative activities that support their respective opinions of how to effect the change that is our only salvation from neo-feudalism. Otherwise, I say put up or shut up.

Because I'm getting really sick of all the armchair quarterbacking, which to me is no different from the way the DNC elites treat anyone who isn't a member of their club. If people who object to the goals and/or methods of the District 13 House group have useful suggestions to make, why haven't they engaged in working to bring those suggestions to fruition. It's also precisely the kind of ivory-tower critique that has brought us to this pass, so do keep in mind that when pointing out the sins of others, one has three other fingers pointing in the opposite direction.

ChrisAtRU , December 25, 2016 at 2:11 pm

Natural skeptic/cynic at this point I go back to to Bernie's first statement after the election:

"Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the very rich become much richer.

"To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him."

Now taken in that light, do we need a generic "anti-Trump" resistance house to "stick out like a sore thumb"?

Or do we need something that speaks to the deeper issues around which non-squillionaire people can unite?

I concur with those who posted above on sticking to the issues. If you stick to the issues, the face of the opposition (from within and without) doesn't matter. It's about getting people to realize that agents of the establishment on BOTH sides (Dem & Repub) of all various identarian flavors have betrayed us all.

Now granted, there's plenty of swamp left undrained to warrant being all up the new administration's grill like freckles. But please, let's get the focus where it should be – on what's being done and undone. Focusing on "Trump" is a non-starter.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah and FestivusForTheRestOfUs to everyone!

[Dec 17, 2016] Paul Krugman Useful Idiots Galore

Notable quotes:
"... Shorter Paul Krugman: nobody acted more irresponsibly in the last election than the New York Times. ..."
"... Looks like Putin recruited the NYT, the FBI and the DNC. ..."
"... Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which is a big shame. ..."
"... It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in the future. ..."
"... Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism. ..."
"... Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs, etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture. ..."
"... It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want. That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce optimal results. ..."
"... All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice -- incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people, "We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small 'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves. ..."
"... Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments today!?! ..."
"... Unless the Russians or someone else hacked the ballot box machines, it is our own damn fault. ..."
"... The ship of neo-liberal trade sailed in the mid-2000's. That you don't get that is sad. You can only milk that so far the cow had been milked. ..."
"... The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.) ..."
"... The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned, and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until he had no real chance. ..."
"... The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic elite and their apologists. ..."
"... The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought. For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion. ..."
"... Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats last spring that "FBI investigation" and "party Presidential nominee" was bound to be an ugly combination. Some did; right here as I recall. Or his part in the official "don't vote for third party" week in the Clinton media machine....thanks, hundreds of thousands of Trump votes got the message. ..."
"... It's too rich to complain about Russia and Wikileaks as if those elements in anyway justified Clinton becoming President. Leaks mess with our democracy? Then for darn sure do not vote for a former Sec. of State willing to use a home server for her official business. Russia is menacing? Just who has been managing US-Russia relations the past 8 years? I voted for her anyway, but the heck if I think some tragic fate has befell the nation here. Republicans picked a better candidate to win this thing than we Democrats did. ..."
"... The truth of the matter is that Clinton was a very weak candidate with nothing to offer but narcissism ("I'm with her"). It's notable that Clinton has still not accepted responsibility for her campaign, preferring to throw the blame for the loss anywhere but herself. Sociopathy much? ..."
Dec 17, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Monetas Tuas Requiro -> kthomas... , December 16, 2016 at 05:10 PM
The secret story of how American advisers helped Yeltsin win

http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html

JohnH -> Dan Kervick... , December 16, 2016 at 11:46 AM
PK seems to be a bitter old man...
anne -> sanjait... , December 16, 2016 at 03:08 PM
Nothing to see here, say the useful idiots.

[ I find it terrifying, simply terrifying, to refer to people as "useful idiots" after all the personal destruction that has followed when the expression was specifically used in the past.

To me, using such an expression is an honored economist intent on becoming Joseph McCarthy. ]

anne -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 03:15 PM
To demean a person as though the person were a communist or a fool of communists or the like, with all the personal harm that has historically brought in this country, is cruel beyond my understanding or imagining.

"Useful Idiots Galore," terrifying.

Necesito Dinero Tuyo -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 05:25 PM
Dale : , December 16, 2016 at 10:51 AM
trouble is that his mind reflects an accurate perception of our common reality.
Procopius -> Dale... , December 17, 2016 at 02:37 AM
Well, not really. For example he referred to "the close relationship between Wikileaks and Russian intelligence." But Wikileaks is a channel. They don't seek out material. They rely on people to bring material to them. They supposedly make an effort to verify that the material is not a forgery, but aside from that what they release is what people bring to them. Incidentally, like so many people you seem to not care whether the material is accurate or not -- Podesta and the DNC have not claimed that any of the emails are different from what they sent.
Tom aka Rusty : , December 16, 2016 at 11:06 AM
PK's head explodes!

One thought....

When politicians and business executives and economists cuddle up to the totalitarian Chinese it is viewed as an act of enlightment and progress.

When someone cuddles up to the authoritarian thug Putin it is an act of evil.

Seems a bit of a double standard.

We are going to have to do "business" with both the Chinese and the Russians, whoever is president.

Ben Groves -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 16, 2016 at 11:07 AM
Your head should explode considering Trump's deal with the "establishment" in July was brokered by foreign agents.
ilsm -> Ben Groves... , December 16, 2016 at 04:11 PM
curiouser and curiouser! while Obama and administration arm jihadis and call its support for jihadis funded by al Qaeda a side in a civil war.

the looking glass you all went through.

Trump has more convictions than any democrat

... ... ...

Tom aka Rusty -> kthomas... , December 16, 2016 at 01:36 PM
In a theatre of the absurd sort of way.
dilbert dogbert -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 16, 2016 at 12:11 PM
One thought:
Only Nixon can go to China.
anne -> sanjait... , December 16, 2016 at 03:22 PM
Putin is a murderous thug...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/david-brooks-snap-out-of-it.html

September 22, 2014

Snap Out of It
By David Brooks

President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a lone thug sitting atop a failing regime....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/thomas-friedman-putin-and-the-pope.html

October 21, 2014

Putin and the Pope
By Thomas L. Friedman

One keeps surprising us with his capacity for empathy, the other by how much he has become a first-class jerk and thug....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-whos-playing-marbles-now.html

December 20, 2014

Who's Playing Marbles Now?
By Thomas L. Friedman

Let us not mince words: Vladimir Putin is a delusional thug....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html

December 21, 2014

Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion
By Paul Krugman

Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/thomas-friedman-czar-putins-next-moves.html

January 27, 2015

Czar Putin's Next Moves
By Thomas L. Friedman

ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be in danger....

anne -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 03:23 PM
Putin is a murderous thug...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/world/middleeast/white-house-split-on-opening-talks-with-putin.html

September 15, 2015

Obama Weighing Talks With Putin on Syrian Crisis
By PETER BAKER and ANDREW E. KRAMER

WASHINGTON - Mr. Obama views Mr. Putin as a thug, according to advisers and analysts....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/opinion/mr-putins-mixed-messages-on-syria.html

September 20, 2015

Mr. Putin's Mixed Messages on Syria

Mr. Obama considers Mr. Putin a thug, his advisers say....

Gibbon1 -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 07:15 PM
> By David Brooks
> By Thomas L. Friedman
> By Paul Krugman
> By Peter Baker and Andrew E. Kramer

I feel these authors have intentionally attempted to mislead in the past. They also studiously ignore the United States thuggish foreign policy.

Sandwichman : , December 16, 2016 at 11:06 AM
"...not acting as if this was a normal election..." The problem is that it WAS a "normal" U.S. election.
Ben Groves -> Sandwichman ... , December 16, 2016 at 11:09 AM
Yup, like the other elections, the bases stayed solvent and current events factored into the turnout and voting patterns which spurred the independent vote.
Gibbon1 -> Ben Groves... , December 16, 2016 at 11:57 AM
When people were claiming Clinton was going to win big, I thought no Republican and Democratic voters are going to pull the lever like a trained monkey as usual. Only difference in this election was Hillary's huge negatives due entirely by her and Bill Clinton's support for moving manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China in the 90s.
dilbert dogbert -> Sandwichman ... , December 16, 2016 at 12:13 PM
I would have thought in a "normal" murika and election, the drumpf would have gotten at most 10 million votes.
Sandwichman -> dilbert dogbert... , December 16, 2016 at 01:54 PM
The trouble with normal is it always gets worse.
Fred C. Dobbs : , December 16, 2016 at 11:08 AM
To Understand Trump, Learn Russian http://nyti.ms/2hLcrB1
NYT - Andrew Rosenthal - December 15

The Russian language has two words for truth - a linguistic quirk that seems relevant to our current political climate, especially because of all the disturbing ties between the newly elected president and the Kremlin.

The word for truth in Russian that most Americans know is "pravda" - the truth that seems evident on the surface. It's subjective and infinitely malleable, which is why the Soviet Communists called their party newspaper "Pravda." Despots, autocrats and other cynical politicians are adept at manipulating pravda to their own ends.

But the real truth, the underlying, cosmic, unshakable truth of things is called "istina" in Russian. You can fiddle with the pravda all you want, but you can't change the istina.

For the Trump team, the pravda of the 2016 election is that not all Trump voters are explicitly racist. But the istina of the 2016 campaign is that Trump's base was heavily dependent on racists and xenophobes, Trump basked in and stoked their anger and hatred, and all those who voted for him cast a ballot for a man they knew to be a racist, sexist xenophobe. That was an act of racism.

Trump's team took to Twitter with lightning speed recently to sneer at the conclusion by all 17 intelligence agencies that the Kremlin hacked Democratic Party emails for the specific purpose of helping Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton. Trump said the intelligence agencies got it wrong about Iraq, and that someone else could have been responsible for the hack and that the Democrats were just finding another excuse for losing.

The istina of this mess is that powerful evidence suggests that the Russians set out to interfere in American politics, and that Trump, with his rejection of Western European alliances and embrace of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, was their chosen candidate.

The pravda of Trump's selection of Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon Mobil, as secretary of state is that by choosing an oil baron who has made billions for his company by collaborating with Russia, Trump will make American foreign policy beholden to American corporate interests.

That's bad enough, but the istina is far worse. For one thing, American foreign policy has been in thrall to American corporate interests since, well, since there were American corporations. Just look at the mess this country created in Latin America, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia and the Middle East to serve American companies.

Yes, Tillerson has ignored American interests repeatedly, including in Russia and Iraq, and has been trying to remove sanctions imposed after Russia's seizure of Crimea because they interfered with one of his many business deals. But take him out of the equation in the Trump cabinet and nothing changes. Trump has made it plain, with every action he takes, that he is going to put every facet of policy, domestic and foreign, at the service of corporate America. The istina here is that Tillerson is just a symptom of a much bigger problem.

The pravda is that Trump was right in saying that the intelligence agencies got it wrong about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction.

But the istina is that Trump's contempt for the intelligence services is profound and dangerous. He's not getting daily intelligence briefings anymore, apparently because they are just too dull to hold his attention.

And now we know that Condoleezza Rice was instrumental in bringing Tillerson to Trump's attention. As national security adviser and then secretary of state for president George W. Bush, Rice was not just wrong about Iraq, she helped fabricate the story that Hussein had nuclear weapons.

Trump and Tillerson clearly think they are a match for the wily and infinitely dangerous Putin, but as they move foward with their plan to collaborate with Russia instead of opposing its imperialist tendencies, they might keep in mind another Russian saying, this one from Lenin.

"There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience," he wrote. "A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel."

Putin has that philosophy hard-wired into his political soul. When it comes to using scoundrels to get what he wants, he is a professional, and Trump is only an amateur. That is the istina of the matter.

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 11:25 AM
If nothing else, Russia - with a notably un-free press - has shrewdly used our own 'free press' against US.

RUSSIA'S UNFREE PRESS

The Boston Globe - Marshall Goldman - January 29, 2001

AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DEBATES ITS POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS SHOULD BE ONE OF ITS MAJOR CONCERNS. UNDER PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN THE PRESS IS FREE ONLY AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT CRITICIZE PUTIN OR HIS POLICIES. WHEN NTV, THE TELEVISION NETWORK OF THE MEDIA GIANT MEDIA MOST, REFUSED TO PULL ITS PUNCHES, MEDIA MOST'S OWNER, VLADIMIR GUSINSKY, FOUND HIMSELF IN JAIL, AND GAZPROM, A COMPANY DOMINATED BY THE STATE, BEGAN TO CALL IN LOANS TO MEDIA MOST. Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people. They crave a strong and forceful leader; his KGB past and conditioned KGB responses are just what they seem to want after what many regard as the social, political, and economic chaos of the last decade.

But what to the Russians is law and order (the "dictatorship of the law," as Putin has so accurately put it) looks more and more like an old Soviet clampdown to many Western observers.

There is no complaint about Putin's promises. He tells everyone he wants freedom of the press. But in the context of his KGB heritage, his notion of freedom of the press is something very different. In an interview with the Toronto Globe and Mail, he said that that press freedom excludes the "hooliganism" or "uncivilized" reporting he has to deal with in Moscow. By that he means criticism, especially of his conduct of the war in Chechnya, his belated response to the sinking of the Kursk, and the heavy-handed way in which he has pushed aside candidates for governor in regional elections if they are not to Putin's liking.

He does not take well to criticism. When asked by the relatives of those lost in the Kursk why he seemed so unresponsive, Putin tried to shift the blame for the disaster onto the media barons, or at least those who had criticized him. They were the ones, he insisted, who had pressed for reduced funding for the Navy while they were building villas in Spain and France. As for their criticism of his behavior, They lie! They lie! They lie!

Our Western press has provided good coverage of the dogged way Putin and his aides have tried to muscle Gusinsky out of the Media Most press conglomerate he created. But those on the Putin enemies list now include even Boris Berezovsky, originally one of Putin's most enthusiastic promoters who after the sinking of the Kursk also became a critic and thus an opponent.

Gusinsky would have a hard time winning a merit badge for trustworthiness (Berezovsky shouldn't even apply), but in the late Yeltsin and Putin years, Gusinsky has earned enormous credit for his consistently objective news coverage, including a spotlight on malfeasance at the very top. More than that, he has supported his programmers when they have subjected Yeltsin and now Putin to bitter satire on Kukly, his Sunday evening prime-time puppet show.

What we hear less of, though, is what is happening to individual reporters, especially those engaged in investigative work. Almost monthly now there are cases of violence and intimidation. Among those brutalized since Putin assumed power are a reporter for Radio Liberty who dared to write negative reports about the Russian Army's role in Chechnia and four reporters for Novaya Gazeta. Two of them were investigating misdeeds by the FSB (today's equivalent of the KGB), including the possibility that it rather than Chechins had blown up a series of apartment buildings. Another was pursuing reports of money-laundering by Yeltsin family members and senior staff in Switzerland. Although these journalists were very much in the public eye, they were all physically assaulted.

Those working for provincial papers labor under even more pressure with less visibility. There are numerous instances where regional bosses such as the governor of Vladivostok operate as little dictators, and as a growing number of journalists have discovered, challenges are met with threats, physical intimidation, and, if need be, murder.

True, freedom of the press in Russia is still less than 15 years old, and not all the country's journalists or their bosses have always used that freedom responsibly. During the 1996 election campaign, for example, the media owners, including Gusinsky conspired to denigrate or ignore every viable candidate other than Yeltsin. But attempts to muffle if not silence criticism have multiplied since Putin and his fellow KGB veterans have come to power. Criticism from any source, be it an individual journalist or a corporate entity, invites retaliation.

When Media Most persisted in its criticism, Putin sat by approvingly as his subordinates sent in masked and armed tax police and prosecutors. When that didn't work, they jailed Gusinsky on charges that were later dropped, although they are seeking to extradite and jail him again. along with his treasurer, on a new set of charges. Yesterday the prosecutor general summoned Tatyana Mitkova, the anchor of NTV's evening news program, for questioning. Putin's aides are also doing all they can to prevent Gusinsky from refinancing his debt-ridden operation with Ted Turner or anyone else in or outside of the country.

According to one report, Putin told one official, You deal with the shares, debts, and management and I will deal with the journalists. His goal simply is to end to independent TV coverage in Russia. ...

(No link; from their archives.)

DeDude -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 11:33 AM
"Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people"

Exactly; the majority of people are so stupid and/or lazy that they cannot be bothered understanding what is going on; and how their hard won democracy is being subjugated. But thank God that is in Russia not here in the US - right?

anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 11:45 AM
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2001-02-07/html/CREC-2001-02-07-pt1-PgE133-4.htm

February 7, 2001

Russia's Unfree Press
By Marshall I. Goldman

Watermelonpunch -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 04:55 PM
"Infinitely dangerous" As in the event horizon of a black hole, for pity's sake?

Odd choice of words. Should there have been a "more" in between there? Was it a typo?

cm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 17, 2016 at 03:42 PM
"Pravda" is etymologically derived from "prav-" which means "right" (as opposed to "left", other connotations are "proper", "correct", "rightful", also legal right). It designates the social-construct aspect of "righteousness/truthfulness/correctness" as opposed to "objective reality" (conceptually independent of social standards, in reality anything but). In formal logic, "istina" is used to designate truth. Logical falsity is designated a "lie".

It is a feature common to most European languages that rightfulness, righteousness, correctness, and legal rights are identified with the designation for the right side. "Sinister" is Latin for "left".

Ben Groves : , December 16, 2016 at 11:18 AM
If you believe 911 was a Zionist conspiracy, so where the Paris attacks of November 2015, when Trump was failing in the polls as the race was moving toward as you would expect, toward other candidates. After the Paris attacks, his numbers reaccelerated.

If "ZOG" created the "false flag" of the Paris attacks to start a anti-Muslim fervor, they succeeded, much like 911. Bastille day attacks were likewise, a false flag. This is not new, this goes back to when the aristocracy merged with the merchant caste, creating the "bourgeois". They have been running a parallel government in the shadows to effect what is seen.

cm -> sanjait... , December 17, 2016 at 03:46 PM
There used to be something called Usenet News, where at the protocol level reader software could fetch meta data (headers containing author, (stated) origin, title, etc.) independently from comment bodies. This was largely owed to limited download bandwidth. Basically all readers had "kill files" i.e. filters where one could configure that comments with certain header parameters should not be downloaded, or even hidden.
cm -> cm... , December 17, 2016 at 03:48 PM
The main application was that the reader would download comments in the background when headers were already shown, or on demand when you open a comment.

Now you get the whole thing (or in units of 100) by the megabyte.

tew : , December 16, 2016 at 11:19 AM
A major problem is signal extraction out of the massive amounts of noise generated by the media, social media, parties, and pundits.

It's easy enough to highlight this thread of information here, but in real time people are being bombarded by so many other stories.

In particular, the Clinton Foundation was also regularly being highlighted for its questionable ties to foreign influence. And HRC's extravagant ties to Wall St. And so much more.

And there is outrage fatigue.

Ben Groves -> DeDude... , December 16, 2016 at 11:34 AM
The media's job was to sell Trump and denounce Clinton. The mistake a lot of people make is thinking the global elite are the "status quo". They are not. They are generally the ones that break the status quo more often than not.

The bulk of them wanted Trump/Republican President and made damn sure it was President. Buffering the campaign against criticism while overly focusing on Clinton's "crap". It took away from the issues which of course would have low key'd the election.

cm -> DeDude... , December 17, 2016 at 03:55 PM
Not much bullying has to be applied when there are "economic incentives". The media attention economy and ratings system thrive on controversy and emotional engagement. This was known a century ago as "only bad news is good news". As long as I have lived, the non-commercial media not subject (or not as much) to these dynamics have always been perceived as dry and boring.

I heard from a number of people that they followed the campaign "coverage" (in particular Trump) as gossip/entertainment, and those were people who had no sympathies for him. And even media coverage by outlets generally critical of Trump's unbelievable scandals and outrageous performances catered to this sentiment.

Jim Harrison : , December 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM
Shorter Paul Krugman: nobody acted more irresponsibly in the last election than the New York Times.
Sandwichman -> Jim Harrison ... , December 16, 2016 at 11:53 AM
Looks like Putin recruited the NYT, the FBI and the DNC.
DrDick -> Sandwichman ... , December 16, 2016 at 11:57 AM
Nah, Wall Street and the GOP recruited them to the effort.
Sandwichman -> DrDick... , December 16, 2016 at 01:57 PM
GOP included in FBI. Wall Street included in DNC, GOP. It's all just one big FBIDNCGOPCNNWSNYT.
sanjait -> Jim Harrison ... , December 16, 2016 at 03:06 PM
He can't say it out loud but you know he's including the NYT on his list of UIs.
tew : , December 16, 2016 at 11:26 AM
Let me also add some levelheaded thoughts:

First, let me disclose that I detest TRUMP and that the Russian meddling has me deeply concerned. Yet...

We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence. We do not know whether it likely had *material* influence that could have reasonably led to a swing state(s) going to TRUMP that otherwise would have gone to HRC.

Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which is a big shame.

It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in the future.

DrDick -> tew... , December 16, 2016 at 11:56 AM
It is quite clear that the Russians intervened on Trump's behalf and that this intervention had an impact. The problem is that we cannot actually quantify that impact.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?pushid=breaking-news_1481916265&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.25d35c017908

Sandwichman -> tew... , December 16, 2016 at 01:17 PM
"We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence."

Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism.

Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs, etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture.

cm -> Sandwichman ... , December 17, 2016 at 04:00 PM
But this is how influence is exerted - by using the dynamics of the adversary's/targets organization as an amplifier. Hierarchical organizations are approached through their management or oversight bodies, social networks through key influencers, etc.
David : , December 16, 2016 at 11:58 AM
I see this so much and it's so right wing cheap: I hate Trump, but assertions that Russia intervened are unproven.

First, Trump openly invited Russia to hack DNC emails. That is on its face treason and sedition. It's freaking on video. If HRC did that there would be calls of the right for her execution.

Second, a NYT story showed that the FBI knew about the hacking but did not alert the DNC properly - they didn't even show up, they sent a note to a help desk.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-probe-dnc-hacked-emails_us_57a19f22e4b08a8e8b601259

This was a serious national security breach that was not addressed properly. This is criminal negligence.

This was a hacked election by collusion of the FBI and the Russian hackers and it totally discredits the FBI as it throwed out chum and then denied at the last minute. Now the CIA comes in and says PUTIN, Trump's bff, was directly involved in manipulating the timetable that the hacked emails were released in drip drip form to cater to the media - creating story after story about emails.

It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway.

sglover -> David... , December 16, 2016 at 02:50 PM
"It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway."

It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want. That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce optimal results.

All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice -- incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people, "We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small 'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves.

Trump and his gang will be deeply grateful if the left follows Krugman's "wisdom", and clings to his ever-changing excuses. (I thought it was the evil Greens who deprived Clinton of her due?)

100panthers : , December 16, 2016 at 02:17 PM
Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments today!?!
ilsm -> 100panthers... , December 16, 2016 at 04:29 PM
Obama and the Clintons are angered; Russia keeping US from giving Syria to al Qaeda. Like Clinton gave them Libya.
Jerry Brown -> sanjait... , December 16, 2016 at 04:46 PM
I agree. Unless the Russians or someone else hacked the ballot box machines, it is our own damn fault.
ilsm : , December 16, 2016 at 04:27 PM
the US media is angered putin is killing US' jihadis in Syria
Mr. Bill : , December 16, 2016 at 08:27 PM
"On Wednesday an editorial in The Times described Donald Trump as a "useful idiot" serving Russian interests." I think that is beyond the pale. Yes, I realize that Adolph Hitler was democratically elected. I agree that Trump seems like a scary monster under the bed. That doesn't mean we have too pee our pants, Paul. He's a bully, tough guy, maybe, the kind of kid that tortured you before you kicked the shit out of them with your brilliance. That's not what is needed now.
Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 16, 2016 at 08:39 PM
What really is needed, is a watchdog, like Dean Baker, that alerts we dolts of pending bills and their ramifications. The ship of neo-liberal trade bullshit has sailed. Hell, you don't believe it yourself, you've said as much. Be gracious, and tell the truth. We can handle it.
Ben Groves -> Mr. Bill... , December 16, 2016 at 09:51 PM
The ship of neo-liberal trade sailed in the mid-2000's. That you don't get that is sad. You can only milk that so far the cow had been milked.

Trump was a coo, he was not supported by the voters. But by the global elite.

Mr. Bill : , December 16, 2016 at 10:28 PM
Hillary Clinton lost because she is truly an ugly aristocrat.
Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 16, 2016 at 11:49 PM
The experience of voting for the Hill was painful, vs Donald Trump.

The Hill seemed like the least likely aristocrat, given two choices, to finish off all government focus on the folks that actually built this society. Two Titans of Hubris, Hillary vs Donald, each ridiculous in the concept of representing the interests of the common man.

At the end of the day. the American people decided that the struggle with the unknown monster Donald was worth deposing the great deplorable, Clinton.

Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 17, 2016 at 12:11 AM
The real argument is whether the correct plan of action is the way of FDR, or the way of the industrialists, the Waltons, the Kochs, the Trumps, the Bushes and the outright cowards like the Cheneys and the Clintons, people that never spent a day defending this country in combat. What do they call it, the Commander in Chief.
Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 17, 2016 at 12:29 AM
My father was awarded a silver and a bronze star for his efforts in battle during WW2. He was shot in the face while driving a tank destroyer by a German sniper in a place called Schmitten Germany.

He told me once, that he looked over at the guy next to him on the plane to the hospital in England, and his intestines were splayed on his chest. It was awful.

Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 17, 2016 at 12:55 AM
What was he fighting for ? Freedom, America. Then the Republicans, Ronald Reagan, who spent the war stateside began the real war, garnering the wealth of the nation to the entitled like him. Ronald Reagan was a life guard.
btg : , December 16, 2016 at 11:09 PM
Other idiots...

Anthony Weiner
Podesta
Biden (for not running)
Tim Kaine (for accepting the nomination instead of deferring to a latino)
CNN and other TV news media (for giving trump so much coverage- even an empty podium)
Donna Brazile
etc.

greg : , December 16, 2016 at 11:57 PM
The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.)

The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned, and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until he had no real chance.

The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic elite and their apologists.

The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought. For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion.

The wealthy brought this on. For 230 years they have, essentially run this country. They are too stupid to be satisfied with enough, but always want more.

The economics profession brought this on, by excusing treasonous behavior as efficient, and failing to understand the underlying principles of their profession, and the limits of their understanding. (They don't even know what money is, or how a trade deficit destroys productive capacity, and thus the very ability of a nation to pay back the debts it incurs.)

The people brought this on, by neglecting their duty to be informed, to be educated, and to be thoughtful.

Anybody else care for their share of blame? I myself deserve some, but for reasons I cannot say.

What amazes me now is, the bird having shown its feathers, there is no howl of outrage from the people who voted for him. Do they imagine that the Plutocrats who will soon monopolize the White House will take their interests to heart?

As far as I can tell, not one person of 'the people' has been appointed to his cabinet. Not one. But the oppressed masses who turned to Mr Trump seem to be OK with this.
I can only wonder, how much crap will have to be rubbed in their faces, before they awaken to the taste of what it is?

Eric377 : , -1
Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats last spring that "FBI investigation" and "party Presidential nominee" was bound to be an ugly combination. Some did; right here as I recall. Or his part in the official "don't vote for third party" week in the Clinton media machine....thanks, hundreds of thousands of Trump votes got the message.

It's too rich to complain about Russia and Wikileaks as if those elements in anyway justified Clinton becoming President. Leaks mess with our democracy? Then for darn sure do not vote for a former Sec. of State willing to use a home server for her official business. Russia is menacing? Just who has been managing US-Russia relations the past 8 years? I voted for her anyway, but the heck if I think some tragic fate has befell the nation here. Republicans picked a better candidate to win this thing than we Democrats did.

Greg -> Eric377... , December 17, 2016 at 12:11 PM
Well said, Eric377.

The truth of the matter is that Clinton was a very weak candidate with nothing to offer but narcissism ("I'm with her"). It's notable that Clinton has still not accepted responsibility for her campaign, preferring to throw the blame for the loss anywhere but herself. Sociopathy much?

This has made me cynical. I used to think that at least *some* members of the US political elite had the best interests of ordinary households in mind, but now I see that it's just ego vs. ego, whatever the party.

As for democracy being on the edge: I believe Adam Smith over Krugman: "there is a lot of ruin in a nation". It takes more than this to overturn an entrenched institution.

I think American democracy will survive a decade of authoritarianism, and if it does not, then H. L. Mencken said it best: "The American people know what they want, and they deserve to get it -- good and hard."

[Dec 13, 2016] Bill Black After 30 Years of Throwing Working People Under the Bus, Democratic Partys Centrist Leaders Remain Clueless Abou

Notable quotes:
"... By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published with New Economic Perspectives ..."
"... This Russia stuff isn't about Trump but about the Democrats pleading with people not to look at the man behind the curtain. ..."
"... Propaganda only works when people are aware there is no curtain. At this point, the Wizard of Oz has been revealed, and unlike Baum's creation, he has no redeeming qualities. Telling everyone to look at the big giant head again fails. ..."
"... Putin is not the one responsible for manipulating Democrats into an intensely pro-Wall Street, anti-working class political posture that loses elections. ..."
"... The working class wants jobs and job security – not simply income. ..."
"... The baggage you speak of actually began with Reagan when from a government position of high privilege he actually sneered at government as the employer of last resort with his statement belittling "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." Which a subservient press took and ran with to make sure it settled into everyone's subconscious. It's helpful to revisit the rise of Ronald Reagan, and to remember that Obama took him as his role model, not FDR. ..."
"... The New Democrats will likely go the way of the blue dog Democrats. Their Republican voters will ask themselves why should they vote for a powerless Republican-lite, and they will simply die politically. ..."
"... New Democrats are really moderate republicans. For the democrat party to survive and get back their base, they have to adopt progressive democrat ideas. Electing Schumer as their senate leader is a mistake. He represents all that is bad about the democrat party. ..."
Dec 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
December 12, 2016 by Yves Smith By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published with New Economic Perspectives

On December 10, 2016, a New York Times article entitled "Democrats Have a New Message: It's the Economy First" that unintentionally revealed that the Party's "centrist" leadership and the paper remain clueless about how to improve the economy and why the "centrist" leadership needs to end its long war against the working class. This is how the paper explained the five "centrist" leaders' framing of the problem.

It was a blunt, plain-spoken set of senators who gathered last Monday at the Washington home of Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Democrat of North Dakota, dining on Chinese food as they vented frustration about the missteps of the Democratic Party .

To this decidedly centrist group, the 2016 election was nothing short of a fiasco: final proof that its national party had grown indifferent to the rural, more conservative areas represented by Democrats like Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Jon Tester of Montana, who attended the dinner. All face difficult re-election races in 2018.

This non-centrist group was a gathering of five New Democrats. President Obama self-identified himself as a New Democrat. The Clintons and Al Gore are leaders of the New Democrats. The leadership of the Democratic National Committee was, and remains, New Democrats. On economic issues such as austerity, jobs, and full employment, the New Democrats are far more extreme than the (stated) views of Donald Trump. The New Democrats are infamous for their close ties with Wall Street. This means that the paper's description of the Chinese nosh is as clueless as the five New Democrats kvetching about policy "missteps" that they championed for decades. Of course, neither the paper nor the non-centrists mentioned that critical fact. The blindness of the non-centrists to the fact that it is their policies that launched the long war by the New Democrats against the working class is matched by the blindness of the paper.

The kvetching may have been "blunt," but it was also dishonest. The five New Democrats know that they will likely be replaced in the 2018 elections by Republicans who share the New Democrats' anti-working class dogmas. What was really going on was an extended cry of pain about the five senators' fear of losing their jobs.

Note that the paper never tells you what the five New Democrats so bluntly identified as the New Democrats' "missteps" or what new policies they believed needed to be adopted by the Party. This failure is particularly bizarre because the paper says that its reportage is based on sources that the paper agreed to keep anonymous so that they could speak frankly about this meeting over Chinese food. That combination of supposed frankness from the sources gained by the grant of anonymity so them could describe in detail the purported bluntness by the gang of five should have produced some epic, specific condemnations of the Democratic Party's leadership by the New Democrats. Instead, it produced mush. Focusing on the "economy" is the right general idea for any political party, but it is so general a word that it is close to meaningless without identifying the specific policy changes that the five New Democrats now support and oppose. The mushy reportage provides a thin gruel to the reader.

Most of all, they lamented, Democrats had simply failed to offer a clarion message about the economy with appeal to all 50 states.

"Why did the working people, who have always been our base, turn away?" Mr. Manchin said in an interview, recounting the tenor of the dinner conversation.

And the "clarion message about the economy" that they proposed that the Democratic Party make was? You would have thought that little detail would (a) be critical to the article and (b) would be something that the five New Democrats would have been eager to publicize without any need for anonymity. Conversely, if even after the disastrous election, from their perspective, the five New Democrats could not compose that "clarion" call, then the real problem is that the New Democrats' economic dogmas prevent them from supporting such a "clarion" pro-worker policy.

The second sentence of the quotation is equally embarrassing to the New Democrats. It purportedly recounts "the tenor of the dinner conversation." The first obvious question is – how did each of these five New Democrats answer that that question? That is what the readers would want to know. Even with the grants of anonymity to multiple sources the paper inexplicably presents only the vaguest hints as to the five Senators' explanation for why the New Democrats waged their long war on the working class.

Notice also the unintentional humor of the five New Democrats finally asking themselves this existential question in 2016 – after the election. The New Democrats began their long war on the working class over 30 years ago. Tom Frank published his famous (initial) book warning that the New Democrats' war on the working class would prove disastrous in 2004. The five New Democrats are shocked, shocked that the working class, after 30 years of being abused by the New Democrats' anti-worker policies and after being vilified for decades by the New Democrats, overwhelmingly voted against the Nation's most prominent New Democrat, Hillary Clinton. None of the five New Democrats appears to have a clue, even after the 2016 election, why this happened.

The article and the five New Democrats fail to discuss the anti-working class policies that they have championed for decades. Job security is the paramount issue that drives voting by many members of the working class. The New Democrats and the Old Republicans share a devotion to the two greatest threats to working class job security – austerity and the faux free trade deals. This makes it ironic that the paper sought out the Party faction leaders who have been so wrong for so long as supposedly being the unique source of providing the right answers now. If the five New Democrats had engaged in introspection and were prepared to discuss their disastrous, repeated policy failures that would have been valuable, but the New Democrats admit to making zero errors in the article.

The paper's understanding of economics and jobs is so poor that it wrote this clunker.

But even liberals believe Democrats must work harder to compete for voters who lean to the right, if only to shave a few points off the Republican Party's margin of victory in rural America. In some cases, they said, that may mean embracing candidates who hold wildly different views from the national party on certain core priorities.

First, the phrase and the implicit logic in the use of the phrase "even liberals" reverses reality. It is progressives who have consistently called for the Democratic Party to return to its role as a party that champions working people.

Second, the issue is generally not who "leans to the right." Indeed, the 2016 election should have made clear to the paper the severe limits on the usefulness of the terms "right" and "left" in explaining U.S. elections. Jobs are not a right v. left issue.

Third, the paramount policy priority – jobs – is the same regardless of whether one focuses on economic or political desirability. So, how long does it take for the article, and the five New Democrats to discuss "jobs?" Given the fact that they vented at length about the fear that they would begin to lose their jobs within two years, the subject of job security should have been paramount to the five New Democrats. The article, however, never even mentioned jobs or any of the related critical concepts – austerity, the faux trade deals, or the refusal to provide full employment. Further, the article did not comment on the failure of the New Democrats to even mention these any of these four concepts.

"A Clarion Message about the Economy with Appeal to all 50 States"

Here is UMKC's economics department's long-standing proposal to every American political party:

Our party stands for full employment at all times. We will make the federal government the guaranteed employer of last resort for every American able and wanting to work. We recognize that the United States has a sovereign currency and can always afford to ensure full employment. We recognize that austerity typically constitutes economic malpractice and is never a valid excuse for rejecting full employment. The myth that we help our grandchildren by consigning their grandparents and parents to unemployment is obscene. The opposite is true.

The working class wants jobs and job security – not simply income. Working class people overwhelmingly want to work. Working class males who are unable to find secure, full time work often become depressed and unmarriageable. If you want to encourage marriage and improve the quality of marriages, full employment and job security are vital policies. There are collateral advantages to providing full employment. Full employment can reduce greatly the "zero sum" fears about employment that can tear a society apart. Each of these outcomes is overwhelmingly supported by Americans.

Good economics is not a "right" v. "left" issue. Austerity is terrible economics. The fact that we have a sovereign currency is indisputable and there is broad agreement among finance professionals that such a currency means that the federal government budget is nothing like a household. The major party that first adopts the federal full employment guarantee will secure a critical political advantage over its rivals. Sometimes, good economics is good politics.

Disturbed Voter , December 12, 2016 at 6:13 am

It is critical that existing Democrat leadership goes into retirement. Finagling the Clintons back into the WH, delays this by 4, 8 or more years. Besides generating immense animosity. This could be easily accomplished if all Democrat leadership retires at 65 immediately, to live on their Social Security and Medicare (if they think those are still important).

vlade , December 12, 2016 at 7:02 am

ah, but there was a "clarion message". It was "we care not even about the 1%, but the 0.01%. The rest of you can piss off".
Which is why Dems got dumped.

steelhead23 , December 12, 2016 at 11:35 am

I suspect this meeting was functionally similar to the ecclesiastic kvetching when folks began to believe the world was a sphere some 600 years ago. I can imagine them thinking: unemployment (as they measure it) is low, housing prices are jumping, and boy, look at that stock market – how did our base constituency lose its way?

As long as the Democratic Party leadership thinks this way, the party is useless and should be abandoned. I might suggest that Bill, Yves, Randy Wray, and others get to work educating them, but like flat-earthers, these folks not only live in willful ignorance, they would very much like to cast that crowd on the pyre of false-news purveyors lest they lead even more of the faithful astray.

sgt_doom , December 12, 2016 at 6:11 pm

I have to fully agree with Prof. Black's assessment; thought this when they reelected Nancy "my son works at Countrywide" Pelosi and doubled down on their identity politics. (David Harvey disposes of identity politics in a single sentence in his latest book.)

timotheus , December 12, 2016 at 7:43 am

But in this Lewis Carroll universe, "Work harder to compete for Republican votes" doesn't mean steal Trump's jobs-related thunder but give in on things like fracking a la Madame Heitkamp, or discover an enthusiasm for guns like Manchin, or run anti-abortion stalwarts like Donnelly. That's why the reporter couldn't depart from the vague mush–the "centrists'" solution to the Democrats' debacle is to become Republicans.

lyman alpha blob , December 12, 2016 at 1:06 pm

My folks are bible thumping, Fox News watching, prolife, and anti-gay marriage voters.

They were all set to vote for Bernie, not because they agreed with him on everything, but because he was fighting for people like them and he was honest. They would have burned in H-E-double-hockey-sticks before voting for Clinton though. Judging by the polls during the primaries and the eventual outcome, they were far from alone in their assessment. Too bad the dimwit DC Dems can't be bothered to actually talk to people like them.

NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 2:06 pm

They sort of do talk to people like your relatives, but partisanship is strong. Plenty of local Democrats can diagnose and propose solutions caused by the GOP but will worship Trump if he had a "D" next to his name. Claire McCaskill probably receives enough praise from partisan plebes for no payment she assumes all the plebes should love her. For conservative types, Sanders not being in the other tribe was a huge selling point.

The Trumpening , December 12, 2016 at 8:05 am

The fundamental power diagram of politics is that groups of donors select groups of politicians to fight for the interests of the donors. The complication in democracy is that the voters select which politicians will rule. So the donors are like a client, the politicians like a lawyer and the voters are like a jury. A talented politician is one who can cunningly convince voters to set her guilty donors free.

So all these New Democrats are doing is suggesting ways to better plead to the jury. But they are in no way questioning the donors or whether they should continue to push policies that only serve the donors' best interests

One revolutionary feature of Donald Trump's campaign was that he was his own donor and so was very free to directly appeal to what is in the best interests of the working class voters he targeted: economic nationalism.

Conversely the most problematic feature of the Trump campaign was that he was running as the head of a party that did have plenty of donors and he was openly contradicting plenty of these donors' interests. But Trump correctly calculated that the only way to power in America was to hijack one of the two legacy parties.

In some ways Bernie Sanders attempted a similar feat, although I remain skeptical about whether he really was trying to win. If Sanders had become President, he would be facing the same problems that Trump now faces; how to rule a party whose policies fundamentally diverge in many areas from what you have promised to deliver.

And so until the Democrat change donors – specifically by announcing that as a party they will only accept small donations and adopt some of the Trump tactics to reduce campaign spending – nothing will change except the sound bites. Many working class people realized exactly how flawed Trump was but they rolled the dice for one reason only – no one owned Trump. Or as Henry Kissinger put it:

"This president-elect, it's the most unique that I have experienced in one respect. He has absolutely no baggage," Kissinger told CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS." "He has no obligation to any particular group because he has become president on the basis of his own strategy."

Kissinger is smart so he makes these words sound blasé but I can assure you they strike fear into the hearts of America's elite. But only when we hear these same elites expressing fear of the entire Democratic party (like they did about Bernie Sanders) will we know something fundamental has changed for the better.

fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 10:44 am

The Trumpening
December 12, 2016 at 8:05 am

Some very good insights. I would be curious to know your thoughts on when the repub/Trump split comes, which way will FOX tilt? Right now FOX is all Trump, but after a year or two of insinuations that Trump is a Pro Putin commie, I suspect the masterful propagandists that make so much of our beliefs will either cause the actual downfall of Trump, or will more than neuter him.

NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 12:03 pm

Trump was selected by Republican voters despite Fox not being his BFF. Trump is the GOP, and Republican voters support their own. 41 called Reagan a practitoner of Voodoo economics. Yes, this was an appeal to the Southern strategy. Attacks on Trump that say he's not a "true conservative" will never work. Trump is a known clown. He can't embarrass himself, and I think it's important to remember Iraq happened. What did the average Republican voter take from that? Putin Fear Fest is very similar to the events of 2002.

Periodically, new tribal arrangements need to be made. Romney was given a chance. He failed, so the GOP voters selected someone new. Republicans hate Democrats. Attacks levied by Democrats will always be brushed off.

Videos could emerge of Trump swearing allegiance to Putin at an orgy, and Republican voters wouldn't care.

This Russia stuff isn't about Trump but about the Democrats pleading with people not to look at the man behind the curtain.

jrs , December 12, 2016 at 12:09 pm

Yes Republicans stick together plus they think Trump is most likely to accomplish their "small government" goals and so they support Trump (this is probably true, the establishment supported Hillary, but many a Republican votes party line for one of their own).

NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 12:56 pm

Hillary did well with defense contract related Republicans, but they are clustered. The ones in hideously over priced McMansions in Virginia and Maryland are terrified of spending being redirected. They have mortgages to pay, and if Trump thinkers with defense spending whether through cutting cutting or moving, Northern Virginia will become a land of white elephants. Northern Virginia might have incomes, but outside of old town Alexandria, it's a dump of out of control suburban sprawl.

No one sane would live there by choice. The costs are too high to relocate a corporate operation or even grow one. Republicans in Wisconsin don't care.

fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 3:43 pm

NotTimothyGeithner
December 12, 2016 at 12:03 pm

Oh, I agree with your overall points. I was just wondering specifically about Murdoch and if his contrariness will make FOX pro Russian ((in the face of overwhelming repub foreign policy establishment against Trump)), or will FOX be the "repub" anti Russain brand. It will be interesting when being "conservative" means you like Putin .

And I remember how many rabidly anti communists where having conniptions when Reagan met with Gorbachev in Iceland. But Reagan was well ensconced in the establishment. Can Trump alone end the red menace?

schmoe , December 12, 2016 at 6:41 pm

? – "Trump was selected by Republican voters despite Fox not being his BFF. " Hannity and O'Reilly segments this past cycle were one hour propaganda news feeds for Trump.

The Trumpening , December 12, 2016 at 12:22 pm

As far as Fox goes from what I understand they are currently split - with Kelly Megyn (I know), Brit Hume, and Chris Wallace being anti-Trump while Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs are pro-Trump bigly. This is a smart balancing of Fox's short term need for viewers versus their longer-term policy requirements. But there can be no doubt that Rupert Murdoch is rabidly anti-Trump - he even gave that raving NeverTrump lunatic Louise Mensch a website called HeatStreet.

From glancing at the National Review it seems the GOPe think they are being generous by admitting defeat and magnanimously getting behind Trump's cultural agenda while insisting conservatives stay in charge of economic and foreign policy. But this is no change at all since the Republicans have always been offering the working classes empty cultural issues.

I imagine the Republicans see this as a Tour de France with them being the huge peloton while Trump is a lone breakaway attacker who they will soon swallow back up and totally co-opt.

I don't think the MSM are that good at propaganda; if they were Trump wouldn't be President!. For example now they have launched this Trump + Putin campaign but Trump responds by picking a fight with China. But the MSM is aghast and totally support the Chinese position! So they accuse Trump of carrying water for Russia put there's the entire MSM all lined up with buckets of Chinese water on their heads!

I suppose at some point several top GOP Senators (McCain, Flake) and a bottom (Lindsey Graham) will leave the party and caucus with the Democrats to ensure legislative gridlock. I believe if Trump really tried he could get a House of Representatives that supports him. I don't see how he herds the Senate though.

NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 1:15 pm

Propaganda only works when people are aware there is no curtain. At this point, the Wizard of Oz has been revealed, and unlike Baum's creation, he has no redeeming qualities. Telling everyone to look at the big giant head again fails.

The msm and the Democrats don't know how to function moving forward because building trust will take years of effort, and many of the specific personalities are done. They can never be attached to a competitive effort without undermining the effort. If they hope to retake their spot, when FB seemed trendy and not a mom hangout, they need people to forget about the curtain, but it's impossible. Instead they will whine about wicked witches of the North.

Even Trump won because the GOP misfits were sheepdogs for Jeb. Whatever else Trump was, he wasn't part of Jeb's curtain. Shouting Trump is a fraud doesn't work as long as you then scream "pay no mind to the strings on my back." I think Rufio could have made more noise if he wasn't such an obvious beta as he attacked Jeb, but one could argue he betrayed Jeb. People don't like that kind of thing.

samkoki , December 12, 2016 at 11:48 pm

Hogwash.

Bernie proved that there is plenty of money for candidates with the right intent and policies.

What you say, that dems can't win without its moneyed donor class, is a notion that has been used to bludgeon democrats into conservatism and passivity.

Bernie blasted your assertion about campaign finance to bits.

As to the dems "figuring something out," the dem leadership doesn't need to figure anything out. They are perfectly happy serving the 1%. It's the rest of the democrats who need to figure that out about their leadership and take action, whether it is tossing the leadership or starting a new party.

Adamski , December 13, 2016 at 5:59 am

According to an NYT article about his campaign, Sanders was not running to win until after his popularity started to skyrocket. Initially he was still attending the Senate and was not campaigning fulltime.

It was just an attempt to spread his liberal policy message nationwide. But how to control the party as President when it's opposed to him on policy? That's what "political revolution" meant. If Congress opposed Trump, he will have a rally of thousands in the district of any difficult legislator blaming him or her for not letting Trump make America great again.

Similarly Sanders can campaign to either get a Dem majority, it he hadn't got one in 2016, by 2018. Or to increase it or make it more liberal. This is what he did when the city council opposed him in Burlington, Vermont. Within a year he got one which was much more pliable. The progressives never got a majority but he went from Obama-style gridlock to a working government.

aab , December 13, 2016 at 6:07 am

One correction: Bernie Sanders is not a liberal. He is a democratic socialist. It's not a minor point, particularly because liberals deliberately obfuscate the difference to con voters.

Liberals believe in hierarchy. I'm pretty confident Bernie Sanders is an egalitarian. That matters, when it comes to policy and governance, as well as core values.

Marshall Auerback , December 12, 2016 at 8:05 am

Putin is not the one responsible for manipulating Democrats into an intensely pro-Wall Street, anti-working class political posture that loses elections.

Clive , December 12, 2016 at 2:02 pm

I agree - if the "old" parties act like the old neoliberal parties, they can't solve our current predicament. While our predicament isn't a new one, just a new version of an old problem, retreading the past 20 or 30 years isn't going to do the trick.

Normal , December 12, 2016 at 8:11 am

Gov't as employer as last resort is a huge leap from the goals of full employment and job security. This is promoted here and elsewhere without any rationale. Someone will have to explain why this is the only possible solution.

Arizona Slim , December 12, 2016 at 8:26 am

Have you noticed the private sector stepping up? With a free market jobs program that would provide full employment? I haven't either.

jrs , December 12, 2016 at 12:12 pm

Plus the quality of the jobs in the private sector is often horrible (of course not all but many). There is a reason everyone wants a government job. And unless the government sector forces the private sector to improve the quality of their jobs (ie living wages and ACTUALLY enforce overtime and safety and etc. not to mention all the contract work going on that isn't EVEN jobs) it will remain so. Quality of jobs matters.

fritter , December 12, 2016 at 8:40 am

Not really, but try explaining the opposite. How can we have full employment without gov't employment as last resort? Granted you can have "goals" all you want if you ignore them, but we'll put that aside and assume you are not disingenuous.
Everything else has been tried and failed, miserably. Companies sit on piles of cash without significant hiring. Tax incentives get gamed easily.
Offering employment is the simplest, most targeted solution that effectively cuts the rest of the employers out of the hostage taking business.

Cry Shop , December 12, 2016 at 9:18 am

The working class wants jobs and job security – not simply income.

I rather like the term used here instead of jobs , people want a livelihood. In the USA, that get's shortened into jobs, and then later short changed again into things like minimum wage. One could have fully employment and terrible livelihood. Only the Japanese could put up with 50+ years of being economic animals. Anyone who thinks full employment is going to solve issues like income inequality has been eating mushrooms picked from the cow pasture.

Mark Anderlik , December 12, 2016 at 10:37 am

Yes. Better to say "good jobs." Nearly 40% of workers in my community work at low-wage jobs that do not provide for a decent living on its own.

Cry Shop , December 12, 2016 at 11:25 am

I just don't even like the idea of "good jobs" - so limited and so American.

For example, Jobs won't save us from Climate Change, it's not just a money issue. Hence Livelihood, as in lets make sure the bastards who made this mess die before we do, then we;ll have some justice to make our miserable end more bearable. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/links-121216.html#comment-2725938

Waldenpond , December 12, 2016 at 12:07 pm

Full employment is the growth argument. Both would be beneficial but I would prefer the switch to income/leisure. Shorter work week, more leisure activities, less consumption, less growth.

lyman alpha blob , December 12, 2016 at 1:15 pm

Ditto. Government doesn't need to provide jobs where people go to the office and get paid to sit on their rear end all day – we already have enough of those in the public and private sectors.

I'd like to see a basic income guarantee with some sort of mandatory work required to get it. Something like the draft where people are called up to work for a certain period of time on a rotating basis but also giving them some say in what sort of job they get to do. One year you work at job x for a period of time, train your replacement and then get a bunch of time off. The next year you can try something different at job y.

Waldenpond , December 12, 2016 at 2:13 pm

Mandatory work everything is work. Yes, you can have call up for people who want to do a stint/internship learning large scale community construction, infrastructure, plumbing, electrical, etc.

Still, there needs to be jobs where people sit on their back sides part of a day some prefer working in offices and some are only able to work in offices.

But stretch the imagination: Community service runs the gamut: people to clean up streets, keep gutters open, scrape up weeds, maintain plantings, paint, repair; assisting children, seniors and animals; art etc. I am not a musician nor actor but would appreciate having free/low cost local enrichment programs. Public schools (the ones left) could be used in the evening for free classes: electronics, woodworking, engine/household repair, cooking, nutrition, etc.

And yes, there will be a need for people who sit on their rear ends to help organize and track activities. :)

lyman alpha blob , December 12, 2016 at 2:27 pm

Yes what you said.

And don't get me wrong about the rear end sitting – I don't mean those types of jobs shouldn't exist, I just mean that when you show up at the office you ought to have some actual work to do. And going to meetings deciding what work others should be doing doesn't count. I've worked at a few where I was required to be there for eight hours a day but only had four hours of work to do, and not for lack of asking.

One can only read the whole internet so many times a day ;)

polecat , December 12, 2016 at 7:11 pm

'Shorter work week, more leisure activities, less consumption, less growth.'

and lots of Free birthcontrol ..

jrs , December 12, 2016 at 12:18 pm

What nonsense it is to generalize what the working class as a whole wants (and really this probably should include everyone who works for a living). Some want jobs, some income. If everyone only wanted jobs no mothers would ever stay home to raise children etc..

Waldenpond , December 12, 2016 at 12:33 pm

Everything is work, everything is a job. If you take care of an elderly relative, it's duty (unpaid labor), if you take care of an elderly stranger it's a job. If you raise your own children, it's duty (unpaid labor), if raise others children, it's a job.

Elites are claiming more and more work is duty and of course it should be unpaid not to mention volunteerism.

If there was an income guarantee, most would labor their days away as work contributes to social connection and provides personal satisfaction.

If there was an income, I imagine social life would be richer as more people could be artists (festivals!), performers (community theater!), work in schools (art, music, construction classes) etc.

HotFlash , December 12, 2016 at 9:09 am

And, of course, it is the government that is the issuer of this sovereign currency that they cannot run out of. Or are you suggesting that the government give the $$ to the private sector, which will, of course, trickle it on down? We could call it, I don't know, how about 'quantitative easing'?

Another reason to prefer the government (which, after all, is "us") to administer jobs-for-all is providing jobs that do useful things for society which could not be provided on a for-profit basis. Um, like daycare, medical care, public utilities, eldercare, voter registration, education, making things that are repairable, and then repairing them when they need it, organic agriculture, humane animal husbandry, saving the monarch butterflies, *manual* residential snow shoveling - all those things that 'cost too much' for a for-profit business to do.

Eclair , December 12, 2016 at 10:27 am

Exactly, HotFlash. And, notice that so many of these livelihoods, child and eldercare, teaching, repair persons, garbage collectors, snow plow operators, have been relegated to the level of 'minimum wage jobs,' and the people that perform these necessary services consigned to the ranks of 'too dumb to be innovators or investment bankers.'

We have been conned into mumbling to our military, 'thank you for your service,' as they get to board flights before us. Why not honor trash collectors and the women who clean the toilets in our workplaces and the workers who are out on the county roads and interstates at 2am in a blizzard, keeping the roads clear so we don't have to be inconveniences? Where would our society be without them?

Cry Shop , December 12, 2016 at 12:03 pm

Douglas Adams was only being partially facetious when he had the an advanced civilization wiped out because they shipped out their phone cleaners on rocket-ships (ala the Marching Morons). It was his subtle rebuke to both Kornbluth and the Ayn Randian/neo-conservative of that time, as well as the general vapid consumerist society.

As to the military, I always favored the Coast Guard, they risk their lives to save other humans, not help the MIC and Empire.

manymusings , December 12, 2016 at 11:39 am

I think explaining govt-as-employer-of last-resort becomes easy once a few misconceptions are corrected and a few realities sink in. But it's no small thing for the realities to sink in - everything we've been taught, or encouraged to assume, is working against us. Conventional, responsible wisdom is that the wealth one has that didn't come from the government is "earned" and any activity that "earns" money is inherently productive and being productive is good - it makes one worthy. People think of "money" as the stuff passed around in big green wads in the movies, that comes into being through work an ingenuity (unless the govt commits the sin of "just printing it"). Distribution may not be "fair" but it at least follows certain intuitive laws or forces, that have a vague sense of morality associated with them (e.g., money is earned through productivity which means whoever has it by definition earned it, e.g. MH point on FIRE sector). It is a tautology - but a powerful one. People don't think of money as the product of accounting, a two sided coin created literally from a balance sheet - debits and credits, assets and liabilities - and that commercial banks can conjure "money" - pump it into circulation - simply by marking an asset in their ledger. People don't know that banks issue loans (create assets) out of nothing all the time (i.e., loans without corresponding deposits or reserves, loaning what they don't "have"). The asset becomes revenue-generating through interests and fees, which, if non-liquidating, are the precise opposite of "productive."

It is so difficult for this to sink in because our society organizes itself as if this weren't true. Speaking personally, it takes a persistent, systematic re-organization of how we process facts and arguments. We hear something like a "sovereign currency can never run out" as a justification for universal income or govt-as-employer-of-last-resort, and it triggers a deeply embedded sense that somehow this would send the economy spinning of the rails. But once it sinks in that "money" is just an asset/liability, and its entry into private circulation is purely a matter of public policy (not private "productivity"), at least then you're asking the right question: how should a sovereign inject currency into private circulation? Maybe no one answer is universally right at all times and in all circumstances .. but at this point debt is outpacing actual productivity, which means it must be written down (MH argument) and/or there needs to be an injection on the debtor side to try to catch up (e.g., jobs program or universal income). Which is why it is so nonsensical for the govt to "print money" in the form of transferring assets in the form of increasing bank reserves, as if bank lending depends on reserves at all it's like trying to fill a pool but flooding your sink). At least that's how I make sense of it still may botch the details, but at least once you strip away the cultural/social/moral baggage, it becomes more of a matter of simple economic logic that doesn't need a larger explanation. If you want to fill the pool, fill the pool, not the sink. But the baggage is real - which is why it really does seem to be a matter of letting the realities sink in.

juliania , December 12, 2016 at 1:35 pm

The baggage you speak of actually began with Reagan when from a government position of high privilege he actually sneered at government as the employer of last resort with his statement belittling "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." Which a subservient press took and ran with to make sure it settled into everyone's subconscious. It's helpful to revisit the rise of Ronald Reagan, and to remember that Obama took him as his role model, not FDR.

This battle has been ongoing in American politics probably since way back before the Great Depression, but that's as far back as some of us remember our parents telling us about. I love Bill Black because he's the kind of Democrat I thought I was. This new crowd makes me sick. It's appropriate that Obama's murder weapons are called drones. That's what the New Democrats are: drones.

KYrocky , December 12, 2016 at 8:20 am

The New Democrats will likely go the way of the blue dog Democrats. Their Republican voters will ask themselves why should they vote for a powerless Republican-lite, and they will simply die politically.

They care about staying a Senator. They care about themselves first and only, and will suck up to and serve whoever provides the money that allows them to hold onto their seats.

Voters in these red states voted for change, above all else. They voted for a nut job because they finally heard a candidate speaking to their issues and concerns, something their Senators, apparently, have not done.

Dave McCrae , December 12, 2016 at 8:20 am

There will soon be so few democrats remaining that we should give some serious consideration to a sequestration solution of giving them their own land, with no fossil fuel degradation, clean water from the glaciers, a tiny house, a pouch of seeds, and a sustainable truck garden, no cars trucks or bicycles, a fig tree in the middle of town. They could either pay taxes or not, as they felt motivated, and provide their own services regardless as not to be a burden. We could gather them up and have a long march to their new home; it would be hravenly! The rest of us could peacefully proceed to hell.

manymusings , December 12, 2016 at 8:23 am

This is mind blowing. Granted I didn't follow the link to the full story - but how on earth is this even news , even under the pathetic standards of election post mortems? New dems concoct self-admiring story, posture as the ones who "get it." Feed it to reporter, who agrees to attribute anonymously of course (so it has the feel of insiders and not high schoolers). I'm guessing what these courageous centrists really mean with the confused prescription to court voters who "lean right" is to appeal on social/cultural issues. Scold "elitist identity politics" of the national party as a distraction from the "economic message" (which of course will be the same assault on decency it always has been). So "economy first" would mean attack/exploit social liberalism and call it a "fight" for the economic plight of the every-man/woman. The beauty is you get to sound angry on behalf of voters without an iota of accountability or reflection, without ever having to answer for shallow, self-serving policies and abject failure.

cnchal , December 12, 2016 at 11:10 am

Some times Bill is so over the top it is comical.

Note that the paper never tells you what the five New Democrats so bluntly identified as the New Democrats' "missteps" or what new policies they believed needed to be adopted by the Party. This failure is particularly bizarre because the paper says that its reportage is based on sources that the paper agreed to keep anonymous so that they could speak frankly about this meeting over Chinese food. . .

The five New Democrats were: Democrats like Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Jon Tester of Montana, at a dinner held at the Washington home of Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Democrat of North Dakota.

So, not anonymous at all.

Here is the key part to understanding the plight of the politician / narcissist that feels the wrath of voters.

. . . All face difficult re-election races in 2018.

There is nothing worse than being ignored, but fail to understand that what they themselves fear, being ignored with no jawb, the peasants have been living with for decades. Hypocrite is the word and these are vacuous human beings that care only about themselves no matter what emotional fakery they use.

flora , December 12, 2016 at 12:48 pm

Um .
what the five New Democrats so bluntly identified as the New Democrats' "missteps" or what new policies they believed needed to be adopted by the Party

Um, noun (subject)-verb-object. what (noun) was identified as (verb) "missteps" and "'policies" (objects) eg. the 5 did not identify the missteps or policies.

cnchal , December 12, 2016 at 4:01 pm

Comical. The first line in Bill's post gets the NYT headline wrong.

On December 10, 2016, a New York Times article entitled "Democrats Have a New Message: It's the Economy First"

The actual headline is "Democrats Hone a New Message: It's the Economy Everyone ". A small detail for sure, which implies from The NYT it's a purveyor of fake news, because honing implies a refinement of a message already being said, and is contradicted within two words, by the word "new". It is possible that the headlines keep changing and that Bill's was up when he quoted them, which would solidify their reputation of fake news purveyors.

Getting back to the meat of Bill's post.

This failure is particularly bizarre because the paper says that its reportage is based on sources that the paper agreed to keep anonymous so that they could speak frankly about this meeting over Chinese food. That combination of supposed frankness from the sources gained by the grant of anonymity so them could describe in detail the purported bluntness by the gang of five should have produced some epic, specific condemnations of the Democratic Party's leadership by the New Democrats. Instead, it produced mush . . .

Going to the NYT article here is the reference to anonymous sources, so I freely admit to being wrong about Bill's anonymous Chinese food eating party (or wake) attendees being the fatuous five.

The party, these senators said, had grown overly fixated on cultural issues with limited appeal to the heartland. They criticized Hillary Clinton's campaign slogan, "Stronger Together," as flat and opaque, according to multiple people present at the dinner, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity .

This is the NYT's only reference to anonymity and furthers it's reputation of a fake news purveyor as the word "some" implies that some would go on record but either couldn't be found or weren't asked.

The rest of the article segues into a pity party, from those that weren't there.

Moderate Democrats are not alone in their sense of urgency about honing a new economic message. After a stinging loss to Donald J. Trump, liberals in the party are also trying to figure out how to tap into the populist unrest that convulsed both parties in 2016. Only by making pocketbook issues the central focus, they say, can Democrats recover in the 2018 midterm elections and unseat Mr. Trump in 2020.

"We need to double down and double down again on the importance of building an economy not just for those at the top, but for everyone ," said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a high-profile progressive who is seen as a leading potential opponent for Mr. Trump.

Elizabeth Warren doesn't realize that those at the top stole it from everyone else, and quadrupling down on building an economy that works for those at the top won't work for those at the bottom or anyone else except for those at the top.

Beyond that, they expect wide variance in how officeholders handle Mr. Trump and his agenda, from moderates who seek out accommodation to blue-state leaders who pursue total war . Their emerging message is likely to focus on protecting Medicare and Social Security, attacking income inequality and political corruption , and blocking legislation that might restrict access to health care.

"Likely" and "might" are weasel words. How likely are those that live and breath corruption to cut off their own supply?

The whole article is a mix of real and fake news and some days I like my comedy, black.

juliania , December 12, 2016 at 1:56 pm

Well, I laughed myself silly over this one:

"So, how long does it take for the article, and the five New Democrats to discuss "jobs?" Given the fact that they vented at length about the fear that they would begin to lose their jobs within two years, the subject of job security should have been paramount to the five New Democrats."

I'm still chuckling. It's sort of like five roosters in a chicken coop that only has room for one, all vying to become Chanticleer.

I mean, you do have to laugh sometimes.

Ignacio , December 12, 2016 at 2:27 pm

Yeps, hypocrisy became a major disease in politics long ago. Now it's time to pay for it, apparently.

templar555510 , December 12, 2016 at 8:40 am

We in the UK had thirteen years of ' New Labour ' which was Tony Blair's repositioning of the old Labour Party to turn it into a right of centre Thatcherite, neoliberal, let's privatise everything party, thus abandoning the working class in the process . Exactly as Bill Black describes re the Democrats . The problem as I see it is hydra headed , but here are the headings as it were :

1. A political shift to the right is also a psychological one, separating the ' doing okays ' from the ' left behinds ' and in the process reducing ( if not eliminating ) empathy from the ' doing okays ' for the ' left behinds ' . So intentional or otherwise this is a ' divide and rule ' policy, by government that has given rise to Global Trump_vs_deep_state. In the process the electability of a left-wing candidate as a leader – Saunders, Corybyn – has been made impossible under the present set up.

2. Automation. The power of labour hasn't just been weakened by this rightward shift . It has been severely weakened by the onward march of capital embracing new technologies of every type and as we all know none of the productivity gains from this have benefitted labour, nor will they in the future.

3. Bill Black is right a government is not like a household, but the daily message that we ' tax in order to spend ' is a deeply rooted belief system and just trying ( as I do ) to explain why this is not the case is, I imagine , like Copernicus trying to explain the actual motion of the earth around the sun. They just don't get it. It goes against common sense .

The election of Trump is not the beginning of the end it is end of the beginning. This is not a polite, dinner party conversation, it's going to turn ugly rather quickly and, just like the Crash of 2008 no-one will have seen it coming.

sharonsj , December 12, 2016 at 5:11 pm

Re automation: I know the CEOs are pushing replacing people with robots. But none of them can give you an answer to this question: Which robots are going to buy your products? And the fact that none of them can even think this far ahead means they are just as clueless as the New Dems. Maybe they can't see it coming but plenty of us can. I keep telling my friends they better start preparing for any and all emergencies because the future ain't gonna be pretty.

John Wright , December 12, 2016 at 8:52 am

Truly the Times will not connect any obvious dots

The Times writes: "Why did the working people, who have always been our base, turn away?" Mr. Manchin said in an interview, recounting the tenor of the dinner conversation.

This is the same Joe Manchin whose daughter, Heather Bresch, heads up Mylan of recent EpiPen monopoly pricing fame.

Maybe Democratic voters are realizing that the elected Democrats are concerned about taking care of their own well-connected class, but working people are a group ignored most of the time and catered to, verbally, only 2/4/6 years.

Quanka , December 12, 2016 at 9:00 am

Can we get a re-post on a previous BB primer on MMT? I studied (bachelors) econ, I have read L. Randal Wray's MMT book but I find the concepts of a sovereign currency hard to explain to outsiders who are mostly inundated with globalism, "free trade" etc.

casino implosion , December 12, 2016 at 11:40 am

Wray, whatever his importance to the MMT world as a theorist, is a terrible explainer. Cullen Roche (who disagrees with the UMKC economists on the prescriptive points of the theory, such as the job guarantee) does a far better job explaining it to the beginner on his site Pragmatic Capitalism.

JEHR , December 12, 2016 at 12:38 pm

Sometimes it does not matter how well you explain that a sovereign country need not raise taxes before spending can take place because some people will never change their beliefs no matter how well those beliefs are challenged. It is almost as difficult as trying to change someone's religious beliefs.

NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 1:58 pm

U.S. level sovereign countries. Russia could do it. Brazil and Indonesia could, but most "sovereign" countries would have problems with international trade if they tried this. Iran maybe could do it.

I fear many people believe the U.S. is a higher character version of the UK or France, so when you try to explain this, they don't quite grasp the U.S. is a continent spanning power and don't grasp why the dollar has value. The U.S. isn't the indispensable nation. It's the nation that can check out. Other nation states don't have this luxury. Despite the decline of industrial production, the U.S. makes that or could easily. American exceptionalism isn't the moral garbage Obama pushes. It's sovereignty in the modern world.

Barry , December 12, 2016 at 7:48 pm

Try Bill Mitchell – his blog is on the blogroll on the right
He even has weekly tests to see if you have got the concept!

UserFriendly , December 12, 2016 at 9:42 pm

For people without a background in Econ I highly recommend theses youtube playlists. They are filtered into different categories and are very good explainers.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWXGA051bB7uXlvsiGjvOxw/playlists

oh , December 12, 2016 at 9:13 am

The Dems are hoping that they'll be back in office as soon as the Repubs screw up. And it's quite possible since people don't have a choice other that the duopoly. We have to start building other parties to give ourselves a choice. But will we do it? How?

John k , December 12, 2016 at 9:17 am

They didn't lose because more people voted rep.
They lost because 10mm that voted for big o in 2008 stayed home, didn't vote for anybody for pres, or went 3rd party in other words, ABC, or anybody but Clinton.
A few will some day emulate Bernie, but this leap of faith means no banker money. Not many of these senior dems
new blood, please!

HotFlash , December 12, 2016 at 9:17 am

I find the spectacle of these despicable excuses for Senators being deeply concerned for their own job security quite heart-warming. Thanks, Prof Black, goes great with coffee.

But why, oh why, if they are that scared about their jobs, can't they get a clue? Are they still afraid of Hillary? Afraid that they would have to do honest work? Or do they still truly believe that the working class is just muttons?

NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 9:45 am

There aren't corporate board jobs waiting for losers without years of direct labor on behalf of corporate backers. Backbenchers who simply enjoy the celebrity of DC and follow corporate directives aren't relevant once they lose.

Certain ones retire to avoid the stench of losing (Evan Bayh, now officially a loser) and can manage decent jobs, but what does a loser bring to corporate pr especially when they are replaceable faces? A retired astronaut will come cheaper and present far less chance of scandal.

DJG , December 12, 2016 at 9:25 am

I'm detecting a new meme: Clarion

And the Democrats already keep trying that same old trick of hating their base. Heidi Heitkamp is about as far right as one can go. What's next? Resurrecting Pinochet to run in Florida?

ChrisAtRU , December 12, 2016 at 9:28 am

As if on cue, #TheLastCourtJesterOfTheNeoLiberalCrown has (of course) chimed in this morning with more weep-worthy analysis:

The Tainted Election

Warning: May cause severe eye-rolling (at the very least).

John Wright , December 12, 2016 at 10:29 am

Thanks for the warning.

I did click on the link, and the Krugman's first sentence was "The CIA, according to The Washington Post, has now determined that hackers working for the Russian government worked to tilt the 2016 election to Donald Trump."

At least Krugman didn't write, "According to reliable sources" as many people would not view the CIA and WaPo as reliable sources.

The thrust of the Krugman op-ed is that Clinton lost by such a small margin in some states, it could have been the alleged Russian influence that made the difference.

And it could have been because she was a lousy candidate with many concerns about her judgment and ethics (Libya, Iraq, Clinton Foundation, 150K Wall Street speeches, possible selling of favors during SOS, email evidence destruction, cheating on a debate with prior knowledge of debate questions from Donna Brazile, for TPP then against it.).

Krugman should be taking the Democratic leadership to task for foisting their marginal candidate on the electorate and the failure of the existing Democratic President to do much for the voters in his eight years in office.

I remember going to a lecture/book signing by Paul Krugman about 12 years ago and he seemed to be a decent and thoughtful academic.

Perhaps winning the Nobel branded economics prize was not good for him?

Or maybe there is something in the drinking water at the Times, that like the Shadow, has the ability to "cloud men's minds"?

fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 10:59 am

John Wright
December 12, 2016 at 10:29 am

I view Krugman the same way I view the inquisitors of the Holy Roman Empire – they are the "true" believers, and as such have a duty to defend the sacredness of the church (i.e., the democratic party – it is INCAPABLE OF ERROR).

Krugman's indoctrination into the religion of economics would put the indoctrination of Jesuits to shame. Krugman is simply incapable of examining his indoctrination and in that respect can't even match Greenspan, who at least owned up to the flaw in his (Greenspan's) ideology.
Democrats are perfect, ergo any critique of Obama, ACA, employment, droning, et al is racism and any critique of Hillary is sexism – Krugman: ANY disagreement means your stupid.

thesaucymugwump , December 12, 2016 at 9:43 am

"Working class people overwhelmingly want to work. Working class males who are unable to find secure, full time work often become depressed and unmarriageable"

As always, Bill Black is spot-on, but the above sentence can be extended by eliminating the words "working class." The reason Trump won is not only because of blue collar workers. White collar workers in jeopardy of losing their job due to H-1B visas heard Trump's promise that he would stop visa abuse.

And Democratic leaders still have not realized that a non-criminal candidate, e.g. Jim Webb, would have trounced Trump due to his sheer normality. They were in too much of a hurry to crown their queen. Joe "more of the same" Biden is not the answer.

The Democratic Party might disappear for the most part unless it dumps identity politics and re-embraces workers and unions.

Jim Webb / Tulsi Gabbard in 2020.

simjam , December 12, 2016 at 9:53 am

The problem can be stated quite simply: New Democrats pay close attention to the ministrations of George Soros, AIPAC, and Wall Street. The policies flow from the dollars these entities provide.

Eureka Springs , December 12, 2016 at 9:58 am

Abolish the United States Senate.

NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 10:51 am

It's the rationale solution. I believe even indirect elections would produce a better class of Senators. The pomp of the Senate is corrupting. Each Senator fancies himself or herself President. If Hillary could almost make it and an empty suit such as Obama could make it, the Senator from the great state of (insert state) definitely could, so they need to keep the money spigots open and not offend voters in other states.

Indirectly elected Senators would likely be former state house Speaker types or people who have had more than back benching jobs and never felt the thrill of winning statewide. They wouldn't entertain delusions of becoming President.

An added benefit is people would pay more attention to state house races. Fixing potholes would not be sufficient for reelection.

Knot Galt , December 12, 2016 at 2:19 pm

Senate corruption is not about pomp as it is really about Citizens United. That senators have weak malleable egos that money easily corrupts is disguised by the pomp of the Senate.

Anyone who has ever run for local or state public office knows that local races are treated like the bush leagues and minor leagues of baseball where the campaign manager acts like a scout for the party apparatus. Each party has their loyalists and, to borrow a great metaphor, Inquisition-era Klugmans, who guard the gates and dole out monies to influence the local media and voters.

Thrown to the wayside are the actual beliefs of democracy; as the religion of money is the only thing recognized. The rationale decision is to reconnect with the ideas of principal. It's not going to be easy. As this article demonstrates, everyone involved in it is completely void of any principal thought.

And yet I wonder. Bill Black's critique and commentators on this post provide evidence that general principals are thought about. How then, could indirect elections tap into this vein and eschew our vacuous and archaic Senator class?

Altandmain , December 12, 2016 at 10:05 am

The existing Democratic leadership should be forced to resign in disgrace.

They claimed that veering to the center and peddling candidates like Clinton would be more "electable". That has not proven to be the case.

The cruel reality is that they won't go without a fight. They're not public servants. They only care about themselves.

rd , December 12, 2016 at 11:40 am

The House Democrats re-elected Pelosi and company virtually unchallenged. I think they are so used to losing that they view keeping majorities in the east and west coast states as victory.

TK421 , December 12, 2016 at 1:06 pm

When centrism fails, they'll try conservativism. People like that only do the right thing after all else has failed.

Denis Drew , December 12, 2016 at 10:46 am

One interesting path to bring left out labor back?

Just read that Trump stacked NLRB could walk back teaching and research assistants category as employees. Hey; we know states may conduct their own union certification setups for farm workers because farm workers were left off FDR's ship.
https://onlabor.org/2016/12/09/what-will-a-trump-nlrb-mean-for-graduate-teaching-and-research-assistants/

HEY! THAT MEANS THAT ANY CATEGORY OF WORKERS DEFINED OUTSIDE THE FED SETUP IS ELIGIBLE FOR SEPARATE STATE LABOR ORGANIZING SETUP!!!!!!!!!!!!

State labor setup could add something oh, so every day practicable. State NLRB substitute could MANDATE certification elections upon a finding of union busting. States should also take union busting as seriously in criminal law as fed takes taking a movie in the movies - that FBI warning on your DVD comes alive and you are gone for couple of years if caught.

But mandating certification elections has so much more an everyday, natural businesslike feel that it could sail relatively smoothly through state legislatures. Nota bene: Wisconsin mandates re-certification of public employees unions annually (51% of membership required; not just voters) - nothing too alien about mandating union elections.

State set up might ACTUALLY go the last practical mile and actually force employers to actually bargain with certified unions - which refusal to bargain remains the last impassable barrier associated with the fed no-enforcement mechanism. See Donald Trump in Vegas.

See: A HANDBOOK ON THE CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS LAW (35 page)
for an example (maybe unique) of a state fully replicating federal labor law for a left out segment of workers.
https://www.alrb.ca.gov/content/pdfs/formspublications/handbook/handbook0207.pdf

rd , December 12, 2016 at 11:25 am

Classic tone-deafness

So I think one of the main issues out there is even understanding what middle-class means. A key example of this can be found in this piece where the difficulties that Swiss watch makers are facing is because of the struggling middle-class. Completely baffling I have never known anybody in the "middle class" to even be thinking of buying a Rolex Oyster watch. There are many other things that they would do with $5k before buying a watch.

I think the media and policy makers are mistaking the struggles of people who are making over $250k a year (or local equivalent) as the struggles of the middle class.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-12/middle-class-angst-is-depressing-swiss-watch-sales

rd , December 12, 2016 at 11:39 am

I think this is an interesting column discussing whether or not economists should be focused as much on income distribution as total income growth. I think what the Democratic party has completely missed is that the period fo time that the Trump voters view as "When America Was Great" was a period when GDP growth was high (3%-4%) but more importantly, a record percentage of it was being allocated to the middle-class.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-09/economists-pretend-they-don-t-pick-winners-and-loser

Trump's big challenge will be routing the current 3% GDP growth to his voters as he has promised to. I have not seen or heard any concrete policy proposals that will accomplish this, so there should be a yawning wide door for the Democrats to march through 2 and 4 years from now if they can figure out how to turn on the light to discover where that door is. Right now the Democrats are just fighting with the Republicans on how the money should be distributed among the top 10% instead of looking at revisiting their policies form scratch.

Sanders was on the right track, but went to far on key things such as free university. I think most Americans would agree that college should have some value that is paid for, but it should be much less than $60k/year tuition. The rest of the developed world doesn't have massive student debt issues because their colleges and universities are typically in the $3k to $20k/year tuition and many professional programs (lawyers, doctors etc.) are structured as long undergraduate programs instead of 4-year undergraduate program just being a weeding out process before you even get into the professional program.

NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 12:13 pm

Free college is popular. Most people went to free public schools. Your argument against college is the same argument against elementary school. If you want more STEM graduates as a society, pay for it.

JustAnObserver , December 12, 2016 at 11:39 am

One small quibble: IMHO it is an issue of left vs. right. Unfortunately the US has no `left' and the only options ever presented are right vs. even-further-right.

juliania , December 12, 2016 at 2:12 pm

"Second, the issue is generally not who "leans to the right." Indeed, the 2016 election should have made clear to the paper the severe limits on the usefulness of the terms "right" and "left" in explaining U.S. elections. Jobs are not a right v. left issue."

Gaylord , December 12, 2016 at 11:47 am

Dems are owned by the banks, so they are helping to rob us.

Kris Aman , December 12, 2016 at 12:43 pm

Until Democrat Party leadership disavows their neoliberal, financial strip-mining, progressive voters are challenged by identity politics. How can one remain a Democratic loyalist under those circumstances?

In an article today on medical patents, drug profits and march-in rights, the NY Times created a video. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/retro-report-medical-patents-profits.html

The video begins with the March of Dimes funded development of the polio vaccine. Edward Murrow asks Jonas Salk, "Who owns the patent on this vaccine?" Salk famously answered, "The people, I'd say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"

The video ends with his Salk's son repeating what his father said to him: "What is more important? The human value of the dollar or the dollar value of the human?"

These questions are not valid when corporate oligarchs control the puppet strings of both political parties.

Presumably, that's because neoliberals have bought into the Chicago School theory of human capital, "the stock of knowledge, habits, social and personality attributes, including creativity, embodied in the ability to perform labor so as to produce economic value." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital

Since economic value is intended for the shareholder, neoclassical and neoliberal policies are intended to achieve the same outcome: to decrease the dollar value of the human.

Arizona Slim , December 12, 2016 at 12:48 pm

All of Benjamin Franklin's inventions went into the public domain.

fosforos , December 12, 2016 at 1:10 pm

Prof Black says that Al Gore is "the [co]leader of the New Democrats." That was true in 1988-1992. But some people sometimes learn a thing or two over a quarter-century. In Gore's case, he learned something yuuuge: that global warming is the central issue of our time for *everyone*. Yet Prof. Black, the Democrats new, old, and middleaged, every single commenter on this posting, not to mention the Five coal-state Senators whining about "the economy," not a one of all of them had a single word about the most important (perhaps the *only* important issue) of our times. Does anyone doubt that, had the Democrats been forced to nominate him in the contested convention that I had so hoped for, the campaign, its outcome, and our present discussion would be quite different?

NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 1:32 pm

I believe Gore was a less talented version of his father under the spell of Tipper who was usually on a crusade against naughty language. Left to his own devices, Gore is alright, but it takes him a while. He was garbage in 2000.

Dave , December 12, 2016 at 8:43 pm

Eeyore Lieberman on the ticket is what did him in.

larry silber , December 12, 2016 at 1:30 pm

Wow! I respect Bill Black,so much so that if I was a billionaire respite with household name recognition to promote my ascension to the big house, my cabinet would have hopefully been blessed with his inclusion. I get the monetary sovereignty reality and am equally frustrated over the disconnect most people have digesting the difference between public and private debt. Unfortunately long standing cultural beliefs continually propogandized are hard to change, so without a very established credentialed leader, like maybe some of those new democats, and a host of other well respected influential cohorts supporting this counter intuitive reversal of perception, the reality that our governments finances are nothing akin to a households will only be reckognized by a very small group of open minded heterodox academics and truth seeking objective journalists, like the folks here at Naked Capitalism. I assume some unsavory corporate benefactors of energy , banking, and the sometimes comically nefarious cast of charachters running the various military industrial enterprises, obviously dependent upon government accomodations, contracts, and unlimited revolving door exposures, must have some inherent comprehension of the governments monetary sovereignty. Though i am sure, just like justice and law, to them its two tier. Whether we want to admit it or not, class is a big divider, and those benefitting from our current insanity stand on some shaky shoulders. They need institutions that are self affirming and equally prescribed to regardless of class. Religion helps the downtrodden with hope and morality; equally comforting to the plutocrats that be are the multiple arenas upholding assumptions espousing limited federal government coffers, conforming the masses to be humble and aquiescent, but more importantly incentivizes a hard working competitive ethic that the powers that be easily exploit for ever more profits.
Now the divergence between me and Professor Black comes where he implores that people just want to work, anotherwords have a secure job. What that job is and what it pays isnt the priority, the idea they have a structured format to adhere to and anchor their societal existence is whats paramount. I dont buy it! . I get it, here at Naked Capitalism isnt the place for anecdotal exploits, so i dont want to bore anybody with my angry history. But experiences do correspond to attitudes and policy persuasions. Briefly, I own a small business, I hate it, I simply have to continue with it because otherwise I am in the street. The Great Recession gutted my savings, opportunities, and networks, while age, personal obligations, and finances precludes any restructuring. Surely many middle aged middle class americans share my frustrations, and the future isnt looking any brighter. That being said, work for the sake of doing something integrated for a minimal pay check to stay relevant and in the "system" isnt what's needed. Productive opportunities that engage those that are idle and prone to self destructive behaviors might be socially responsible, and obviously our federal government can provide funding for that, even though this cooperative idea might sound too much like socialism. Young people surely need educational opportunities and structured paths to engage in that will lead to either being productive or aid searching for better sustainable ventures that balance our proclivity to turn nature into profits for the few. Point is, obviously society is a growth in progress and each new generation needs guidance finding ways to spend time assuring they and their societal members are continuing to build upon and improve the quality of everybodies lives. Sometimes profit can be a great motivator for this, and other times not. I am not sure if Prof. Black is expanding his definition of work. Maybe instead of getting into debt for an education, vocational or academic, people should be paid a living wage to receive an education at the beginning of their occupational lives, or like me, they need help restructuring due to public policy that destroyed their economic and occupational existences.. Bernie tried to introduce these concepts, but fear of deficits and lacking funds took center stage. Bernie, who obviously knows the truth because of Stephanie Kelton, got cold feet with regards to attempting an honest discusion, reverting instead to increased taxing to find funding. Sorry , until the definition of "work" is broadened, i'm not in favor of collectively indoctrinating unfortunate able bodied persons into a government work program that serves as a wage floor for some make for work job. Something like the Orange Oompa Loompa's proposed border wall? The entire concept sounds way too Orwelian for me.

jackiebass , December 13, 2016 at 6:33 am

New Democrats are really moderate republicans. For the democrat party to survive and get back their base, they have to adopt progressive democrat ideas. Electing Schumer as their senate leader is a mistake. He represents all that is bad about the democrat party. People are tired of being screwed by Neoliberal policies. We need a new deal for the 99%. Those voters that were conned by Trump are in for a rude awaking, and it won't take too long. American voters are very fickle. Not long ago the republican party was portrayed as on life support. It didn't take long for that to change. If democrats are smart they will quit living in the past and become more progressive. They only need to support their base to make big changes happen.

[Dec 11, 2016] The Clintons happily sacrificed the whole party to save themselves and in the end, they couldnt even accomplish THAT. What amazes me is that the chokehold that the Clintons had

Notable quotes:
"... "Jake Sullivan, Clinton's policy director, was the only one in Clinton's inner circle who kept saying she would likely lose, despite the sanguine polling," Glenn Thrush says, citing Sullivan's friends. ..."
"... "He was also the only one of the dozen aides who dialed in for Clinton's daily scheduling call who kept on asking if it wasn't a good idea for her to spend more time in the Midwestern swing states in the closing days of the campaign." ..."
"... Clinton herself had a spat with other top party officials who wanted to run against Trump as emblematic of where crazy repubs were headed. Clinton said, 'no, be nice to republicans, only Trump matters and we want their voters.' ..."
"... The Clintons happily sacrificed the whole party to save themselves and in the end, they couldn't even accomplish THAT. What amazes me is that the chokehold that the Clintons had(still have?) was so tight that the party let it happen! ..."
www.nakedcapitalism.com

Michael December 10, 2016 at 10:28 pm

Ellison is talking about starting the same sort of thing again with the 50-state strategy, and yeah, it's gonna pay off fast and big.

johnnygl December 10, 2016 at 8:40 am

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/how-the-democratic-party-lost-its-way-214514

Decent read from a democrat candidate in NC who ran for congress and got no help from DCCC. Makes larger point about how they need to built out the organization with training, infrastructure for campaigns. One remarkable bit is how there was a seat in TX district that hillary clinton won and the party didn't even field a candidate!

Jim Haygood December 10, 2016 at 9:01 am

A similar story about the final days of the SS Clintanic :

"Jake Sullivan, Clinton's policy director, was the only one in Clinton's inner circle who kept saying she would likely lose, despite the sanguine polling," Glenn Thrush says, citing Sullivan's friends.

"He was also the only one of the dozen aides who dialed in for Clinton's daily scheduling call who kept on asking if it wasn't a good idea for her to spend more time in the Midwestern swing states in the closing days of the campaign."

"They spent far more time debating whether or not Clinton should visit Texas and Arizona, two states they knew she had little chance of winning, in order to get good press," Thrush says. Just a week before Election Day, Clinton made a campaign stop in Tempe, Arizona.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/09/one-man-in-hillarys-campaign-warned-she-could-lose-and-everybody-ignored-him/#ixzz4SRXoMcMO

Who knows whether the NYT's ten months of daily fake news about "inevitable Hillary" misled the campaign, or the campaign misled the NYT?

One is reminded of the old nautical story about an imperious captain sailing on into a wall of clouds, as the worried navigator watches the barometer dropping to 28 inches of mercury.

The NYT's job is to inject more mercury - problem solved! (we thought)

integer December 10, 2016 at 11:17 am

Stuart Eizenstat , an Israel lobbyist with the law firm Covington and Burling , seemed to find it worthwhile to spend time emailing Jake Sullivan .

johnnygl December 10, 2016 at 1:05 pm

Building on lambert's favorite quote from atrios "they had ONE job!". Anecdotes like this from politico really emphasize how they literally stopped trying to elect other democrats. It was ALL about clinton and little else mattered. There was NO plan B!

Clinton herself had a spat with other top party officials who wanted to run against Trump as emblematic of where crazy repubs were headed. Clinton said, 'no, be nice to republicans, only Trump matters and we want their voters.'

The Clintons happily sacrificed the whole party to save themselves and in the end, they couldn't even accomplish THAT. What amazes me is that the chokehold that the Clintons had(still have?) was so tight that the party let it happen!

cwaltz December 10, 2016 at 1:27 pm

Personally I would like to see the Democratic Party go the way of the Whigs. They don't deserve my time and effort when the elite go out of their way to stack the deck.

[Dec 11, 2016] That supposed Russian interference

Notable quotes:
"... Greenwald's take down is another hammer meets nail piece. The CIA are systemic liars. In fact, that's their job to move around in the shadows and deceive. They literally lie about everything. They lied about Iran/Contra, torture programs, their propensity for drug smuggling and dealing, infesting the media with agents, imaginary WMDs that launch war and massacre, mass surveillance of citizens, just to name a few. ..."
"... This is the agency who are in secret and anonymity, with no verifiable evidence, whispering rumors in the WaPoo and NYTimes' ears that the Russians made Hillary lose. What moron would take the CIA at its word anymore? Much less a major newspaper? Did I miss something, is it 1950 again? Methinks I've picked up the scent of fake news ..."
"... Apparently, all the morons who are still screaming about Trump, as if he alone will be in charge of the government and not his GOP handlers. Please keep in mind that the ardent Clinton supporters quite clearly reveal cult behavior, and anything that allows them to continue embracing their belief in their righteousness will be embraced without question or qualm. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The upside of these overtly political battles among intelligence agencies is that we are eroding away the idea that these are non-partisan institutions without overt political agendas. ..."
"... What Stengel and various mainstream media outlets appear to be arguing for is the creation of a "Ministry of Truth" managed by mainstream U.S. media outlets and enforced by Google, Facebook and other technology platforms. ..."
"... In other words, once these supposedly responsible outlets decide what the "truth" is, then questioning that narrative will earn you "virtual" expulsion from the marketplace of ideas, possibly eliminated via algorithms of major search engines or marked with a special app to warn readers not to believe what you say, a sort of yellow Star of David for the Internet age. ..."
"... The NC lawsuit against WaPo, like the lawsuit of Hedges et al. against provisions of the NDAA, marks a watershed moment for defending free speech in our country! I hope that my oft-expressed belief -- that we will soon need to revive samizdat ..."
"... According to a recent posting on Wolf Street, according to records, the Treasury has borrowed 4 trillion more between 2004-15, than can actually be accounted for in spending. This is because it is the borrowing and thus public obligations, which really matter to the powers that be. The generals just get their toys and wars as icing on the cake. It doesn't matter if they win, because there would be less war to spend it on. Eventually they will use "public/private partnerships" to take their piles of public obligations and trade for the rest of the Commons. ..."
"... Money needs to be understand as a public utility, like roads. We no more own it than we own the section of road we are using. It is like blood, not fat. ..."
"... The CIA whinging about a right wing president being installed by a foreign power might just be the greatest self-awareness fail ever! ..."
"... LOL at that! You'd think they were afraid trump might turn out to be the next Hugo Chavez! They must really, really love their program to help al Qaeda in Syria. ..."
"... The CIA lies as a matter of course, and now they're being propped up as the paragons of honesty, simply out of political expediency. Crazy days. ..."
"... Modern Democrats simply aren't a political party but fanatics of a professional sports club. If it wasn't the Russians, it would be referees or Bill Belichick at fault. I'm surprised they aren't mentioning "Comrade Nader" at all times. ..."
"... In fact, Trump's coalition looks remarkably similar to the one that Scott Walker put together in 2014. ..."
"... Obama in Spartanburg, SC in 2007: And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner. ..."
"... And the Dems wonder why the working class feel betrayed. ..."
Dec 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
2016 Post Mortem

Trump Transition

The Evidence to Prove the Russian Hack emptywheel. The headline is a bit off, since the post's subject is really the evidence required to prove the Russian hack. Some of which does exist. That said, this is an excellent summary of the state of play. I take issue with one point:

Crowdstrike reported that GRU also hacked the DNC. As it explains, GRU does this by sending someone something that looks like an email password update, but which instead is a fake site designed to get someone to hand over their password. The reason this claim is strong is because people at the DNC say this happened to them.

First, CrowdStrike is a private security firm, so there's a high likelihood they're talking their book, Beltway IT being what it is. Second, a result (DNC got phished) isn't "strong" proof of a claim (GRU did the phishing). We live in a world where 12-year-olds know how to do email phishing, and a world where professional phishing operations can camouflage themselves as whoever they like. So color me skeptical absent some unpacking on this point. A second post from emptywheel, Unpacking the New CIA Leak: Don't Ignore the Aluminum Tube Footnote , is also well worth a read.

Chief Bromden December 11, 2016 at 7:51 am

Greenwald's take down is another hammer meets nail piece. The CIA are systemic liars. In fact, that's their job to move around in the shadows and deceive. They literally lie about everything. They lied about Iran/Contra, torture programs, their propensity for drug smuggling and dealing, infesting the media with agents, imaginary WMDs that launch war and massacre, mass surveillance of citizens, just to name a few.

They murder, torture, train hired mercenary proxies (who they are often pretending to oppose), stage coups of democratically elected govt.'s, interfere with elections, topple regimes, install ruthless puppet dictators, and generally enslave other nations to western corporate pirates. They are a rogue band of pirates themselves.

This is the agency who are in secret and anonymity, with no verifiable evidence, whispering rumors in the WaPoo and NYTimes' ears that the Russians made Hillary lose. What moron would take the CIA at its word anymore? Much less a major newspaper? Did I miss something, is it 1950 again? Methinks I've picked up the scent of fake news

Conclusion: It isn't the Russians that are interfering with U.S. kangaroo elections, it's the professionals over at the CIA

Brett December 11, 2016 at 11:29 am

+1000

Elizabeth Burton December 11, 2016 at 12:50 pm

Apparently, all the morons who are still screaming about Trump, as if he alone will be in charge of the government and not his GOP handlers. Please keep in mind that the ardent Clinton supporters quite clearly reveal cult behavior, and anything that allows them to continue embracing their belief in their righteousness will be embraced without question or qualm.

voteforno6 December 11, 2016 at 8:10 am

Re: That supposed Russian interference

I've tried to point out on other blogs just how shaky that story in the Washington Post is, and the response I get is something along the lines of, well, other outlets are also reporting it, so it must be true. It does me no good to point out that this is the same tactic used by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war. People will believe what they want to believe.

johnnygl December 11, 2016 at 8:35 am

It may help to point to the history of CIA influence at WaPoo. Counterpunch had a short piece reminding everyone of Operation Mockingbird (going from memory on that name) where CIA had reporters on staff at the paper directly taking orders and simultaneously on CIA payroll.

If questioned about CIA's motivation for hating trump, my best guess is that it is because trump is undermining their project to overthrow assad in syria using nusra rebels. And also because trump wants to be nice to russia.

I think there's some people in the cia that think they played a major role in winning the cold war through their support for mujahadeen rebels in afghanistan. I suspect they think they can beat putin in syria the same way. This is absolutely nutty.

JohnnyGL December 11, 2016 at 11:51 am

The upside of these overtly political battles among intelligence agencies is that we are eroding away the idea that these are non-partisan institutions without overt political agendas.

There's a large number of people that will see through the facade. Right now, Trump supporters are getting a lesson in how much resistance there can be within the establishment. I'm no Trump supporter, but I think seeing what these institutions are capable of is a useful exercise for all involved.

begob December 11, 2016 at 9:07 am

There's a running battle at the wikipedia article on Fake News Website, where propornot is now considered debunked.

Ulysses December 11, 2016 at 11:30 am

Apologies if this analysis by Robert Parry has already been shared here:

"What Stengel and various mainstream media outlets appear to be arguing for is the creation of a "Ministry of Truth" managed by mainstream U.S. media outlets and enforced by Google, Facebook and other technology platforms.

In other words, once these supposedly responsible outlets decide what the "truth" is, then questioning that narrative will earn you "virtual" expulsion from the marketplace of ideas, possibly eliminated via algorithms of major search engines or marked with a special app to warn readers not to believe what you say, a sort of yellow Star of David for the Internet age.

And then there's the possibility of more direct (and old-fashioned) government enforcement by launching FBI investigations into media outlets that won't toe the official line. (All of these "solutions" have been advocated in recent weeks.)

On the other hand, if you do toe the official line that comes from Stengel's public diplomacy shop, you stand to get rewarded with government financial support. Stengel disclosed in his interview with Ignatius that his office funds "investigative" journalism projects.

"How should citizens who want a fact-based world combat this assault on truth?" Ignatius asks, adding: "Stengel has approved State Department programs that teach investigative reporting and empower truth-tellers."

The NC lawsuit against WaPo, like the lawsuit of Hedges et al. against provisions of the NDAA, marks a watershed moment for defending free speech in our country! I hope that my oft-expressed belief -- that we will soon need to revive samizdat techniques to preserve truth– may turn ou to be overly pessimistic.

Ulysses December 11, 2016 at 11:36 am

Sorry, I forgot the link!

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-orwellian-war-on-skepticism-battling-fake-news/5559949

MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 11, 2016 at 11:57 am

It's like that quote: When the Clinton tide goes out, you discover who's been swimming naked.

Jim Haygood December 11, 2016 at 9:11 am

America's military empire is an enormous convection cycle, as money falls in while arms sales and global disorder radiate out.

Mr Milk Mustache (John Bolton) as assistant Sec State will help perpetuate and accelerate the grand convective cycle.

John Merryman December 11, 2016 at 9:47 am

Jim,

Keep in mind the basis of this capitalist economy is Federal debt. They have to spend it on something. The government doesn't even budget, which is to list priorities and spend according to need/ability. They put together these enormous bills, add enough to get the votes, which don't come cheap and then the prez can only pass or veto.

If they wanted to actually budget, taking the old line item veto as a template, they could break these bills into all their various items, have each legislator assign a percentage value to each one, put them back together in order of preference and the prez would draw the line. "The buck stops here."

That would keep powers separate, with congress prioritizing and the prez individually responsible for deficit spending. It would also totally crash our current "Capitalist" system.

According to a recent posting on Wolf Street, according to records, the Treasury has borrowed 4 trillion more between 2004-15, than can actually be accounted for in spending. This is because it is the borrowing and thus public obligations, which really matter to the powers that be. The generals just get their toys and wars as icing on the cake. It doesn't matter if they win, because there would be less war to spend it on. Eventually they will use "public/private partnerships" to take their piles of public obligations and trade for the rest of the Commons.

Money needs to be understand as a public utility, like roads. We no more own it than we own the section of road we are using. It is like blood, not fat.

The Trumpening December 11, 2016 at 8:15 am

The CIA whinging about a right wing president being installed by a foreign power might just be the greatest self-awareness fail ever!

johnnygl December 11, 2016 at 10:12 am

LOL at that! You'd think they were afraid trump might turn out to be the next Hugo Chavez! They must really, really love their program to help al Qaeda in Syria.

Uahsenaa December 11, 2016 at 10:24 am

There are so many eye-rolling ironies in all this I think my eyeballs might just pop out of their sockets. And the liberals going out of their way to tout the virtues of the CIA the very same organization that never shied from assassinating or overthrowing a leftwing president/prime minister it galls. The CIA lies as a matter of course, and now they're being propped up as the paragons of honesty, simply out of political expediency. Crazy days.

NotTimothyGeithner December 11, 2016 at 11:21 am

Modern Democrats simply aren't a political party but fanatics of a professional sports club. If it wasn't the Russians, it would be referees or Bill Belichick at fault. I'm surprised they aren't mentioning "Comrade Nader" at all times.

My guess is donors are annoyed after the 2014 debacle and are having a hard time rationalizing a loss to a reality TV show host with a cameo in Home Alone 2.

allan December 11, 2016 at 8:25 am

From the Amy Walter post mortem on the race in WI:

In fact, Trump's coalition looks remarkably similar to the one that Scott Walker put together in 2014.

It's really a shame that Obama didn't put on those walking shoes lift a finger to help the public service unions fight Walker.

Uahsenaa December 11, 2016 at 10:27 am

Obama in Spartanburg, SC in 2007:

And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner.

And the Dems wonder why the working class feel betrayed.

Maybe he just couldn't find a pair of comfy shoes

polecat December 11, 2016 at 11:37 am

Hol(e)y Shoes .

they glide on water funky bilge water --

Tertium Squid December 11, 2016 at 9:07 am

Here's what the "russki hacks" narrative reminds me of.

ambrit December 11, 2016 at 9:43 am

I'd extend that to include the entire DNC "Apologia pro Sancta Hillaria."

UserFriendly December 11, 2016 at 9:33 am

That ProPublica piece ( Suspected of Corruption at Home, Powerful Foreigners Find Refuge in the U.S. Pro Publica) is brutal. Not only do we have to be the shittest corrupt country in the world but we have to be a safe haven for ever other corrupt politician in the world as long as they have $$. Can someone just make it all end? Please. There needs to be a maximum wealth where anything you earn past it just gets automatically redistributed to the poor.

aliteralmind December 11, 2016 at 9:43 am

Truth in journalism just got a little bit more difficult:

http://www.johnlaurits.com/2016/12/10/disinformation-bill-propaganda/

tgs December 11, 2016 at 10:32 am

Thanks for the link – really important and scary things are going in congress concerning 'fake news' and Russian propaganda and HR 6393 is particularly bad. The EU is also taking steps to counter 'fake news' as well. Obama claimed that some form of curation is required – and it is happening quickly. People are suggesting that propornot has been debunked. That does not matter anymore. The Obama regime and the MSM don't care – that have gotten the message out.

And the people behind this are really deranged – check out Adam Schiff calling Tucker Carlson a Kremlin stooge for even suggesting that there is no certainty that Russia leaked the emails to Wikileaks.

After all, the media went all in for Hillary and spent huge amounts of time explaining why Trump is unfit. But they lost.

And now our efforts on behalf of al Queada are failing in Syria and more hysteria ensues. See for example:

Allies Warn Trump Against Cooperating With Russia Over Syria .

Some commentators believe that there is a well-organized large scale effort to normalize the suppression of free speech.

temporal December 11, 2016 at 11:50 am

The email saga lost a provable set of sources a long time ago. Before the files were given to Wikileaks it was already too late to determine which people did it. So-called forensic evidence of these computers only tell us that investigators either found evidence of a past compromise or that people want us to believe they did. Since the compromise was determined after the fact, the people with access could have done anything to the computers, including leave a false trail.

The core problem is that since security for all of these machines, including the DNC's email server and most likely many of those from Team R, was nearly non-existent nearly nothing useful can be determined. The time to learn something about a remote attacker, when it's possible at all, is while the machine is being attacked – assuming it has never been compromised before. If the attacker's machine has also been compromised then you know pretty much nothing unless you can get access to it.

As far as physical access protection goes. If the machine has been left on and unattended or is not completely encrypted then the only thing that might help is a 24 hour surveillance camera pointed at the machine.

Forensic evidence in compromised computers is significantly less reliable than DNA and hair samples. It's much too easy for investigators to frame another party by twiddling some bits. Anyone that thinks that even well intentioned physical crime investigators have never gotten convictions with bad or manipulated evidence has been watching and believing way too many crime oriented mysteries. "Blindspot" is not a documentary.

As for projecting behaviors on a country by calling it a "state action", Russia or otherwise, implying that there is no difference between independent and government sponsored actions, that is just silly.

[Dec 11, 2016] This hysteria over Russia is getting downright dangerous as it looks like forces which are pushing that story stop at nothing to delegitimize the election results.

Apt observation from Gareth: "I believe the CIA is attempting to delegitimize Trump's election so as to force him into a defensive position in which he will temper his dual goals of normalizing relations with Russia and destroying the CIA's proxy armies of jihadists. We will see if Trump has the guts to make some heads roll in the CIA He will remember that the last President who even threatened to take on the CIA received a massive dose of flying lead poisoning. "
Essentially after WaPo scandal it is prudent to view all US MSM as yellow press.
Notable quotes:
"... The Post and the like are terrified over their loss of credibility just as the internet has destroyed their advertising. Interesting that their response to competition isn't to outdo the competition but to smother the competition with a lie. Their own fake news. ..."
"... As a moral American and supporter of free speech, I am going to make a list of online or print WaPo advertisers. Then I will communicate to them that I will never buy another thing from them as long as they advertise in the Washington Post. ..."
"... Open their ads in Firefox ad blocker. Then add them to the script and spam blacklist. ..."
"... The story serves many purposes. One is firing a shot across TrumpCo's bow: 'Submit to us or we'll delegitimate your election.' ..."
"... Another is excusing the Democratic Party establishment for losing the election, and thus diverting the wrath of the rank and file. ..."
"... About all we can do at the moment is remember to remember the names of the people who purveyed and supported the story, just as we should remember to remember the names of those who purveyed WMD stories. ..."
"... Job #1 always is suppressing the Sanders faction. Not beating Trump or the Republicans. They want control of their little pond. ..."
"... Personally, after what we did in Ukraine (essentially funding a revolution) I refuse to get the vapors because Russia apparently "helped" elect Trump by exposing (not forcing her to be a liar or cheat) Hillary. ..."
"... All of this crap about Russia, or the electoral college system is a distraction from the real issues at hand about our political system, which is a two party one oligarchy (ALEC) anti-democratic system. The rot runs from national presidential elections to the comptroller of the smaller city governments. ..."
"... If any candidate was capable of speaking to the working and middle class, then either Russia nor the the 0.01% who compose the oligarchy could control who wins in popular elections. What is really needed is to eliminate either the two party system, or democratize their methods of selecting candidates. ..."
"... Think Hillary played an unfair hand to Sanders? That was nothing compared to the shenanigans that get played at local level, state level, and Congress level to filter out populist candidates and replace them with machine / oligarchy pets. ..."
"... the idea that Saudi (or other Middle Eastern states) also intervened (with money), is not more credible? ..."
"... Yes, the NYT piece on Russian hacking is complete evidence free tripe. Not once do they say what evidence they base these accusations on, beyond the Cyrillic keyboard. The code for Cyrillic keyboard is, "fuzzy bear" et al. as the original reporting on the DNC hack and the company that ran security made clear that this was the one and only piece of concrete evidence the attacks by "fuzzy bear" et al. were perpetrated by the Russians. ..."
"... So based on a Cyrillic keyboard and the below quote, unnamed "American intelligence agencies know it was the Russians, really? ..."
"... Based on this it appears the NYTs definition of fake reporting is anything that isn't fed directly to it by unnamed experts or the USG and uncritically reported. ..."
"... I think these unnamed agencies are not going to have a very good working relationship with the orange overlord if they keep this up. They might not even be getting that new war they wanted for Christmas. ..."
"... It's as though the NYT and WaPo had these vast pools of accumulated credibility and they could go out on a limb here Oh wait - their credibility has been destroyed countless times over the past decade or so. One would think they'd realise: If you're in a ditch, the first thing to do is stop digging. ..."
"... The world is flat . Note: This is not me awarding a Thomas L. Friedman prize. In this case, I am simply sharing the article because I think it is hilarious. ..."
"... Nowhere, in any of this, is it mentioned that Clinton's illegal private email server (that got hacked) played any factor whatsoever. It just stinks so bad, I wonder how they can not smell what they are sitting in.. ..."
"... Summarizing a very plausible theory, NeoCon Coup Attempt: As Syria's Assad (with Russian help) is close to crushing HRC's jihadi Queda & Nusra rebels in Aleppo, the NeoCons are freaking out on both sides of the Atlantic. ..."
"... What to do? Jill's recount is floundering. So, last resort: Concoct Russia hacking myth to either delay Dec 19 EC vote or create more faithless electors. Result: A NeoCon like HRC or a NeoCon sympathizer is installed. ..."
"... Two biggest war hawks, McCain and Graham, are leading the Senate charges against Russia. All of this within days of Obama sending 200 MORE US troops to Syria and lifting the ban on more arms to the Syrian rebels, including anti-aircraft MANPADS. ..."
"... The recount farce makes me angry, and has made me resolve to never give Stein my vote again. ..."
"... That implies the NeoCon establishment views DJT and cabinet as a threat in any way, which is an extremely dubious premise. Occam's razor: Clinton and the media establishment that gifted the country DJT will do anything they can to cast the blame elsewhere. ..."
"... I'm not sure if that is a simpler explanation. I offer this: It's simpler to see that they are engaging in a struggle for now and the future – that means the neocons vs Trump. ..."
"... "The story reveals that a CIA assessment detailing this conclusion had been presented to President Obama and top congressional leaders last week." You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are, but its the f#ckin CIA, dude. ..."
"... The problem is we are expected to just trust the NYT and CIA without evidence??? Anybody remember WMD in Iraq?? The complete loss of credibility by the NYT and CIA over the last decade means I have to see credible evidence before I believe anything they say. ..."
"... Seems coordinated to me -- Globe/Times/WaPo. Double down for WaPoo who are now reporting from area 51 where they found Bigfoot sitting on a stockpile of Sadam's WMDs. Reading this article is surreal. The CIA, a terrorist outfit which our own former reporter (Bernstein) showed to be infesting our own newsroom, whispered in our ear that the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate with or without the establishment coronation queen. ..."
"... "Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House" The link on WaPoo's site actually says a different headline so I am just sharing the headline itself. Not another secret assessment . no more passing notes in class, students. ..."
"... Robert Reich has posted the news that the Russians helped to secure the election for Trump on his FB page, to it seems much acclaim – perhaps I was foolish for having expected better from him. ..."
"... WaPo seems allied with the CIA-FIRE sector Clintonian group, while T may be more inclusive of the classic MICC-Pentagon sector which was asserting itself in Syria. ..."
"... Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things. ..."
"... Although I'm convinced that the Republicans are, on average, noticeably worse than the Democrats, I agree with you. It is useful that there is no doubt about where Trump and the Congressional Republicans stand, which is on the side of the billionaires and the giant corporations. We've had 8 years of Obama's obeisance to the oligarchs, and millions of Americans still don't understand that this was happening. ..."
"... rhetoric that is beginning conspicuously to resemble the celebration by capitalist elites during the interwar years of German and Italian fascism (and even Stalinist communism) for their apparently superior economic governance. [12] ..."
"... I always knew Trump would be a disaster. However, Trump is a survivable disaster–with Hillary that would have been the end. ..."
"... If Trump has many Goldman guys, is it a case of 'keeping your enemies close?' ..."
"... First of all, the Democrats would use Clinton to suppress the left and to insist that Clinton was more electable. That would lead to a validation of the idea that the left has nowhere to go and set a precedent for decades with a 3 point formula: ..."
"... Suppress the left ..."
"... Accept money from Wall Street and move to the right with each election ..."
"... Use identity politics as a distraction. ..."
"... There were other dangers. Clinton wanted war with Russia. That could easily escalate into a nuclear conflict. With Trump, the risk is reduced, although given his ego, I will concede that anything is possible. We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies. ..."
"... The reality is that the US was screwed the moment Sanders was out of the picture. With Trump, at least it is more naked and more obvious. The real challenge is that the left has a 2 front war, first with the corporate Democrats, then the GOP. On the GOP side, Trump's supporters are going to wake up at some point to an Obama like betrayal, which is exactly what I expect will happen. ..."
"... There are elements of the Trump fan base already calling him out for the people he has appointed, which is a very encouraging sign. Trump's economic performance is what will make or break him. He has sold himself on his business acumen. Needless to say, I expect it will break him because he won't even try to do anything for his base. ..."
"... I like a lot of your analysis. "We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies." We could still yet under Trump, given the cabinet nominees. ..."
"... By dangerous and delegitimizing I assume you mean the results of the election will be reversed sometime in the next six weeks while the current establishment still has martial authority. ..."
"... Both sides now fear the other side will lock them up or, at the very least, remove them from power permanently. Why do I think this is not over? ..."
"... I am certainly not ready to rule out Moore's gut feeling. Capitalist Party + MSM + Clinton + Nuland + CIA has shown to be an equation that ends in color revolution ..or at least an attempted color revolution ..."
"... At the same time that the media hysteria over "fake news" has reached a fever pitch, yesterday the Senate passed the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" , colloquially known as the Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill, as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. ..."
"... " establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." Our very own Ministry of Truth! ..."
"... Under Ukrainian law journalists that disagree with Kiev's policies are collaborators. They are subject to any mechanism Kiev can devise to stop them. In the case of RT Ruptly or the Guardian this means developing a strategy to ruin their reputations. The Interpreter was developed to that end. Kiev has gone so far as to petition the UK government to censure the Guardian for its coverage of events in Ukraine hoping to bully the publication into line. US broadcasters (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) have put RT on the same list as ISIS. ..."
"... This plan to censor opposing viewpoints in the US was intended to be executed during a Clinton presidency, and would've been almost impossible to stop under those circumstances. There is now a window of opportunity to fight back and ruin these clowns once and for all. ..."
"... These rallies are Trump's means of maintaining contact with his base, and making sure that he knows what they want. And a means of showing that he is trying to get it for them. If Hillary had bothered to do anything of the sort she would have been elected. Sanders did it and it was much appreciated. Trump's ego is huge but the rallies are much more than an ego-trip. ..."
"... Re: WP's response to Truthdig's retraction request. It seems as if they are doubling down on the "not our responsibility to verify the validity theme". My first reaction is that the WP is now the equivalent of the National Enquirer. What's next, a headline " I gave birth to Trump's Love Child". ..."
"... Panem et circenses. ..."
Dec 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Gareth December 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm

I believe the CIA is attempting to delegitimize Trump's election so as to force him into a defensive position in which he will temper his dual goals of normalizing relations with Russia and destroying the CIA's proxy armies of jihadists. We will see if Trump has the guts to make some heads roll in the CIA He will remember that the last President who even threatened to take on the CIA received a massive dose of flying lead poisoning.

voteforno6 December 10, 2016 at 7:21 am

This hysteria over Russia is getting downright dangerous. The people pushing that story will seemingly stop at nothing to delegitimize the election results.

Steve C December 10, 2016 at 8:04 am

The Post's Marc Fisher was on the PBS Newshour last night. He talked about Alex Jones. They probably didn't expect the pushback from Yves, Truthdig, etc. The Establishment often underestimates dissenters.

Real fake news, like Jones, benefits from the fake news charge. Their readers hate the MSM. I wonder if the same ethic can develop on the left.

The Post and the like are terrified over their loss of credibility just as the internet has destroyed their advertising. Interesting that their response to competition isn't to outdo the competition but to smother the competition with a lie. Their own fake news.

Isolato December 10, 2016 at 12:48 pm

I heard Stephen Colbert lump Alex Jones together w/Wikileaks as if they were the same "fake news". I have also repeatedly heard Samantha Bee refer to Julian Assange as a rapist. Sigh. Both of those comments are "fake news". The allegations against JA are tissue thin and Wikileaks has NEVER been challenged about the truth of their releases. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Rhondda December 10, 2016 at 4:31 pm

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/07/how-the-swedes-set-up-julian-assange/

It's snarky, but then so is your comment. The 'charges' against Assange have a nasty political stink on them.

Dave December 10, 2016 at 1:46 pm

"just as the internet has destroyed their advertising." Shouldn't that be "destroyed their ability to sell advertising?"

As a moral American and supporter of free speech, I am going to make a list of online or print WaPo advertisers. Then I will communicate to them that I will never buy another thing from them as long as they advertise in the Washington Post.

Open their ads in Firefox ad blocker. Then add them to the script and spam blacklist.

The Wapo's trying to steal Craigslist business with online job listings. Looks like an opportunity to have some fun for creatives.

https://jobs.washingtonpost.com/

different clue December 10, 2016 at 3:27 pm

Boss WaPo OwnerMan Bezos is very rich. He bought WaPo as a propaganda outlet. He is prepared to lose a lot of money keeping it "open for propaganda." Naming and shaming and boycotting every advertiser WaPo has could certainly embarass WaPo and perhaps diminish its credibility-patina for Bezoganda purposes. It is certainly worth trying.

The WaPo brand also owns a lot of other moneymaking entities like Kaplan testing and test-prepping I believe. It would be a lot harder to boycott those because millions of people find them to be important. But perhaps a boycott against them until WaPo sells them off to non Bezos ownership would be worth trying.

Perhaps a savage boycott against Amazon until Bezos fires everyone at WaPo involved in this McCarthy-list and related articles . . . and humiliates them into unhireability anywhere else ever again?

Brindle December 10, 2016 at 9:16 am

The Dem Liberals (Joan Walsh etc). on the twitter are going full throttle with this, it's a twofer as Joan is using this to attack Sanders supporters for not being on the front lines of Russia Fear.

Anarcissie December 10, 2016 at 12:00 pm

The story serves many purposes. One is firing a shot across TrumpCo's bow: 'Submit to us or we'll delegitimate your election.' (Apparently TrumpCo has not delivered a convincing submission yet.)

Another is excusing the Democratic Party establishment for losing the election, and thus diverting the wrath of the rank and file. Evidently it's also going to be used against the Sanders faction of the Democrats. About all we can do at the moment is remember to remember the names of the people who purveyed and supported the story, just as we should remember to remember the names of those who purveyed WMD stories.

Steve C December 10, 2016 at 12:41 pm

Job #1 always is suppressing the Sanders faction. Not beating Trump or the Republicans. They want control of their little pond.

cwaltz December 10, 2016 at 1:18 pm

Personally, after what we did in Ukraine (essentially funding a revolution) I refuse to get the vapors because Russia apparently "helped" elect Trump by exposing (not forcing her to be a liar or cheat) Hillary.

Perhaps they should consider that it could be worse, a foreign nation could be arming people and encouraging them to topple the government we have like what we're doing in Syria. It isn't like the very sharp divisions elsewhere haven't resulted in civil war.

Cry Shop December 10, 2016 at 9:37 am

All of this crap about Russia, or the electoral college system is a distraction from the real issues at hand about our political system, which is a two party one oligarchy (ALEC) anti-democratic system. The rot runs from national presidential elections to the comptroller of the smaller city governments.

If any candidate was capable of speaking to the working and middle class, then either Russia nor the the 0.01% who compose the oligarchy could control who wins in popular elections. What is really needed is to eliminate either the two party system, or democratize their methods of selecting candidates.

Think Hillary played an unfair hand to Sanders? That was nothing compared to the shenanigans that get played at local level, state level, and Congress level to filter out populist candidates and replace them with machine / oligarchy pets.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 11:02 am

Flimsy distractions.

Coincidentally, all these urgent initiatives will lead to replacing Trump with Hillary as president. "I will tear down the very building just to achieve my Pyrrhic victory."

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL December 10, 2016 at 5:29 pm

Thank you, sorry Dems, Boris Badunov did not swing the election. If you want *hard* evidence (not fake news) of a foreign government influencing the election you might have a look at the beheading, gay-killing, women-supressing tyrannical monarchy known as The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and ask whether it made sense for them to be the *#1* contributor to your candidate.

HBE December 10, 2016 at 10:08 am

Yes, the NYT piece on Russian hacking is complete evidence free tripe. Not once do they say what evidence they base these accusations on, beyond the Cyrillic keyboard. The code for Cyrillic keyboard is, "fuzzy bear" et al. as the original reporting on the DNC hack and the company that ran security made clear that this was the one and only piece of concrete evidence the attacks by "fuzzy bear" et al. were perpetrated by the Russians.

So based on a Cyrillic keyboard and the below quote, unnamed "American intelligence agencies know it was the Russians, really?

"They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding - which they say was also reached with high confidence - that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee's computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks."

Based on this it appears the NYTs definition of fake reporting is anything that isn't fed directly to it by unnamed experts or the USG and uncritically reported.

I think these unnamed agencies are not going to have a very good working relationship with the orange overlord if they keep this up. They might not even be getting that new war they wanted for Christmas.

Pavel December 10, 2016 at 11:00 am

It's as though the NYT and WaPo had these vast pools of accumulated credibility and they could go out on a limb here Oh wait - their credibility has been destroyed countless times over the past decade or so. One would think they'd realise: If you're in a ditch, the first thing to do is stop digging.

Especially when dealing with a President Trump. He's already made his distaste for the WaPo clear. We are entering a new, crazy, dangerous era of press-presidential relations. All the more reason for the newspapers to behave responsibly - is that too much to ask?

integer December 10, 2016 at 7:32 pm

The world is flat . Note: This is not me awarding a Thomas L. Friedman prize. In this case, I am simply sharing the article because I think it is hilarious.

integer December 10, 2016 at 8:38 pm

Also, Bradford deLong should be included with Krugman and Friedman, though the length and width of deLong's connections don't seem to have the same acceleration, energy, or viscosity, as the other two. There are also olfactory and temporal differences.

integer December 11, 2016 at 1:32 am

Come to think of it, I also don't think Krugman Turdman or Friedman Flathead would have to grovel to Neera "I'm a loyal soldier" Tanden and John "Done, so think about something else" Podesta to get a family member a "meritocratic" job.

YassirYouBetcha December 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm

Multiple languages use the Cyrillic alphabet, including Bulgarian and, notably, Ukrainian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_script

local to oakland December 10, 2016 at 11:52 am

See also this. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/chuck-schumer-russia-senate-election-inquiry-232464

TK421 December 10, 2016 at 11:57 am

If Russia is so dangerous, then anyone who mishandles classified information (say, by storing it on a personal server) should be prosecuted, shouldn't they?

Aumua December 10, 2016 at 2:00 pm

Nowhere, in any of this, is it mentioned that Clinton's illegal private email server (that got hacked) played any factor whatsoever. It just stinks so bad, I wonder how they can not smell what they are sitting in.. I also wonder just where the line is between those who actually buy into this hysteria, and those who simply feel justified in using whatever means they can to discredit Trump and overturn the election. I think there's a lot of overlap and grey area there in many people's minds.

Anonymous December 10, 2016 at 2:20 pm

Summarizing a very plausible theory, NeoCon Coup Attempt: As Syria's Assad (with Russian help) is close to crushing HRC's jihadi Queda & Nusra rebels in Aleppo, the NeoCons are freaking out on both sides of the Atlantic.

What to do? Jill's recount is floundering. So, last resort: Concoct Russia hacking myth to either delay Dec 19 EC vote or create more faithless electors. Result: A NeoCon like HRC or a NeoCon sympathizer is installed.

Two biggest war hawks, McCain and Graham, are leading the Senate charges against Russia. All of this within days of Obama sending 200 MORE US troops to Syria and lifting the ban on more arms to the Syrian rebels, including anti-aircraft MANPADS.

Plenue December 10, 2016 at 5:03 pm

The recount farce makes me angry, and has made me resolve to never give Stein my vote again. Apparently she's in opposition to much of her party leadership on this, so if they ditch her in the future and get someone better I may consider voting for them again. The reality of Trump as president is going to be bad enough, attempting to sabotage the transition isn't doing anyone any favors. I don't like Obama at all, but he wants a clean, peaceful transfer of power, and on that issue at least he's correct.

R McCoy December 10, 2016 at 5:16 pm

That implies the NeoCon establishment views DJT and cabinet as a threat in any way, which is an extremely dubious premise. Occam's razor: Clinton and the media establishment that gifted the country DJT will do anything they can to cast the blame elsewhere.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 6:24 pm

I'm not sure if that is a simpler explanation. I offer this: It's simpler to see that they are engaging in a struggle for now and the future – that means the neocons vs Trump.

Hillary vs Trump, invoking Russia now, is about fighting the last war. That one was over more than a month ago. It's more convoluted to say one team still desires to continue the fight.

Chief Bromden December 10, 2016 at 5:51 pm

You may be on to something http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/russian-interference-could-give-courts-legal-authority_us_584be136e4b0151082221b9c

"The story reveals that a CIA assessment detailing this conclusion had been presented to President Obama and top congressional leaders last week." You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are, but its the f#ckin CIA, dude.

Jagger December 10, 2016 at 7:54 pm

You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are, but its the f#ckin CIA, dude.

I just read the NYT article covering the same topic, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=0 ,

The problem is we are expected to just trust the NYT and CIA without evidence??? Anybody remember WMD in Iraq?? The complete loss of credibility by the NYT and CIA over the last decade means I have to see credible evidence before I believe anything they say. But that is just me. From reading the NYT comments on the OBama Russia election hack article, the NYT commenters have en mass swallowed the story hook, line and sinker. They apparently don't need evidence and have completely loss any sort of functioning long term memory.

Benedict@Large December 10, 2016 at 1:47 pm

And it's pretty clear that Clinton is right in with it. The woman has literally lost her marbles

cwaltz December 10, 2016 at 10:22 pm

Based on the fact that she was hidden more than actually performing on the campaign trail, that is a possibility. She may have very well been our own puppet government member that some were ready to install here just like we tend to do over in other nations. No real marbles needed since she wouldn't actually be running things. It's come to my attention that we seem to be inching closer and closer to third world here and those places rarely have vibrant democracies.

Chief Bromden December 10, 2016 at 8:04 am

Seems coordinated to me -- Globe/Times/WaPo. Double down for WaPoo who are now reporting from area 51 where they found Bigfoot sitting on a stockpile of Sadam's WMDs. Reading this article is surreal. The CIA, a terrorist outfit which our own former reporter (Bernstein) showed to be infesting our own newsroom, whispered in our ear that the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate with or without the establishment coronation queen.

"Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House" The link on WaPoo's site actually says a different headline so I am just sharing the headline itself. Not another secret assessment . no more passing notes in class, students.

Eustache de Saint Pierre December 10, 2016 at 8:49 am

Robert Reich has posted the news that the Russians helped to secure the election for Trump on his FB page, to it seems much acclaim – perhaps I was foolish for having expected better from him.

Steve H. December 10, 2016 at 9:31 am

Sifting the election through a Peter Turchin filter, Sanders' run was a response to 'popular immiseration' while the choice-of-billionaires was 'intra-elite competition'. WaPo seems allied with the CIA-FIRE sector Clintonian group, while T may be more inclusive of the classic MICC-Pentagon sector which was asserting itself in Syria.

I needed Jalen & Jacoby to sooth me to sleep last night, after seeing the last chart (Fig. 14.4) from Turchin's latest book. You can see it by hitting Ctrl-End from this pdf . If he's correct, this election was just the warm-up for 2020. Crikey.

subgenius December 10, 2016 at 3:29 pm

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

witters December 10, 2016 at 11:08 pm

The link to CM – and further disgracefulness from the now worthless Guardian: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

Vatch December 10, 2016 at 6:08 pm

Although I'm convinced that the Republicans are, on average, noticeably worse than the Democrats, I agree with you. It is useful that there is no doubt about where Trump and the Congressional Republicans stand, which is on the side of the billionaires and the giant corporations. We've had 8 years of Obama's obeisance to the oligarchs, and millions of Americans still don't understand that this was happening.

I hope people will vigorously lobby their Representatives and Senators, and pay attention to who the genuine progressives are in the 2018 primaries.

Invy December 10, 2016 at 3:12 pm

Like ordinary citizens, although for the opposite reasons, elites are losing faith in democratic government and its suitability for reshaping societies in line with market imperatives. Public Choice's disparaging view of democratic politics as a corruption of market justice, in the service of opportunistic politicians and their clientele, has become common sense among elite publics-as has the belief that market capitalism cleansed of democratic politics will not only be more efficient but also virtuous and responsible. [11]

Countries like China are complimented for their authoritarian political systems being so much better equipped than majoritarian democracy, with its egalitarian bent, to deal with what are claimed to be the challenges of 'globalization' -- a rhetoric that is beginning conspicuously to resemble the celebration by capitalist elites during the interwar years of German and Italian fascism (and even Stalinist communism) for their apparently superior economic governance. [12]

How will capitalism end – New Left Review

jgordon December 10, 2016 at 3:38 pm

Right, the euphemisms have been done away with. I always knew Trump would be a disaster. However, Trump is a survivable disaster–with Hillary that would have been the end.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 6:30 pm

If Trump has many Goldman guys, is it a case of 'keeping your enemies close?'

Altandmain December 10, 2016 at 6:37 pm

In the long run, a Clinton presidency would be far more damaging.

First of all, the Democrats would use Clinton to suppress the left and to insist that Clinton was more electable. That would lead to a validation of the idea that the left has nowhere to go and set a precedent for decades with a 3 point formula:

  1. Suppress the left
  2. Accept money from Wall Street and move to the right with each election
  3. Use identity politics as a distraction.

A Trump victory forces questions on the conventional wisdom (not really wisdom), and forces changes. At best, they can hope to shove another Obama that is attractive on the outside, but will betray people, but even that will be harder because people now are more watchful. Not to mention, the mainstream media has lost its power.

There were other dangers. Clinton wanted war with Russia. That could easily escalate into a nuclear conflict. With Trump, the risk is reduced, although given his ego, I will concede that anything is possible. We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies.

The reality is that the US was screwed the moment Sanders was out of the picture. With Trump, at least it is more naked and more obvious. The real challenge is that the left has a 2 front war, first with the corporate Democrats, then the GOP. On the GOP side, Trump's supporters are going to wake up at some point to an Obama like betrayal, which is exactly what I expect will happen.

There are elements of the Trump fan base already calling him out for the people he has appointed, which is a very encouraging sign. Trump's economic performance is what will make or break him. He has sold himself on his business acumen. Needless to say, I expect it will break him because he won't even try to do anything for his base.

relstprof, December 10, 2016 at 6:46 pm

I like a lot of your analysis. "We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies." We could still yet under Trump, given the cabinet nominees.

The left must be vigilant and smart. There is opportunity here, but sidetracking on fake news, pop vote, etc. doesn't gain much in terms of opposition.

Michael, December 10, 2016 at 10:27 pm

I think you're possibly right, and I just couldn't pull the lever to vote for Trump. Sometimes we just have to be true to ourselves and hope it works out.

RenoDino December 10, 2016 at 8:26 am

By dangerous and delegitimizing I assume you mean the results of the election will be reversed sometime in the next six weeks while the current establishment still has martial authority.

All the intelligent agencies are now in lock step over Russian intervention. How do they let this result stand? Trump obviously realizes his win is now in play and has gone after those same agencies pointing out their gross incompetence.

Both sides now fear the other side will lock them up or, at the very least, remove them from power permanently. Why do I think this is not over?

MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 11:14 am

Michael Moore agrees with you – something is, or might be (more accurate description of what he is said to have said, I think), brewing, according to him, or rather, his intuition .

John Parks December 10, 2016 at 12:56 pm

I am certainly not ready to rule out Moore's gut feeling. Capitalist Party + MSM + Clinton + Nuland + CIA has shown to be an equation that ends in color revolution ..or at least an attempted color revolution What the State Department and MSM have pleasantly referred to in the past as a bloodless coup. See Ukraine, Brazil, Argentina et al

Sammy Maudlin December 10, 2016 at 8:26 am

At the same time that the media hysteria over "fake news" has reached a fever pitch, yesterday the Senate passed the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" , colloquially known as the Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill, as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.

According to Senator Portman's press release, the Bill "will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." The bill also creates a "grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work."

While the passage of this bill seems very coincidentally timed given recent events, it was actually introduced in March. Not sure whether it simply followed a normal legislative track, or was brought back from the dead recently, etc.

Of note is the fact that, according to Steve Sestanovich, a Senior Counsel at the Council on Foreign Relations , "a lot of what the bill wants done is actually being done," noting that a range of agencies are already focused on the disinformation problem, and that traditional foreign policy tools still have a major role to play.

Eclair December 10, 2016 at 10:46 am

" establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." Our very own Ministry of Truth!

grizziz December 10, 2016 at 2:52 pm

It is important to find work for our newly minted graduates of marketing, psychology and sociology as well as those graduates of the communication school and the arts. The need of our post-industrial information age is to make things up as opposed to just making things. Our liberal nation has promised our children that after they have enslaved themselves through student debt they will find work. The work they find is likely to be meaningful only to the creditors who wish to be repaid.

The graduates will find idealistic rationales like patriotism or making "'Merica Grate Again" to soothe their corrupted souls while keeping the fake news as fresh as a steamy load.

integer December 10, 2016 at 11:04 am

US Psychological Warfare in Ukraine: Targeting Online Independent Media Coverage

Under Ukrainian law journalists that disagree with Kiev's policies are collaborators. They are subject to any mechanism Kiev can devise to stop them. In the case of RT Ruptly or the Guardian this means developing a strategy to ruin their reputations. The Interpreter was developed to that end. Kiev has gone so far as to petition the UK government to censure the Guardian for its coverage of events in Ukraine hoping to bully the publication into line. US broadcasters (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) have put RT on the same list as ISIS.

From yesterday's links but seems appropriate. This plan to censor opposing viewpoints in the US was intended to be executed during a Clinton presidency, and would've been almost impossible to stop under those circumstances. There is now a window of opportunity to fight back and ruin these clowns once and for all.

local to oakland December 10, 2016 at 12:46 pm

But these memes are now in play differently by Trump appointees. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/betsy-devos-claim-media-fake-news-232459

Government messing with the First Amendment is dangerous. I feel like an electrician watching someone reach for the wrong wire.

integer December 10, 2016 at 1:28 pm

That may be but what we are seeing now is just an echo of the Clinton/Soros plan, and not even close to the disaster that would result from having Soros et al at the helm. My guess is that the CIA are now simply using gullible Republicans (yes, there is certainly some redundancy there) as useful idiots, but this dynamic significantly weakens the original plan.

shinola December 10, 2016 at 3:50 pm

"I feel like an electrician watching someone reach for the wrong wire." I'm definitely stealing that one – thanks!

cnchal December 10, 2016 at 8:28 am

Trump, the Man in the Crowd

Amy Davidson ends her article with this paragraph.

And that is why the rallies are likely to endure: to serve as calibrators of or infomercials for what Trump believes that "the public" wants. One can waste a lot of time delving into the question of Trump's psychological need for affirmation . What is politically more important is how he might use the set piece of a cheering crowd to brush aside other considerations, particularly those involving the checks on the Presidency, and the willingness of those in other areas of the government, or in the White House itself, to exercise them. Should courts worry about "a lot of angry people"? One important point not to let go of is that a crowd that the President assembles and the broader public are two very different things, no matter how big the arena, or how filled it is with love . A better opportunity to hear that public voice will come in two years, at the midterm elections. Maybe those will surprise Trump.

News flash for Amy. When a narcissist uses the word "love" it doesn't mean what you think it does. Those rallies are about training people to react emotionally in a way that is fulfilling to Donald. Nothing more, nothing less.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 11:55 am

A better opportunity to hear that public voice will come in two years, at the midterm elections. Maybe those will surprise Trump.

We remind ourselves that no one can help us but us. We empower ourselves.

So, it goes for today, as it did in 2008. Such moderation!!! A better opportunity will come in two years!!!! I said that to myself 8 years ago, but I didn't hear much of it from the media then. And we (not just I) say that now.

As for crowds reacting and it being fulfilling for the one being looked up on – again, it's the same human psychology, whether the guy on stage is a rock star, Lenin, Roosevelt, Pol Pot, the next savior or Idi Amin. How much love is there for anyone in any long term relationship, except to affirm and be affirmed by 'love' everyday, in small acts or otherwise, much less some politicians you interact through abstractions, like, through the media or stories told to us.

kareninca December 10, 2016 at 6:13 pm

"Those rallies are about training people to react emotionally in a way that is fulfilling to Donald. Nothing more, nothing less."

These rallies are Trump's means of maintaining contact with his base, and making sure that he knows what they want. And a means of showing that he is trying to get it for them. If Hillary had bothered to do anything of the sort she would have been elected. Sanders did it and it was much appreciated. Trump's ego is huge but the rallies are much more than an ego-trip.

Jhallc December 10, 2016 at 8:51 am

Re: WP's response to Truthdig's retraction request. It seems as if they are doubling down on the "not our responsibility to verify the validity theme". My first reaction is that the WP is now the equivalent of the National Enquirer. What's next, a headline " I gave birth to Trump's Love Child".

Steve H. December 10, 2016 at 9:15 am

: The right has its own version of political correctness. It's just as stifling.

It looks like this perspective is snapping into place. From a letter in our (paywalled) local paper, from Dec. 3:

telling everyone else not to be so sensitive or PC (ditto; theirs is a "conservative" PC). [Kenneth D. Pimple]

Steeeve December 10, 2016 at 2:06 pm

Patriotic Correctness is a useful term and concept. Otherwise, the article was extremely long-winded and boring. Editor to writer: "I need you to fill 3,000 words worth of space with this 50-word idea "

Steve H. December 10, 2016 at 10:59 am

Panem et circenses.

But then I think of the old Chicago prayer:

Where's my bread, Daley?

fosforos December 10, 2016 at 12:00 pm

Long, long ago I learned that the only really trustworthy stories in the "Press" were on the sports pages. Now I'm scarcely sure of even that

cwaltz December 10, 2016 at 10:38 pm

I don't consider Trump a compromise candidate and that's largely because I don't see him actually moving the country forward in the right direction. Sanders, for me, would have been a compromise from the point of view of he probably wouldn't have moved us far enough fast enough for me but he would have set us leftward instead of ever rightward and that IS an improvement.

The Trumpening December 10, 2016 at 10:06 am

The mainstream media is doubling down on imagined pro-Russian heresies in a fashion not seen since the Reformation. Back then the Catholic Church held a monopoly on ideology. They lost it to an unruly bunch of rebellious Protestants who were assisted by the new technology of the printing press.

Nowadays various non-conformist internet sites, with the help of the new technology of the internet, are challenging the MSM's monopoly on the means of persuasion. To show how much things have changed, back in the 60's, dissidents such as the John Birch Society were limited to issuing pamphlets to expound on their theories of Russians taking over America. In a very ironic role-reversal, today it is the increasingly desperate Washington Post that more closely matches the paranoia of the John Birch Society as it accuses non-conformist media heretics – who are threatening the MSM's monopoly on the means of persuasion - of allowing Russians to take over America.

But let's spare a thought for poor Jeff Bezos. He basically thought he was purchasing the medieval equivalent of a Bishopry when he bought the WaPo. But now after running six anti-Trump editorials each and every day for the past 18 months, in which his establishment clergy engaged in an ever increasing hysteria-spiral trying to outdo each other in turning Trump into Hitler, it ends up Bezos' side lost the election anyway. It's like he bought a Blockbuster store in 2008 and never even thought about Netflix!

And so now the MSM is literally launching an Establishment Inquisition by issuing "indexes" of prohibited heretical websites.

Where will this lead? The grossly paranoiac reading is the Establishment's Counter Reformation is laying the ideological groundwork for a sort of coup d'etat to be followed by the rule of a goodthink junta. In this case we have to start calculating how many divisions are loyal to Trump's gang of generals versus how many are loyal to Obama's generals. A more moderate reading is that with these anti-Russian headlines, the Establishment is attempting to pressure Trump to stay the Establishment course on foreign policy and to appoint a SecState who is hostile to Russia. And in the best case these crazy MSM ramblings are just the last gasps of soon to be extinct media mammoths.

fosforos December 10, 2016 at 12:17 pm

Or is it CIA preparation for an Electoral College coup and an H of Reps "election" of–Lindsy Graham?

The Trumpening December 10, 2016 at 2:07 pm

One thing you can say about Trump is that he is most certainly not a wuss. In the face of this firestorm about Russian influence sources say Trump is going to nominate Rex Tillerson, who is very pro-Putin, as Secretary of State!

Lindsie Graham is going to be apoplectic!

tgs December 10, 2016 at 2:51 pm

Do you think Tillerson will be confirmed?

MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 3:09 pm

I wonder what happens when they don't confirm any of his nominees? Is this a case of 'I will nominee so many you don't like, you will be forced to confirm at least a few?'

The Trumpening December 10, 2016 at 4:05 pm

Yes I do because Trump is reportedly naming NeoCon John Bolton as undersecretary. That's going to be a package deal; if they reject Tillerson then Bolton is gone as well. The NeoCons are desperate to get Bolton into the Administration.

Bolton's job will be to go on talk shows and defend Trump's policies. If he doesn't do it then he gets fired.

And so from the rest of the world's point of view, Tillerson is the carrot but Bolton remains in the background as the stick in case anyone starts thinking Trump is too soft and decides to test him.

Baby Gerald December 10, 2016 at 10:58 am

Glenn Greenwald dissects the fake news spewing about Russian involvement with aplomb:

Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA's Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence

[Dec 10, 2016] Shiny object distruction from the real issues

Short-termism is a real problem for the US politicians. It is only now the "teeth of dragon" sowed during domination of neoliberalism since 80th start to show up in unexpected places. And reaction is pretty predictable. As one commenter said: "Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA."
Notable quotes:
"... Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'. ..."
"... Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle hard. ..."
"... i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a two-fer for the globalist statists) ..."
"... Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected to the internet. ..."
"... The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there? ..."
"... Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us ..."
"... The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers all over this election and elections all over the planet. ..."
"... The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or millions. ..."
"... What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines, good lord! ..."
"... As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration, of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim with with neocon cadres. ..."
"... Out of the 3,153 counties in this country, Hillary Clinton won only 480. A dismal and pathetic 15% of this country. The worst showing EVER for a presidential candidate. ..."
"... The much vaunted 2 million vote lead in the popular vote can be attributed to exactly 4 boroughs in NYC; Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, & Brooklyn ..."
"... 96 MILLION Americans were either too disgusted, too lazy, or too apathetic to even bother to go out and cast a vote for ANYONE in this election. ..."
"... Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA. ..."
"... Clapper sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever about lying to Congress. ..."
"... There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia. The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies and others. ..."
"... And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. ..."
"... Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. ..."
"... I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity: "The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming (no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor. ..."
"... The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling ..."
"... Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying. ..."
"... This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's play. ..."
"... At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show. ..."
"... Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over the years into the CIA ..."
"... Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration with open arms. ..."
"... I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing his cabinet. ..."
"... In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface, maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter. ..."
"... after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing? ..."
"... The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate all sorts of irrational BS. ..."
"... 'CIA Team B' ..."
"... 'Committee on the Present Danger' ..."
"... 'Office of Special Plans' ..."
"... Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. ..."
"... It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. ..."
"... He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in power. ..."
www.zerohedge.com

MEFOBILLS -> Keyser , Dec 10, 2016 1:01 PM

It is worse than "shiny object." Human brains have a latency issue - the first time they hear something, it sticks. To unstick something, takes a lot of counter evidence.

So, a Goebbels-like big lie, or shiny object can be told, and then it can take on a life of its own. False flags operate under this premise. There is an action (false flag), and then false narrative is issued into press mouthpieces immediately. This then plants a shiny object in sheeple brains. It then takes too much mental effort for average sheeple to undo this narrative, so "crowds" can be herded.

Six million dead is a good example of this technique.

Fortunately, with the internet, "supposed fake news sites like ZH" are spreading truth so fast - that shiny stories issued by our Oligarch overlords are being shot down quickly.

Bezo's, who owns Washington Post, is taking rents by avoiding sales taxes; not that I'm a fan of sales taxes. But, ultimately, Bezos is taking rental thefts, and he is afraid of Trump - who may change the law, hence collapse the profit scheme of Amazon.

Cognitive Dissonance -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM

Oldwood. I have a great deal of respect for you and your intelligent opinions.

My only concern is our constant and directed attention towards the 'liberals' and 'progressives'. When we do so we are thinking it is 'them' that are the problem.

In fact it is the force behind 'them' that is the problem. If we oppose 'them', we are wasting our energy upon ghosts and boogeymen.

Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'.

chunga -> Cognitive Dissonance •Dec 10, 2016 11:33 AM

I've been reading what the blue-teamers are saying over on the "Democratic Underground" site and for a while they've been expressing it's their "duty" to disrupt this thing. They are now calling Trump a "Puppet Regime".

Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle hard. Also watch for moar of the Suprun elector frauds pop out of the woodwork. The Russian people must be absolutely galvanized by what's happening, USSA...torn into many opposing directions.

dark pools of soros -> chunga •Dec 10, 2016 1:38 PM
First tell them to change their name to the Progressive Party of Globalists. Then remind them that many democrats left them and voted for Trump.. Remind them again and again that if they really want to see blue states again, they have to actually act like democrats again

I assure you that you'll be banned within an hour from any of their sites

American Gorbachev -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:12 AM

not an argument to the contrary, but one of elongating the timing

i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a two-fer for the globalist statists)

with a political timetable operative as well, whereby some (pardon the pun :) trumped up excuse for impeachment investigations/proceedings can consume the daily news during the run-up to the mid-term elections (with the intent of flipping the Senate and possibly House)

these are very powerful, patient, and deliberate bastards (globalist statists) who may very well have engineered Trump's election for the very purpose of marginalizing, near the point of eliminating, the rural, christian, middle-class, nationalist voices from subsequent public debate

Oldwood -> American Gorbachev •Dec 10, 2016 10:21 AM

The problem is that once Trump becomes president, he will have much more power to direct the message as well as the many factions of government agencies that would otherwise be used to substantiate so called Trump failures. This is a calculated risk scenario for them, but to deny Trump the presidency by far produces more positives for them than any other.

They will have control of the message and will likely shut down much of alternate media news. It is imperative that Trump be stopped BEFORE taking the presidency.

sleigher -> overbet •Dec 10, 2016 10:00 AM

"I read one morons comment that the IP address was traced back to a Russian IP. Are people really that dumb? I can post this comment from dozens of country IPs right now."

Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected to the internet. IP addresses from Russia mean nothing.

kellys_eye -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there?

Paul Kersey -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

"Most of our politicians are chosen by the Oligarchy."

And most of our politicians choose the Oligarchy. Trump's choices:

Wilbur Ross, Rothschild, Inc

The working man's choices.....very limited.

Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey •Dec 10, 2016 10:27 AM

"Barack Obama received more money from Goldman Sachs employees than any other corporation. Tim Geithner, Obama's first treasury secretary, was the protege of one-time Goldman CEO Robert Rubin. "

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Nameshavebeench... -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 11:53 AM

If Trump gets hit, the 'official story' of who did it will be a lie.

There needs to be a lot of online discussion about this ahead of time in preparation. If/when the incident happens, there needs to be a successful counter-offensive that puts an end to the Deep State. (take from that what you will)

We've seen the MO many times now;

The patterns are well established & if Trump gets hit it should be no surprise, now the 'jackals' need to be exterminated.

Also, keep in mind that everything we're hearing in all media just might be psyops/counter-intel/planted 'news' etc.

sgt_doom -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 1:25 PM

Although I have little hope for this happening, ideally Trump should initiate full forensic audits of the CIA, NSA, DIA and FBI. The last time a sitting president undertook an actual audit of the CIA, he had his brains blown out (President John F. Kennedy) and the Fake News (CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.) reported that a fellow who couldn't even qualify as marksman, the lowest category (he was pencilled in) was the sniper.

Then, on the 50th anniversary of that horrible coup d'etat, another Fake News show (NPR) claimed that a woman in the military who worked at the rifle range at Atsuga saw Oswald practicing weekly - - absurd on the fact of it, since women weren't allowed at military rifle ranges until the late 1970s or 1980s (and I doublechecked and there was never a woman assigned there in the late 1950s).

Just be sure he has trustworthy bodyguards, unlike the last batch of phony Secret Service agents (and never employ anyone named Elmer Moore).

2rigged2fail -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 4:04 PM

Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us

Arnold -> Arnold •Dec 10, 2016 9:15 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

jmack -> boattrash •Dec 10, 2016 11:08 AM

All these Russian interference claims require one to believe that the MSM and democrat machine got out played and out cheated by a bunch of ruskies. This is the level of desperation the democrats have fallen too. To pretend to be so incompetent that the Russians outplayed and overpowered their machine. But I guess they have to fall on that narrative vs the fact that a "crazy" real estate billionaire with a twitter account whipped their asses.

Democrats, you are morally and credulously bankrupt. all your schemes, agenda's and machinations cannot put humpty dumpty back together again. So now it is another period of scorched earth. The Federal Bureaucracy will fight Trump tooth and nail, joined by the democrats in the judiciary, and probably not a few rino's too.

It is going to get ugly, like a machete fight. W. got a taste of it with his Plame affair, the brouhaha over the AGA firings, the regime of Porter Goss as DCI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Goss

DuneCreature -> cherry picker •Dec 10, 2016 10:30 AM

The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers all over this election and elections all over the planet.

The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or millions.

You said a mouth full, cherry picker. ..... Until the US Intel community goes 'bye bye' the world will HATE the US. ... People aren't stupid. They know who is behind the evil shit.

... ... ..

G-R-U-N-T •Dec 10, 2016 9:39 AM

What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines, good lord!

Colborne •Dec 10, 2016 9:37 AM

As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration, of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim with with neocon cadres. So, that's the lay of the terrain there now, that's who's running the place. And they aren't going without a fight apparently.

Interesting times , more and more so.

66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

For those of us who still have a grip on reality, here are the facts of this election:

But given this is a story from WaPo, I think will just give a few days until it is thoroughly discredited.

max2205 -> 66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 11:04 AM

And she won CA by 4 million. She hates she only gets a limited amount of electoral votes.. tough shit rules are rules bitch. Suck it

HalEPeno •Dec 10, 2016 9:43 AM

Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA.

Clara Tardis •Dec 10, 2016 9:45 AM

This is a vid from the 1950's, "How to spot a Communist" all you have to do is swap out commie for: liberal, neocon, SJW and democrat and figure out they've about won....

https://youtu.be/w86QhV7whjs

dogismycopilot •Dec 10, 2016 9:51 AM

This is the same CIA that let Pakistan build up the Taliban in Afganistan during the 1990s and gave Pakistan ISI (Pakistan spy agency) hundreds of millions of USD which the ISI channeled to the Taliban and Arab freedom fighters including a very charming chap named Usama Bin Laden.

The CIA is as worthless as HRC.

Fuck them and their failed intelligence. I hope Trump guts the CIA like a fish. They need a reboot.

Yes We Can. But... -> venturen •Dec 10, 2016 10:08 AM

Why might the Russians want Trump? If there is anything to the stuff I've been reading about the Clintons, they are like cornered animals. Putin just may think the world is a safer, more stable place w/o the Clintons in power.

TRM -> atthelake •Dec 10, 2016 10:44 AM

If it is "on" then those doing the "collections" should be aware that a lot of people they will be "collecting" have read Solzhenitsyn.

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"

Those doing the "collections" will have to choose and choose wisely the side they are on. How much easier would it be for them to report back "Sorry, couldn't find them" than to face the wrath of a well armed population?

Abaco •Dec 10, 2016 9:53 AM

The clowns running the intelligence agencies for the US have ZERO credibility. Clapper sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever about lying to Congress. He was not fired or reprimanded in any way. He retired with a generous pension. He is a treasonous basrtard who should be swinging from a lamppost. These people serve their political masters - not the people - and deserve nothing but mockery and and a noose.

mendigo •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM

As reported on infowars:
On Dec 9 0bomber issued executive order providing exemption to Arms Export Control Act to permit supplying weapons (ie sams etc) to rebel groups in Syria as a matter "essential to national security "interests"".

Be careful in viewing this report as is posted from RT - perhaps best to wait for corraboaration on front page of rededicated nyt to be sure and avoid fratrenizing with Vlad.

Separately Gabard has introduced bill : Stop Arming Terrorists Act.

David Wooten •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM

There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia. The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia.

Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies and others. All of these institutions should be registered as foriegn agents and any cleared US citizen should have his or her clearance revoked if they do any work for these organizations, either as a contractor or employee. And these Gulf states have all been donating oil money to UK and US universities so lets include the foreign studies branches of universities in the registry of foreign agents, too.

And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. Arms companies who sell deadly weapons to the Gulf States, in turn, donate money to Congressmen and now own politicians such as Senators Graham and McCain. It's no wonder Graham wants to help his pals - er owners. So what we have here ('our' government) is institutionalized influence, if not outright control, of US foreign policy by some of the most vicious states on the planet,
especially Saudi Arabia - whose religious police have been known to beat school girls fleeing from burning buildings because they didn't have their headscarves on.

As Hillary's 2014 emails have revealed, Qatar and Saudi Arabia support ISIS and were doing so about the same time as ISIS was sweeping through Syria and Iraq, cutting off the heads of Christians, non-Sunnis and just about anyone else they thought was in the way. The Saudi/Gulf States are the driving force to get rid of Assad and that is dangerous as nuclear-armed Russia protects him. If something isn't done about this, the Gulf oil states may get US into a nuclear war with Russia - and won't care in the least.

Richard Whitney •Dec 10, 2016 10:10 AM

So...somehow, Putin was able to affect the election one way, and the endorsements for HRC and the slander of Trump by and from Washington Post, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, practically every big-city newspaper, practically every newspaper in Europe, every EU mandarin, B Streisand, Keith Olberman, Comedy Central, MSNBC, CNN, Lady Gaga, Lena Dunham and a wad of other media outlets and PR-driven-celebs couldn't affect that election the other way.

Sounds unlikely on the face of it, but hats off to Vlad. U.S. print and broadcast media, Hollywood, Europe...you lost.

seataka •Dec 10, 2016 10:11 AM

The Reverse Blockade

"Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. " page 104, Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski more

just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:51 AM

that car ride for the WH to the capital is going to be fun.

Arnold -> just the tip •Dec 10, 2016 12:12 PM

Your comment ticked one of my remaining Brain Cells.

The final scene of "The Gauntlet".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076070/

Pigeon •Dec 10, 2016 10:29 AM

I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity: "The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming (no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor.

The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling. 50% of the Federal govt needs to go.....now.

What is BEYOND my comprehension is how anyone would think that in Putin's mind, Trump would be preferable to Hillary. She and her cronies are so corrupt, he would either be able to blackmail or destroy her (through espionage and REAL leaks) any time he wanted to during her presidency.

Do TPTB think we are this fucking stupid?

madashellron •Dec 10, 2016 10:31 AM

Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46006.htm

jfb •Dec 10, 2016 10:31 AM

I love this. Trump is not eager to "drain the swamp" and to collide with the establishment, anyway he has no viable economic plan and promised way too much. However if they want to lead a coup for Hilary with the full backing of most republican and democrat politicians just to get their war against Russia, something tells me that the swamp will be drained for real when the country falls apart in chaos.

northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:36 AM

Fuckin' Obama interfered in the Canadian election last year by sending advisers up north to corrupt our laws. He has a lot of nerve pointing fingers at the Russians.

I notice liberals love to point fingers at others, when they are the guilty ones. It must be in the Alinsky handbook.

Pigeon -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:38 AM

Called "projection". Everything they accuse others of doing badly, illegally, immorally, etc. - means that is EXACTLY what they are up to.

just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:35 AM

It is in the Alinsky handbook.

Arnold -> just the tip •Dec 10, 2016 4:41 PM

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/04/13/12_ways_to_use_sau...

jerry_theking_lawler •Dec 10, 2016 10:45 AM

CIA = Deep State.

Trump should not only 'defund' them but should end all other 'programs' that are providing funds to them. Drug trade, bribery, embezzelment, etc. End the CIA terror organization.

Skiprrrdog •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM

Putin for Secretary of State... :-)

brianshell •Dec 10, 2016 10:50 AM

Section 8, The congress shall have the power to...declare war...raise armies...navies...militia.
The National Security Act charged the CIA with coordinating the nation's intelligence activities and correlating, evaluating and disseminating intelligence affecting national security.

Rogue members of the executive branch have overstepped their authority by ordering the CIA to make war without congressional approval or oversight.

A good deal of the problems created by the United States, including repercussions such as terrorism have been initiated by the CIA

Under "make America great", include demanding congress assume their responsibility regarding war.

Rein in the executive and the CIA

DarthVaderMentor •Dec 10, 2016 10:59 AM

This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's play.

At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show.

Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over the years into the CIA

The fact that's forgotten about this is that if the story was even slightly true, it shows how incompetent the Democrats are in running a country, how Barak Obama was an intentional incompetent trying to drive the country into the ground and hurting its people, how even with top technologies, coerced corrupted vendors and trillions in funding the NSA, CIA and FBI they were outflanked by the FSB and others and why Hillary's server was more incompetent and dangerous a decision than we think.

Maybe Hillary and Bill had their server not to hide information from the people, but maybe to actually promote the Russian hacking?

Why should Trump believe the CIA? What kind of record and leadership do they have that anyone other than a fool should listen to them?

small axe •Dec 10, 2016 10:55 AM

At some point Americans will need to wake up to the fact that the CIA has and does interfere in domestic affairs, just as it has long sought to counter "subversion" overseas. The agency is very likely completely outside the control of any administration at this point and is probably best seen as the enforcement arm of the Deep State.

As the US loses its empire and gains Third World status, it is (sadly) fitting that the CIA war to maintain docile populations becomes more apparent domestically.

Welcome to Zimbabwe USA.

marcusfenix •Dec 10, 2016 11:10 AM

what I don't understand is why the CIA is even getting tangled up in this three ring circus freak show.

Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration with open arms.

I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing his cabinet. All these stars are not exactly going to support their president going belly up to the bar with Putin. and since Trump has no military or civilian leadership experience (which is why I believe he has loaded up on so much brass in the first place, to compensate) I have no doubt they will have tremendous influence on policy.

In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface, maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter. perhaps some have grown so large and so powerful that they have their own agendas? it's not as if our federal government has ever really been one big happy family there have been many times when the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. and congress is week so oversight of this monolithic military and intelligence entities may not be as extensive as we would like to think.

after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing?

and is this really all just a small glimpse of some secret war within, which every once in a while bubbles up to the surface?

CheapBastard •Dec 10, 2016 11:34 AM

The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate all sorts of irrational BS.

However, there is no doubt the Russians stole my TV remote last week.

Kagemusho Dec 10, 2016 11:38 AM

The Intel agencies have been politicized since the late 1970's; look up 'CIA Team B' and the 'Committee on the Present Danger' and their BS 'minority report' used by the original NeoCons to sway public opinion in favor of Ronald Reagan and the arms buildup of the 1980's, which led to the first sky-high deficits. It also led to a confrontational stance against the Soviet Union which almost led to nuclear war in 1983: The 1983 War Scare Declassified and For Real http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb533-The-Able-Archer-War-Scare-Decl...

The honest spook analysts were forced out, then as now, in favor of NeoCons with political agendas that were dangerously myopic to say the least. The 'Office of Special Plans' in the Pentagon cherry-picked or outright fabricated intel in order to justify the NeoCon/Israeli wet-dream of total control of oil and the 'Securing the (Israeli) Realm' courtesy of invading parts of the Middle East and destabilizing the rest, with the present mess as the wholly predictable outcome. The honest analysts told them it would happen, and now they're gone.

This kind of organizational warping caused by agency politicization is producing the piss-poor intel leading to asinine decisions creating untold tragedy; that the WaPo is depending upon this intel from historically-proven tainted sources is just one more example of the incestuous nature of the relations between Traditional Media and its handlers in the intel community.

YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 11:54 AM

This isn't a "Soft Coup". It's the groundwork necessary for a rock hard, go-for-broke, above the barricade, tanks in the street coup d'etat. You do not get such a blatant accusation from the CIA and establishment echo vendor, unless they are ready to back it up to the hilt with action. The accusations are serious - treason and election fraud.

Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. His natural "Mistake" is seeking people at his level of business acumen - his version of real, ordinary people - when billionaires/multimillionaires are actually Type A personalities, usually predatory and addicted to money. In his world, and in America in general, money equates to good social standing more than any other facet of personal achievements. It is natural for an American to equate "Good" with money. I'm a Brit and foreigners like me (I have American cousins I've visited since I was a kid) who visit the States are often surprised by the shallow materialism that equates to culture.

So we have a bunch of dubious Alpha types addicted to money in transition to take charge of government who know little or nothing about the principle of public service. Put them in a room together and without projects they can focus on, they are going to turn on each other for supremacy. I would not be surprised if Trump's own cabinet destroys him or uses leverage from their own power bases to manipulate him.

Mike Pompeo, for example, is the most fucked up pick as CIA director I could have envisaged. He is establishment to his core, a neocon torture advocate who will defend the worst excesses of the intelligence arm of the MIC no matter what. One word from his mouth could have stopped this bullshit about Russia helping Trump win the election. Nobody in the CIA was going to argue with the new boss. Yet here we are, on the cusp of another attack on mulitple fronts. This is how you manipulate an incumbent president to dial up his paranoia to the max and failing that, launch a coup d'etat.

It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. I think he was his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of him and he chose his cabinet from the establishment swamp dwellers to best protect him from his enemies. Wrong choices, granted, but understandable.

He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in power.

flaminratzazz ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:03 PM
I think he was his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of him,,
+1 I think he was just dickin around with throwin his hat in the ring, was going to go have fun calling everyone names with outlandish attacks and lo and behold he won.. NOW he is shitting himself on the enormity of his GREATEST fvkup in his life.
jomama ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:16 PM
Unless you can show how Trump's close ties to Wall St. (owes banks there around 350M currently
YHC-FTSE ->jomama •Dec 10, 2016 12:59 PM
My post is conjecture, obviously. The basis of my musings, as stated above, is the fact that the establishment has tried to destroy Trump from the outset using all of their assets in his own party, the msm, Hollyweird, intelligence and politics. A full retard attack is being perpetrated against him as I type.

There is some merit to dividing the establishment, the Deep State, into two opposing sides. One that lost power, priestige and funds backing Hillary and one that did not, which would make Trump an alternative establishment candidate. But there is no proof that any establishment (MIC+Banking) entity even likes Trump, let alone supports him. As for Israel, Hillary was their candidate of choice, but their MO is they will always infiltrate and back both sides to ensure compliance.

blindfaith ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:36 PM
Do not underestimate Trump. I will grant that some of these picks are concerning. However, think in terms of business, AND government is a business from top to bottom. It has been run as a dog and pony show for years and look where we are. To me, I think his picks are strating to look like a very efficient team to get the government efficient again. That alone must make D.C. shake in thier boots.
YHC-FTSE ->blindfaith •Dec 10, 2016 1:08 PM
Underestimating Trump is the last thing I would do. I'm just trying to understand his motives in my own clumsy way. Besides, he promised to "Drain the swamp", not run the swamp more efficiently.
ducksinarow •Dec 10, 2016 12:04 PM
From a non political angle, this is a divorce in the making. Then democrats have been rejected in totallity but instead of blaming themselves for not being good enough, they are blaming a third party which is the Russians. They are now engaging the Republican Party in a custody battle for the "children". There are lies flying around and the older children know exactly what is going on and sadly the younger children are confused, bewildered, angry and getting angrier by the minute. Soon Papa(Obama) will be leaving which is symbolic of the male father figure in the African American community. The new Papa is a white guy who is going to change the narrative, the rules of engagement and the financial picture. The ones who were the heroes in the Obama narrative are not going to be heroes anymore. New heroes will be formed and revered and during this process some will die for their beliefs.

Back to reality, Trump needs to cleanse the CIA of the ones who would sell our nation to the highest bidder. If the CIA is not on the side of America the CIA should be abolished. In a world where mercenaries are employed all over the world, bringing together a culturally mixed agency does not make for a very honest agency. It makes for a bunch of self involved countries trying to influence the power of individuals. The reason Castro was never taken down is because it was not in the interest of the CIA to do so. That is why there were some pretty hilarious non-attempts on Castro's life over the years. It is not in the best interest of the CIA that Trump be president. It is in the best interest of America that Trump is our President.

brane pilot •Dec 10, 2016 12:22 PM

Even the idea that people would rely on foreign governments for critical information during an election indicates the bankruptcy of the corrupt US media establishment. So now they resort to open sedition and defamation in the absence of factual information. The mainstream media in the USA has become a Fifth Column against America, no different than the so-called 'social science' departments on college campuses. Trump was America's last chance and we took it and no one is going to take it away.

[Dec 07, 2016] The Democratic left does not exist.

Notable quotes:
"... What people see in Clinton is a candidate willing to travel any distance at any time if the fee for showing up is $225 k for an hour of work, or so; but who couldn't find the time or reason to visit Wisconsin before an election and actually ask people to vote for her. ..."
"... This does present possibilities, and was in fact the Clinton/DLC plan, although a plan dating back to the 1960s. The idea is to add to the identity groups that are currently the base of the Democratic Party college-educated urban professional socially progressive but economically moderate Republicans. This preserves the neoliberal system, but should create great economic opportunities for elite blacks, women, Latinos etc who really would rather get rich before socialism. ..."
"... I am willing to now designate non-college rural whites as a valid minority, without real privilege except very locally, economically moderate but socially conservative. They have been up for grabs to a degree for a long time, and way too much a major topic of discussion, as nobody knows what to do with them, nobody really wants them, but they are very dangerous, as we can see. ..."
"... The way he put it is that the neoliberal center-left's long-term political project since the '90s, as embodied in figures like the Clintons in the US and Blair in the UK, can be summed up as an effort to redefine the two-party system so that the nominally "left" party becomes a de facto ruling party representing the center-left and center-right, leaving the far right with a dangerously long leash to move the nominally "right" party ever closer toward an outright National Front-style fascist party, and ideally leaving a shattered and demoralized far left as what amounts to an ideological hostage of the center. ..."
"... Both Clinton's failure to defeat Trump and the Blairites' failure to take Labour back from Corbyn have been setbacks for this project, and in both countries the center-right has largely decided to remain for now in its old electoral bloc with the proto-fascists instead of jumping ship to a "left" party that hasn't yet been fully transformed into a well-oiled machine for neoliberal centrism. ..."
"... He'll do many things more or less exactly the way a Clinton administration would have done them, perhaps in some cases with enough of a superficial far-right veneer to create the perception of contrast (for instance future Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, who supports vouchers for religious private schools but otherwise might as well be a member of Democrats for Education Reform) and in some cases with red meat to the far right on issues the neoliberal center doesn't particularly care about (i.e. who the hell knows what if anything he'll do on issues like abortion rights, about which he's been all over the map in the past depending what's in his immediate opportunistic interest). ..."
"... appointing figures from places like Goldman Sachs to positions of authority at institutions like the Treasury and the Fed is a thoroughly bipartisan commitment that doesn't make either major US party look any more left-wing or right-wing than the other. ..."
Dec 07, 2016 | http://crookedtimber.org/2016/11/28/the-day-after-brexit/#comment-699954

kidneystones 12.03.16 at 1:01 pm 117

The Democratic left does not exist. Sanders is an independent who would never have been nominated except to help rubber-stamp the inauguration of the donor-class candidate.

The Democrats do not have a left-candidate, or a slate of 'left candidates' around whom a left might coalesce. That's the consequence of national Democratic priorities and the take-over of the party by the Clinton crime family. There are no 'up and coming' Democrats. Those who are talented are spotted and co-opted into the Clinton-controlled machine. The quid pro quo manner of doing business is transparent. Very large sums change hands and almost always according to the laws, in so far as the actual pay-offs are 'incidental' rather than clearly causal.

How many doctoral candidates in their thirties get paid $600 k per year for part-time work and another $300 k per year plus stock options?

All of them, if the doctoral candidate happens to be named Chelsea Clinton. As I noted earlier, Democrats regard outsourcing their interactions with young people and rural voters to Bernie Sanders as a 'solution.'

What people see in Clinton is a candidate willing to travel any distance at any time if the fee for showing up is $225 k for an hour of work, or so; but who couldn't find the time or reason to visit Wisconsin before an election and actually ask people to vote for her.

Yes, it was close. But let's not forget who won and why and how. The president-elect has already stolen parts of the Dem base and now he's after the rest. The traditional Dem coalition is already fractured and if the new president does half as well as he did destroying two political dynasties then Democrats may find themselves in an even deeper whole in 2018.

Like Labour, Democrats need to figure out whether they are the party of the working class, or not.

bob mcmanus 12.03.16 at 4:00 pm 118

There was no (or not much) 'working class surge' for Trump.

Well, there was, in that the internal composition of the Republican vote changed to be more white non-college rural working class and a little less urban college-educated Republicans. I don't know what the numbers are.

This does present possibilities, and was in fact the Clinton/DLC plan, although a plan dating back to the 1960s. The idea is to add to the identity groups that are currently the base of the Democratic Party college-educated urban professional socially progressive but economically moderate Republicans. This preserves the neoliberal system, but should create great economic opportunities for elite blacks, women, Latinos etc who really would rather get rich before socialism.

I am willing to now designate non-college rural whites as a valid minority, without real privilege except very locally, economically moderate but socially conservative. They have been up for grabs to a degree for a long time, and way too much a major topic of discussion, as nobody knows what to do with them, nobody really wants them, but they are very dangerous, as we can see.

I say ship them back to Ireland.

WLGR 12.03.16 at 4:46 pm 119

Hidari @ 108, Matt Christman of the podcast Chapo Trap House made almost this exact point in a recent interview with NYU historian David Parsons on Parsons' podcast The Nostalgia Trap. (Both excellent podcasts, by the way.)

The way he put it is that the neoliberal center-left's long-term political project since the '90s, as embodied in figures like the Clintons in the US and Blair in the UK, can be summed up as an effort to redefine the two-party system so that the nominally "left" party becomes a de facto ruling party representing the center-left and center-right, leaving the far right with a dangerously long leash to move the nominally "right" party ever closer toward an outright National Front-style fascist party, and ideally leaving a shattered and demoralized far left as what amounts to an ideological hostage of the center.

Both Clinton's failure to defeat Trump and the Blairites' failure to take Labour back from Corbyn have been setbacks for this project, and in both countries the center-right has largely decided to remain for now in its old electoral bloc with the proto-fascists instead of jumping ship to a "left" party that hasn't yet been fully transformed into a well-oiled machine for neoliberal centrism. (Of course this is also pretty close to Quiggin's three-party system critique, depending on the extent to which one treats the distinction between center-left and center-right as ever having been particularly meaningful in the first place.)

Faustusnotes, bob mcmanus brings up more or less the same litany of actual tangible policy decisions that I and others have brought up in the past, a kind of litany to which a typical center-leftist response is obstinately ignoring it.

Another point US leftists have been making for many months now is that Trump himself isn't actually a fascist, he's only pretending to be one , which you treated as a novel discovery at #79 and to which your response was that Trump's neoliberal administration in practice will make neoliberal Democrats somehow leftist by comparison, which is absolutely incorrect.

He'll do many things more or less exactly the way a Clinton administration would have done them, perhaps in some cases with enough of a superficial far-right veneer to create the perception of contrast (for instance future Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, who supports vouchers for religious private schools but otherwise might as well be a member of Democrats for Education Reform) and in some cases with red meat to the far right on issues the neoliberal center doesn't particularly care about (i.e. who the hell knows what if anything he'll do on issues like abortion rights, about which he's been all over the map in the past depending what's in his immediate opportunistic interest).

But appointing figures from places like Goldman Sachs to positions of authority at institutions like the Treasury and the Fed is a thoroughly bipartisan commitment that doesn't make either major US party look any more left-wing or right-wing than the other.

[Dec 07, 2016] Clinton Democrats betrayal of working class

Dec 07, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

bob mcmanus 12.03.16 at 2:35 am 110

I want to see a political decision to abandon the working class

NAFTA & TPP etc, big bank bailout no prosecutions, no mortgage relief, grossly inadequate structured and targeted stimulus, low inflation low gov't spending with many gov't jobs cut, insurance and provider friendly whirlpool of an expensive health care plan

kidneystones 12.03.16 at 1:01 pm ( 117 )
The Democratic left does not exist. Sanders is an independent who would never have been nominated except to help rubber-stamp the inauguration of the donor-class candidate.

The Democrats do not have a left-candidate, or a slate of 'left candidates' around whom a left might coalesce. That's the consequence of national Democratic priorities and the take-over of the party by the Clinton crime family. There are no 'up and coming' Democrats. Those who are talented are spotted and co-opted into the Clinton-controlled machine. The quid pro quo manner of doing business is transparent. Very large sums change hands and almost always according to the laws, in so far as the actual pay-offs are 'incidental' rather than clearly causal.

How many doctoral candidates in their thirties get paid $600 k per year for part-time work and another $300 k per year plus stock options?

All of them, if the doctoral candidate happens to be named Chelsea Clinton. As I noted earlier, Democrats regard outsourcing their interactions with young people and rural voters to Bernie Sanders as a 'solution.'

What people see in Clinton is a candidate willing to travel any distance at any time if the fee for showing up is $225 k for an hour of work, or so; but who couldn't find the time or reason to visit Wisconsin before an election and actually ask people to vote for her.

Yes, it was close. But let's not forget who won and why and how. The president-elect has already stolen parts of the Dem base and now he's after the rest. The traditional Dem coalition is already fractured and if the new president does half as well as he did destroying two political dynasties then Democrats may find themselves in an even deeper whole in 2018.

Like Labour, Democrats need to figure out whether they are the party of the working class, or not.

bob mcmanus 12.03.16 at 4:00 pm There was no (or not much) 'working class surge' for Trump.

Well, there was, in that the internal composition of the Republican vote changed to be more white non-college rural working class and a little less urban college-educated Republicans. I don't know what the numbers are.

This does present possibilities, and was in fact the Clinton/DLC plan, although a plan dating back to the 1960s. The idea is to add to the identity groups that are currently the base of the Democratic Party college-educated urban professional socially progressive but economically moderate Republicans. This preserves the neoliberal system, but should create great economic opportunities for elite blacks, women, Latinos etc who really would rather get rich before socialism.

I am willing to now designate non-college rural whites as a valid minority, without real privilege except very locally, economically moderate but socially conservative. They have been up for grabs to a degree for a long time, and way too much a major topic of discussion, as nobody knows what to do with them, nobody really wants them, but they are very dangerous, as we can see.

I say ship them back to Ireland.

WLGR 12.03.16 at 4:46 pm ( 119 )

Hidari @ 108, Matt Christman of the podcast Chapo Trap House made almost this exact point in a recent interview with NYU historian David Parsons on Parsons' podcast The Nostalgia Trap. (Both excellent podcasts, by the way.) The way he put it is that the neoliberal center-left's long-term political project since the '90s, as embodied in figures like the Clintons in the US and Blair in the UK, can be summed up as an effort to redefine the two-party system so that the nominally "left" party becomes a de facto ruling party representing the center-left and center-right, leaving the far right with a dangerously long leash to move the nominally "right" party ever closer toward an outright National Front-style fascist party, and ideally leaving a shattered and demoralized far left as what amounts to an ideological hostage of the center. Both Clinton's failure to defeat Trump and the Blairites' failure to take Labour back from Corbyn have been setbacks for this project, and in both countries the center-right has largely decided to remain for now in its old electoral bloc with the proto-fascists instead of jumping ship to a "left" party that hasn't yet been fully transformed into a well-oiled machine for neoliberal centrism. (Of course this is also pretty close to Quiggin's three-party system critique, depending on the extent to which one treats the distinction between center-left and center-right as ever having been particularly meaningful in the first place.)

Faustusnotes, bob mcmanus brings up more or less the same litany of actual tangible policy decisions that I and others have brought up in the past, a kind of litany to which a typical center-leftist response is obstinately ignoring it. Another point US leftists have been making for many months now is that Trump himself isn't actually a fascist, he's only pretending to be one , which you treated as a novel discovery at #79 and to which your response was that Trump's neoliberal administration in practice will make neoliberal Democrats somehow leftist by comparison, which is absolutely incorrect. He'll do many things more or less exactly the way a Clinton administration would have done them, perhaps in some cases with enough of a superficial far-right veneer to create the perception of contrast (for instance future Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, who supports vouchers for religious private schools but otherwise might as well be a member of Democrats for Education Reform) and in some cases with red meat to the far right on issues the neoliberal center doesn't particularly care about (i.e. who the hell knows what if anything he'll do on issues like abortion rights, about which he's been all over the map in the past depending what's in his immediate opportunistic interest). But appointing figures from places like Goldman Sachs to positions of authority at institutions like the Treasury and the Fed is a thoroughly bipartisan commitment that doesn't make either major US party look any more left-wing or right-wing than the other.

[Dec 05, 2016] Backlash Against Trade Deals: The End of US Led Economic Globalisation?

Notable quotes:
"... By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Originally published at The Frontline ..."
"... President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US. ..."
"... The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values. ..."
"... But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. ..."
"... But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them. ..."
"... Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions ..."
"... All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-ŕ-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations ..."
"... So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals. ..."
"... The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself. ..."
"... Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg ..."
"... While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.) ..."
"... Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" - this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it. Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes. ..."
"... Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way. ..."
"... We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply. The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our own products. ..."
"... the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of a "Buy America" clause in the future! ..."
"... The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade. the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder. ..."
"... Here's Obama's actual speech at the Nike headquarters (not factory). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamatradenike.htm ..."
"... It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio. ..."
"... The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes. http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/ "US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike." ..."
"... So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now? ..."
"... Perhaps they still need to show loyalty to their corporate owners and to the principle of "free trade". ..."
"... Obama: "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy." ..."
"... Thank you, Mr. President, for resolving any doubts that the American project is an imperialist project! ..."
"... Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning them into good consumerist slaves. ..."
"... Funny how little things change over the centuries. ..."
"... The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall. Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans. ..."
"... "How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu. ..."
"... The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China". ..."
"... Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China". ..."
"... Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them. ..."
"... Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret. ..."
"... Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects. ..."
"... It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country. ..."
"... I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations ..."
"... Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St. ..."
Sep 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Originally published at The Frontline

There is much angst in the Northern financial media about how the era of globalisation led actively by the United States may well be coming to an end. This is said to be exemplified in the changed political attitudes to mega regional trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) that was signed (but has not yet been ratified) by the US and 11 other countries in Latin America, Asia and Oceania; and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP) still being negotiated by the US and the European Union.

President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US.

However, the changing political currents in the US are making that ever more unlikely. Hardly anyone who is a candidate in the coming elections, whether for the Presidency, the Senate or the House of Representatives, is willing to stick their necks out to back the deal.

Both Presidential candidates in the US (Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) have openly come out against the TPP. In Clinton's case this is a complete reversal of her earlier position when she had referred to the TPP as "the gold standard of trade deals" – and it has clearly been forced upon her by the insurgent movement in the Democratic Party led by Bernie Sanders. She is already being pushed by her rival candidate for not coming out more clearly in terms of a complete rejection of this deal. Given the significant trust deficit that she still has to deal with across a large swathe of US voters, it will be hard if not impossible for her to backtrack on this once again (as her husband did earlier with NAFTA) even if she does achieve the Presidency.

The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values.

But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. Even the only US government study of the TPP's likely impacts, by the International Trade Commission, could project at best only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032. A study by Jeronim Capaldo and Alex Izurieta with Jomo Kwame Sundaram ("Trading down: Unemployment, inequality and other risks of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement", Working Paper 16-01, Global Development and Environment Institute, January 2016) was even less optimistic, even for the US. It found that the benefits to exports and economic growth were likely to be relatively small for all member countries, and would be negative in the US and Japan because of losses to employment and increases in inequality. Wage shares of national income would decline in all the member countries.

But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them.

Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying:

  1. the intellectual property provisions,
  2. the restrictions on regulatory practices
  3. the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.
Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.

All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-ŕ-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations

For example, the TPP (and the TTIP) require more stringent enforcement requirements of intellectual property rights: reducing exemptions (e.g. allowing compulsory licensing only for emergencies); preventing parallel imports; extending IPRs to areas like life forms, counterfeiting and piracy; extending exclusive rights to test data (e.g. in pharmaceuticals); making IPR provisions more detailed and prescriptive. The scope of drug patents is extended to include minor changes to existing medications (a practice commonly employed by drug companies, known as "evergreening"). Patent linkages would make it more difficult for many generic drugs to enter markets.

This would strengthen, lengthen and broaden pharmaceutical monopolies on cancer, heart disease and HIV/AIDS drugs, and in general make even life-saving drugs more expensive and inaccessible in all the member countries. It would require further transformation of countries' laws on patents and medical test data. It would reduce the scope of exemption in use of medical formulations through public procurement for public purposes. All this is likely to lead to reductions in access to drugs and medical procedures because of rising prices, and also impede innovation rather than encouraging it, across member countries.

There are also very restrictive copyright protection rules, that would also affect internet usage as Internet Service Providers are to be forced to adhere to them. There are further restrictions on branding that would reinforce the market power of established players.

The TPP and TTIP also contain restrictions on regulatory practices that greatly increase the power of corporations relative to states and can even prevent states from engaging in countercyclical measures designed to boost domestic demand. It has been pointed out by consumer groups in the USA that the powers of the Food and Drug Administration to regulate products that affect health of citizens could be constrained and curtailed by this agreement. Similarly, macroeconomic stimulus packages that focus on boosting domestic demand for local production would be explicitly prohibited by such agreements.

All these are matters for concern because these agreements enable corporations to litigate against governments that are perceived to be flouting these provisions because of their own policy goals or to protect the rights of their citizens. The Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism enabled by these agreements is seen to be one of their most deadly features. Such litigation is then subject to supranational tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but which have no human rights safeguards and which do not see the rights of citizen as in any way superior to the "rights" of corporations to their profits. These courts can conduct closed and secret hearings with secret evidence. They do not just interpret the rules but contribute to them through case law because of the relatively vague wording of the text, which can then be subject to different interpretations, and therefore are settled by case law. The experience thus far with such tribunals has been problematic. Since they are legally based on "equal" treatment of legal persons with no primacy for human rights, they have become known for their pro-investor bias, partly due to the incentive structure for arbitrators, and partly because the system is designed to provide supplementary guarantees to investors, rather than making them respect host countries laws and regulations.

If all these features of the TPP and the TTIP were more widely known, it is likely that there would be even greater public resistance to them in the US and in other countries. Even as it is, there is growing antagonism to the trade liberalisation that is seen to bring benefits to corporations rather than to workers, at a period in history when secure employment is seen to be the biggest prize of all.

So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals.

human , September 22, 2016 at 10:14 am

his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US.

"just _after_ the November Presidential election"

Uahsenaa , September 22, 2016 at 10:42 am

I was watching a speech Premier Li gave at the Economic Club of NY last night, and it was interesting to see how all his (vetted, pre-selected) questions revolved around anxieties having to do with resistance to global trade deals. Li made a few pandering comments about how much the Chinese love American beef (stop it! you're killing me! har har) meant to diffuse those anxieties, but it became clear that the fear among TPTB of people's dissatisfaction with the current economic is palpable. Let's keep it up!

allan , September 22, 2016 at 11:30 am

On a related note:

U.S. Court Throws Out Price-Fixing Judgment Against Chinese Vitamin C Makers [WSJ]

A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out a $147 million civil price fixing judgment against Chinese manufacturers of vitamin C, ruling the companies weren't liable in U.S. courts because they were acting under the direction of Chinese authorities.

The case raised thorny questions of how courts should treat foreign companies accused of violating U.S. antitrust law when they are following mandates of a foreign government.

"I was only following orders" might not have worked in Nuremberg, but it's a-ok in international trade.

different clue , September 22, 2016 at 3:14 pm

The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself.

Wellstone's Ghost , September 22, 2016 at 11:22 am

Trump has already back peddaled on his TPP stance. He now says he wants to renegotiate the TTP and other trade deals. Whatever that means. Besides, Trump is a distraction, its Mike Pence you should be keeping your eye on. He's American Taliban pure and simple.

RPDC , September 22, 2016 at 2:27 pm

This is simply false. Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg

Hillary wants to start a war with Russia and pass the trade trifecta of TPP/TTIP/TiSA.

sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:31 pm

While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.)

Trump was run to make Hillary look good, but that has turned out to be Mission Real Impossible!

We are seeing the absolute specious political theater at its worst, attempting to differentiate between Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Trumpster – – – the only major difference is that Clinton has far more real blood on her and Bill's hands.

Nope, there is no lesser of evils this time around . . .

Quanka , September 23, 2016 at 8:25 am

Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" - this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it. Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes.

different clue , September 24, 2016 at 1:00 am

Really? Well . . . might as well vote for Clinton then.

First Woman President!
Feminism!
Liberation!

TedWa , September 22, 2016 at 12:13 pm

Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way.

a different chris , September 22, 2016 at 12:17 pm

>only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032.

At that point American's wages will have dropped near enough to Chinese levels that we can compete in selling to First World countries . assuming there are any left.

oh , September 22, 2016 at 4:19 pm

We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply. The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our own products.

sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:38 pm

Naaah, never been about competition, since nobody is actually vetted when they offshore those jobs or replace American workers with foreign visa workers.

But to sum it up as succinctly as possible: the TPP is about the destruction of workers' rights; the destruction of local and small businesses; and the loss of sovereignty. Few Americans are cognizant of just how many businesses are foreign owned today in America; their local energy utility or state energy utility, their traffic enforcement company which was privatized, their insurance company (GEICO, etc.).

I remember when a political action group back in the '00s thought they had stumbled on a big deal when someone had hacked into the system of the Bretton Woods Committee (the lobbyist group for the international super-rich which ONLY communicates with the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, and who shares the same lobbyist and D.C. office space as the Group of Thirty, the lobbyist group for the central bankers [Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Mario Draghi, Ernesto Zedillo, Bill Dudley, etc., etc.]) and placed online their demand of the senate and the congress to kill the "Buy America" clause in the federal stimulus program of a few years back (it was watered down greatly, and many exemptions were signed by then Commerce Secretary Gary Locke), but such information went completely unnoticed or ignored, and of course, the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of a "Buy America" clause in the future!

http://www.brettonwoods.org
http://www.group30.org

Arthur J , September 22, 2016 at 12:32 pm

The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade. the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder.

Carla , September 22, 2016 at 4:50 pm

In June 2016, "[TransCanada] filed an arbitration claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) over President Obama's rejection of the pipeline, making good on its January threat to take legal action against the US decision.

According to the official request for arbitration, the $15 billion tab is supposed to help the company recover costs and damages that it suffered "as a result of the US administration's breach of its NAFTA obligations." NAFTA is a comprehensive trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico that went into effect in January 1, 1994. Under the agreement, businesses can challenge governments over investment disputes.

In addition, the company filed a suit in US Federal Court in Houston, Texas in January asserting that the Obama Administration exceeded the power granted by the US Constitution in denying the project."

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/transcanada_complains_nafta_sues_us_15_bn_keystone_xl_rejection/

Six states have since joined that federal law suit.

Kris Alman , September 22, 2016 at 1:46 pm

Here's Obama's actual speech at the Nike headquarters (not factory). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamatradenike.htm

It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio.

Obama's rhetoric May 5, 2015 at the Nike campus was all about how small businesses would prosper. Congresswoman Bonamici clings to this rationale in her refusal to tell angry constituents at town halls whether she supports the TPP.

The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes. http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/
"US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike."

That appeals to the other big athletic corporations that cluster in the Portland metro: Columbia Sportswear and Under Armour.

A plot twist!

Vietnam will not include ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on the agenda for its next parliament session. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/1087705/vietnam-delays-tpp-vote So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now?

Vatch , September 22, 2016 at 2:01 pm

So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now?

Perhaps they still need to show loyalty to their corporate owners and to the principle of "free trade".

hemeantwell , September 22, 2016 at 2:04 pm

Obama: "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy."

Thank you, Mr. President, for resolving any doubts that the American project is an imperialist project!

ChrisFromGeorgia , September 22, 2016 at 2:21 pm

Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning them into good consumerist slaves.

Funny how little things change over the centuries.

Brad , September 22, 2016 at 9:39 pm

The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall. Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans.

"How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu.

Minnie Mouse , September 22, 2016 at 3:58 pm

When America writes the rules of the global economy the global economy destroys America.

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 22, 2016 at 7:44 pm

The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China".

Would be nice if they had even a passing thought for those people in a certain North American region located in between Canada and Mexico.

different clue , September 23, 2016 at 1:40 am

Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China".

Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them.

different clue , September 22, 2016 at 3:21 pm

If calling the International Free Trade Conspiracy "American" is enough to get it killed and destroyed, then I don't mind having a bunch of foreigners calling the Free Trade Conspiracy "American". Just as long as they are really against it, and can really get Free Trade killed and destroyed.

Chauncey Gardiner , September 22, 2016 at 3:23 pm

Excellent post. Thank you. Should these so called "trade agreements" be approved, perhaps Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS arbitration) futures can be created by Wall Street and made the next speculative "Play-of-the-day" so that everyone has a chance to participate in the looting. Btw, can you loot your own house?

KYrocky , September 22, 2016 at 4:49 pm

Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret.

At the time he made that statement Warren could go to an offsite location to read the TPP in the presence of a member of the Trade Commission, could not have staff with her, could not take notes, and could not discuss anything she read with anyone else after she left. Or face criminal charges.

Yeah. Nothing secret about that.

Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects.

sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:43 pm

And add to that everything from David Dayen's book (" Chain of Title ") on Covington & Burling and Eric Holder and President Obama, and Thomas Frank's book ("Listen, Liberals") and people will have the full picture!

Spencer , September 22, 2016 at 9:50 pm

It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country.

So, there's a financial incentive (to maximize profits), not to repatriate foreign income (pushes up our exchange rate, currency conversion costs, if domestic re-investment alternatives are considered more circumscribed, plus taxes, etc.).

In spite of the surfeit of $s, and E-$ credits, and unlike the days in which world-trade required a Marshall Plan jump start, trade surpluses increasingly depend on the Asian Tiger's convertibility issues.

Praedor , September 23, 2016 at 10:30 am

I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations or even (potential) unfriendlies like China (who can easily put trojan spyware hard code or other vulnerabilities into critical microchips the way WE were told the US could/would when it was leading on this tech when I was serving in the 90s). We already know that US-written rules is simply a way for mega corporations to extend patents into the ever-more-distant future, a set of rules that hands more control of arts over to the MPAA, rules that gut environmental laws, etc. Who needs the US-written agreements when this is the result?

Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St.

[Dec 05, 2016] Stiglitz Blasts Outrageous TPP as Obama Campaigns for Corporate-Friendly Deal Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the

Notable quotes:
"... Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned "the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and "the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and actually harm trade." ..."
"... The Democratic candidate, for her part, supported the deal before coming out against it , but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially since she recently named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and " vehement advocate for the TPP "-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition team. ..."
"... Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said , "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World, "If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country." ..."
Aug 25, 2016 | www.commondreams.org
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has reiterated his opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), saying on Tuesday that President Barack Obama's push to get the trade deal passed during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress is "outrageous" and "absolutely wrong."

Stiglitz, an economics professor at Columbia University and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute, made the comments on CNN's "Quest Means Business."

His criticism comes as Obama aggressively campaigns to get lawmakers to pass the TPP in the Nov. 9 to Jan. 3 window-even as resistance mounts against the 12-nation deal.

Echoing an argument made by Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Mark Weisbrot, Stiglitz said, "At the lame-duck session you have congressmen voting who know that they're not accountable anymore."

Lawmakers "who are not politically accountable because they're leaving may, in response to promises of jobs or just subtle understandings, do things that are not in the national interest," he said.

Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned "the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and "the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and actually harm trade."

"The advocates of trade said it was going to benefit everyone," he added. "The evidence is it's benefited a few and left a lot behind."

Stiglitz has previously spoken out against the TPP before, arguing that it "may turn out to be the worst trade agreement in decades;" that it would mean "if you pass a regulation that restricts ability to pollute or does something about climate change, you could be sued and could pay billions of dollars;" and previously said that the president's TPP push "is one of Obama's biggest mistakes."

Stiglitz has also been advising the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. The Democratic candidate, for her part, supported the deal before coming out against it, but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially since she recently named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and "vehement advocate for the TPP"-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition team.

Opposition to the TPP also appeared Tuesday in Michigan and Florida, where union members and lawmakers criticized what they foresee as the deal's impacts on working families.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said, "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World, "If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country."

[Dec 05, 2016] Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Tulsi Gabbard - Fighting for the people.

Aug 01, 2016 | www.votetulsi.com

We cannot allow this agreement to forsake the American middle class, while foreign governments are allowed to devalue their currency and artificially prop-up their industries.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is a bad deal for the American people. This historically massive trade deal -- accounting for 40 percent of global trade -- would reduce restrictions on foreign corporations operating within the U.S., limit our ability to protect our environment, and create more incentives for U.S. businesses to outsource investments and jobs overseas to countries with lower labor costs and standards.

Over and over we hear from TPP proponents how the TPP will boost our economy, help American workers, and set the standards for global trade. The International Trade Commission report released last May (https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607.pdf) confirms that the opposite is true. In exchange for just 0.15 percent boost in GDP by 2032, the TPP would decimate American manufacturing capacity, increase our trade deficit, ship American jobs overseas, and result in losses to 16 of the 25 U.S. economic sectors. These estimates don't even account for the damaging effects of currency manipulation, environmental impacts, and the agreement's deeply flawed Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process.

There's no reason to believe the provisions of this deal relating to labor standards, preserving American jobs, or protecting our environment, will be enforceable. Every trade agreement negotiated in the past claimed to have strong enforceable provisions to protect American jobs -- yet no such enforcement has occurred, and agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has called TPP "NAFTA on steroids." The loss of U.S. jobs under the TPP would likely be unprecedented.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fC0qppnK_U

Watch: Tulsi restates the need for transparency in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on the House floor.

[Dec 05, 2016] No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia.

Notable quotes:
"... "No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3." ..."
"... To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer). ..."
Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Joe Hunter , August 31, 2016 at 2:52 pm

" http://www.defenddemocracy.press/whole-game-containing-russisa-china/

A response to Hillary Clinton's America Exceptionalist Speech:

1. America Exceptionalist vs. the World..
2. Brezinski is extremely dejected.
3. Russia-China on the march.
4. "There will be blood. Hillary Clinton smells it already ."

clarky90 , August 31, 2016 at 4:01 pm

"No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3."

http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20160829/1044733257/russia-china-game-brics.html

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , August 31, 2016 at 4:18 pm

To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer).

[Dec 05, 2016] In the face of public opposition to the TPP and TISA proponents have trotted out a new argument: we have come too far , our national credibility would be damaged if we stop now.

Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
L , August 26, 2016 at 2:44 pm

Regarding the push to pass the TPP and TISA I've been needing to get this off my chest and this seems to be as good a time as any:

In the face of public opposition to the TPP and TISA proponents have trotted out a new argument: "we have come too far", "our national credibility would be damaged if we stop now." The premise of which is that negotiations have been going on so long, and have involved such effort that if the U.S. were to back away now we would look bad and would lose significant political capital.

On one level this argument is true. The negotiations have been long, and many promises were made by the negotiators to secure to to this point. Stepping back now would expose those promises as false and would make that decade of effort a loss. It would also expose the politicians who pushed for it in the face of public oppoosition to further loss of status and to further opposition.

However, all of that is voided by one simple fact. The negotiations were secret. All of that effort, all of the horse trading and the promise making was done by a self-selected body of elites, for that same body, and was hidden behind a wall of secrecy stronger than that afforded to new weapons. The deals were hidden not just from the general public, not from trade unions or environmental groups, but from the U.S. Congress itself.

Therefore it has no public legitimacy. The promises made are not "our" promises but Michael Froman's promises. They are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government but only by the words of a small body of appointees and the multinational corporations that they serve. The corporations were invited to the table, Congress was not.

What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is on the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals fail what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that a handful of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of us will make good.

When that minor loss is laid against the far greater fact that the terms of these deals are bad, that prior deals of this type have harmed our real economies, and that the rules will further erode our national sovreignity, there is no contest.

Michael Froman's reputation has no value. Our sovreignity, our economy, our nation, does.

flora , August 26, 2016 at 2:51 pm

+1

grizziz , August 26, 2016 at 2:52 pm

Thank you for your comment. +1

Lambert Strether Post author , August 26, 2016 at 2:57 pm

"We've gone too far."

Whaddaya mean, "we"?

ambrit , August 26, 2016 at 6:45 pm

The imperial "We."
I just had a soul corroding vision of H Clinton done up as Victoria Regina. Ouch!!! Go get the butter!

Jim Haygood , August 26, 2016 at 6:53 pm

In modern parlance, she's Victoria Rejayjay. :-0

JohnnyGL , August 26, 2016 at 3:01 pm

Good comment .

"What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is on the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals fail what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that a handful of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of us will make good."

Yes! And the victory will taste so sweet when we bury this filthy, rotten, piece of garbage. Obama's years of effort down the drain, his legacy tarnished and unfinished.

I want TPP's defeat to send a clear message that the elites can't count on their politicians to deliver for them. Let's make this thing their Stalingrad! Leave deep scars so that they give up on TISA and stop trying to concoct these absurd schemes like ISDS.

abynormal , August 26, 2016 at 3:10 pm

sorry but i don't see it that way at all. 'they' got a propaganda machine to beat all 'they' make n break reps all the time. i do see a desperation on a monetary/profit scale. widening the 'playing field' offers more profits with less risk. for instance, our Pharams won't have to slash their prices at the risk of sunshine laws, wish-washy politicians, competition, nor a pissed off public. jmo tho')

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , August 26, 2016 at 4:13 pm

LOL "America's credibility" LOL, these people need to get out more. In the 60's you could hike high up into the Andes and the sheep herder had two pics on the wall of his hut: Jesus and JFK. America retains its cachet as a place to make money and be entertained, but as some kind of beacon of morality and fair play in the world? Dead, buried, and long gone, the hype-fest of slogans and taglines can only cover up so many massive, atrocious and hypocritical actions and serial offenses.

Synoia , August 26, 2016 at 4:57 pm

his legacy tarnished and unfinished.

And his post-presidential money small .

NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 6:11 pm

Clinton Inc was mostly Bill helping Epstein get laid until after Kerry lost. If this was the reelection of John Edwards, Kerry's running mate, and a referendum on 12 years of Kerronomics, Bill and Hill would be opening night speakers at the DNC and answers to trivia questions.

My guess is Obama is dropped swiftly and unceremoniously especially since he doesn't have much of a presence in Washington.

John Wright , August 26, 2016 at 6:15 pm

The must preserve American credibility argument on the line again.

Here is a quote from NYT's Nicholas Kristoff from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/opinion/kristof-reinforce-a-norm-in-syria.html

"It looks as if we'll be firing Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria in the coming days, and critics are raising legitimate concerns:"

"Yet there is value in bolstering international norms against egregious behavior like genocide or the use of chemical weapons. Since President Obama established a "red line" about chemical weapons use, his credibility has been at stake: he can't just whimper and back down."

Obama did back down.

NIcholas Kristof, vigilant protector of American credibility through bombing Syria.

polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:14 pm

he's just another syncophantic punk .in a long line of syncophantic punks

..oh..that includes Kristof too

RabidGandhi , August 26, 2016 at 3:48 pm

Ah yes the credibility of our élites. With their sterling record on Nafta's benefits, Iraq's liberation, Greece's rebound, the IMF's rehabilitation of countries

We must pass TPP or Tom Friedman will lose credibility, what?

polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:17 pm

yeah but will he have to shave off his 'stache' ??

Propertius , August 26, 2016 at 3:53 pm

Well said!

HopeLB , August 26, 2016 at 8:36 pm

Wonderful (and credible) assessment.

[Dec 05, 2016] Framing Votes for TPP as the Surrender of National Sovereignty (i.e., Treason) naked capitalism

Notable quotes:
"... pro-TPPers "consciously seek to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism, through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. ..."
"... Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become, it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. ..."
"... I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that frame out, I'd like to hear the results ..."
Aug 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Why the Proponents of TPP Are Traitors

There are two reasons: First, they consciously seek to weaken the national defense. And second, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system is a surrender of national sovereignty .

National Defense

This might be labeled the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since we're informed that Paul Singer and Augustus Cole's techno-thriller has really caught the attention of the national security class below the political appointee level, and that this is a death blow for neoliberalism. Why? "The multi-billion dollar, next generation F-35 aircraft, for instance, is rendered powerless after it is revealed that Chinese microprocessor manufacturers had implanted malicious code into products intended for the jet" ( Foreign Policy ). Clearly, we need, well, industrial policy, and we need to bring a lot of manufacturing home. From Brigadier General (Retired) John Adams :

In 2013, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board put forward a remarkable report describing one of the most significant but little-recognized threats to US security: deindustrialization. The report argued that the loss of domestic U.S. manufacturing facilities has not only reduced U.S. living standards but also compromised U.S. technology leadership "by enabling new players to learn a technology and then gain the capability to improve on it." The report explained that the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing presents a particularly dangerous threat to U.S. military readiness through the "compromise of the supply chain for key weapons systems components."

Our military is now shockingly vulnerable to major disruptions in the supply chain, including from substandard manufacturing practices, natural disasters, and price gouging by foreign nations. Poor manufacturing practices in offshore factories lead to problem-plagued products, and foreign producers-acting on the basis of their own military or economic interests-can sharply raise prices or reduce or stop sales to the United States.

The link between TPP and this kind of offshoring has been well-established.

And, one might say, the link between neo-liberal economic policy "and this kind of offshoring has been well-established" as well.

So, when I framed the issue as one where pro-TPPers "consciously seek to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism, through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. Note that re-industrializing America has positive appeal, too: For the right, on national security grounds; and for the left, on labor's behalf (and maybe helping out the Rust Belt that neoliberal policies of the last forty years did so much to destroy. Of course, this framing would make Clinton a traitor, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. (Probably best to to let the right, in its refreshingly direct fashion, use the actual "traitor" word, and the left, shocked, call for the restoration of civility, using verbiage like "No, I wouldn't say she's a traitor. She's certainly 'extremely careless' with our nation's security.")

ISDS

The Investor-State Dispute Settlement system is a hot mess (unless you represent a corporation, or are one of tiny fraternity of international corporate lawyers who can plead and/or judge ISDS cases). Yves wrote :

What may have torched the latest Administration salvo is a well-timed joint publication by Wikileaks and the New York Times of a recent version of the so-called investment chapter. That section sets forth one of the worst features of the agreement, the investor-state dispute settlement process (ISDS). As we've described at length in earlier posts, the ISDS mechanism strengthens the existing ISDS process. It allows for secret arbitration panels to effectively overrule national regulations by allowing foreign investors to sue governments over lost potential future profits in secret arbitration panels. Those panels have been proved to be conflict-ridden and arbitrary. And the grounds for appeal are limited and technical.

(More from NC on the ISDS panels , the TPP clauses on ISDS , the "code of conduct" for lawyers before the ISDS, pending ISDS settlements , and the potential constitutional challenges to the ISDS system.)

Here again we have a frame that appeals to both right and left. The very thought of surrendering national sovereignty to an international organization makes any good conservative's back teeth itch. And the left sees the "lost profits" doctrine as a club to prevent future government programs they would like to put in place (single payer, for example). And in both cases, the neoliberal doctrine of putting markets before anything else makes pro-TPP-ers traitors. To the right, because nationalism trumps internationalism; to the left, because TPP prevents the State from looiking after the welfare of its people.

The Political State of Play

All I know is what I read in the papers, so what follows can only be speculation. That said, there are two ways TPP could be passed: In the lame duck session, by Obama, or after a new President is inaugurated, by Clinton (or possibly by Trump[1]).

Passing TPP in the Lame Duck Session

Obama is committed to passing TPP (and we might remember that the adminstration failed to pass the draft in Maui , then succeeded in Atlanta . And the House killed Fast Track once , before voting for it (after which the Senate easily passed it, and Obama signed it). So the TPP may be a "heavy lift," but that doesn't mean Obama can't accomplish it. Obama says :

[OBAMA:] And hopefully, after the election is over and the dust settles, there will be more attention to the actual facts behind the deal and it won't just be a political symbol or a political football. And I will actually sit down with people on both sides, on the right and on the left. I'll sit down publicly with them and we'll go through the whole provisions. I would enjoy that, because there's a lot of misinformation.

I'm really confident I can make the case this is good for American workers and the American people. And people said we weren't going to be able to get the trade authority to even present this before Congress, and somehow we muddled through and got it done. And I intend to do the same with respect to the actual agreement.

So how would Obama "muddle through"? One way is to appeal to legislators who won't have to face voters again :

So it is looking like a very close vote. (For procedural and political reasons, Obama will not bring it to a vote unless he is sure he has the necessary votes). Now let's look at one special group of Representatives who can swing this vote: the actual lame-ducks, i.e., those who will be in office only until Jan. 3. It depends partly on how many lose their election on Nov. 8, but the average number of representatives who left after the last three elections was about 80.

Most of these people will be looking for a job, preferably one that can pay them more than $1 million a year. From the data provided by OpenSecrets.org, we can estimate that about a quarter of these people will become lobbyists. (An additional number will work for firms that are clients of lobbyists).

So there you have it: It is all about corruption, and this is about as unadulterated as corruption gets in our hallowed democracy, other than literal cash under a literal table. These are the people whom Obama needs to pass this agreement, and the window between Nov. 9 and Jan. 3 is the only time that they are available to sell their votes to future employers without any personal political consequences whatsoever. The only time that the electorate can be rendered so completely irrelevant, if Obama can pull this off.

(The article doesn't talk about the Senate, but Fast Track passed the Senate with a filibuster-proof super-majority, so the battle is in the House anyhow. And although the text of TPP cannot be amended - that's what fast track means! - there are still ways to affect the interpretation and enforcement of the text, so Obama and his corporate allies have bargaining chips beyond Beltway sinecures.[2])

Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become, it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. ( Remember , "[T]he preferences of economic elites have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.") However, if the anti-TPP-ers raise the rhetorical stakes from policy disagreement to treason, maybe a few of those 80 representatives will do the right thing (or, if you prefer, decide that the reputational damage to their future career makes a pro-TPP vote not worth it. Who wants to play golf with a traitor?)

Passing TPP after the Inaugural

After the coronation inaugural, Clinton will have to use more complicated tactics than dangling goodies before the snouts of representatives leaving for K Street. (We've seen that Clinton's putative opposition to TPP is based on lawyerly parsing; and her base supports it. So I assume a Clinton administration would go full speed ahead with it.) My own thought has been that she'd set up a "conversation" on trade, and then buy off the national unions with "jobs for the boys," so that they sell their locals down the river. Conservative Jennifer Rubin has a better proposal , which meets Clinton's supposed criterion of not hurting workers even better:

Depending on the election results and how many pro-free-trade Republicans lose, it still might not be sufficient. Here's a further suggestion: Couple it with a substantial infrastructure project that Clinton wants, but with substantial safeguards to make sure that the money is wisely spent. Clinton gets a big jobs bill - popular with both sides - and a revised TPP gets through.

Finally, an even more radical proposal, again from a conservative source :

What Clinton needs is a significant revision to TPP that she can tout as a real reform to trade agreements, one that satisfies some of the TPP's critics on the left. A minor tweak is unlikely to assuage anyone; this change needs to be a major one. Fortunately, there is a TPP provision that fits the bill perfectly: investor state dispute settlement (ISDS), the procedure that allows foreign investors to sue governments in an international tribunal. Removing ISDS could triangulate the TPP debate, allowing for enough support to get it through Congress.

Obama can't have a conversation on trade, or propose a jobs program, let alone jettison ISDS; all he's got going for him is corruption.[3] So, interestingly, although Clinton can't take the simple road of bribing the 80 represenatives, she does have more to bargain with on policy. Rubin's jobs bill could at least be framed as a riposte to the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since both are about "jawbs," even if infrastructure programs and reindustrialization aren't identical in intent. And while I don't think Clinton would allow ISDS to be removed ( her corporate donors love it ), at least somebody's thinking about how to pander to the left. Nevertheless, what does a jobs program matter if the new jobs leave the country anyhow? And suppose ISDS is removed, but the removal of the precautionary principle remains? We'd still get corporate-friendly decisions, bilaterally. And people would end up balancing the inevitable Clinton complexity and mush against the simplicity of the message that a vote for TPP is a vote against the United States.

Conclusion

I hope I've persuaded you that TPP is still very much alive, and that both Obama in the lame duck, and Clinton (or even Trump) when inaugurated have reasonable hopes of passing it. However, I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that frame out, I'd like to hear the results (especially when the result comes from a letter to your Congress critter). Interestingly, Buzzfeed just published tonight the first in a four-part series, devoted to the idea that ISDS is what we have said it is all along: A surrender of national sovereignty. Here's a great slab of it :

Imagine a private, global super court that empowers corporations to bend countries to their will.

Say a nation tries to prosecute a corrupt CEO or ban dangerous pollution. Imagine that a company could turn to this super court and sue the whole country for daring to interfere with its profits, demanding hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars as retribution.

Imagine that this court is so powerful that nations often must heed its rulings as if they came from their own supreme courts, with no meaningful way to appeal. That it operates unconstrained by precedent or any significant public oversight, often keeping its proceedings and sometimes even its decisions secret. That the people who decide its cases are largely elite Western corporate attorneys who have a vested interest in expanding the court's authority because they profit from it directly, arguing cases one day and then sitting in judgment another. That some of them half-jokingly refer to themselves as "The Club" or "The Mafia."

And imagine that the penalties this court has imposed have been so crushing - and its decisions so unpredictable - that some nations dare not risk a trial, responding to the mere threat of a lawsuit by offering vast concessions, such as rolling back their own laws or even wiping away the punishments of convicted criminals.

This system is already in place, operating behind closed doors in office buildings and conference rooms in cities around the world. Known as investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, it is written into a vast network of treaties that govern international trade and investment, including NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Congress must soon decide whether to ratify.

That's the stuff to give the troops!

NOTE

[1] Trump: "I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers." Lotta wiggle room there, and the lawyerly parsing is just like Clinton's. I don't think it's useful to discuss what Trump might do on TPP, because until there are other parties to the deal, there's no deal to be had. Right now, we're just looking at Trump doing A-B testing - not that there's anything wrong with that - which the press confuses with policy proposals. So I'm not considering Trump because I don't think we have any data to go on.

[2] In-Depth News explains the mechanisms:

To pacify [those to whom he will corrupt appeal], Obama will have to convince them that what they want will anyway be achieved, even if these are not legally part of the TPP because the TPP text cannot be amended.

He can try to achieve this through bilateral side agreements on specific issues. Or he can insist that some countries take on extra obligations beyond what is required by the TPP as a condition for obtaining a U.S. certification that they have fulfilled their TPP obligations.

This certification is required for the U.S. to provide the TPP's benefits to its partners, and the U.S. has previously made use of this process to get countries to take on additional obligations, which can then be shown to Congress members that their objectives have been met.

In other words, side deals.

[3] This should not be taken to imply that Clinton does not have corruption going for her, too. She can also make all the side deals Obama can.

[Dec 05, 2016] US Faces Major Setback As Europeans Revolt Against TTIP

Notable quotes:
"... One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states. ..."
"... These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. ..."
"... "US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve. ..."
Zero Hedge
TTIP negotiations have been ongoing since 2013 in an effort to establish a massive free trade zone that would eliminate many tariffs. After 14 rounds of talks that have lasted three years not a single common item out of the 27 chapters being discussed has been agreed on. The United States has refused to agree on an equal playing field between European and American companies in the sphere of public procurement sticking to the principle of "buy American".

The opponents of the deal believe that in its current guise the TTIP is too friendly to US businesses. One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states.

In Europe thousands of people supported by society groups, trade unions and activists take to the streets expressing protest against the deal. Three million people have signed a petition calling for it to be scrapped. For instance, various trade unions and other groups have called for protests against the TTIP across Germany to take place on September 17. A trade agreement with Canada has also come under attack.

US presidential candidate Donald Trump has promoted protectionist trade policies, while rival Hillary Clinton has also cast doubt on the TTIP deal. Congressional opposition has become steep. The lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have railed against free trade agreements as unfair to US companies and workers.

These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. The chances are really slim.

silverer •Sep 5, 2016 9:51 AM

"US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve.

[Dec 02, 2016] No attempt at DNC of learning the history of neoliberalism, no attempt at any serious research about how and why it descroyed the US society

Notable quotes:
"... If I was in charge of the DNC and wanted to commission a very cleverly written piece to exonerate the DLC and the New Democrats from the 30 odd years of corruption and self-aggrandizement they indulged in and laughed all the way to the Bank then I would definitely give this chap a call. ..."
"... I would ask the Author to start with the Powell memo and then make an investigation as to why the Democrats then and the DLC later decided to merely sit on their hands when all the forces the Powell memo unleashed proceeded to wreak their havoc in every established institution of the Left, principally the Universities which had always been the bastion of the Progressives. That might be a good starting point. ..."
Dec 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Paul Art November 29, 2016 at 7:14 am

If I was in charge of the DNC and wanted to commission a very cleverly written piece to exonerate the DLC and the New Democrats from the 30 odd years of corruption and self-aggrandizement they indulged in and laughed all the way to the Bank then I would definitely give this chap a call.

I mean, where do we start? No attempt at learning the history of neoliberalism, no attempt at any serious research about how and why it fastened itself into the brains of people like Tony Coelho and Al From, nothing, zilch.

If someone who did not know the history of the DLC read this piece, they would walk away thinking, 'wow, it was all happenstance, it all just happened, no one deliberately set off this run away train'. Sometime in the 90s the 'Left' decided to just pursue identity politics. Amazing.

I would ask the Author to start with the Powell memo and then make an investigation as to why the Democrats then and the DLC later decided to merely sit on their hands when all the forces the Powell memo unleashed proceeded to wreak their havoc in every established institution of the Left, principally the Universities which had always been the bastion of the Progressives. That might be a good starting point.

[Nov 23, 2016] Trump won because Democratic Party governance eviscerated those communities

Notable quotes:
"... Judging by the people who Trump has appointed, it is looking like an ugly situation for the US. If he actually hires people like John Bolton, we will know that a betrayal was certain. While I think that it is probable that he is the lesser evil, he was supposed to avoid neoconservatives and Wall Street types (that Clinton associates herself with). ..."
"... I think it would be a mistake to attribute too much "genius" to Trump and Kushner. It sounds like Kushner exhibited competence, and that's great. But Trump won in great measure because Democratic Party governance eviscerated those communities. ..."
"... This is akin to how Obama got WAY too much credit for being a brilliant orator. People wanted change in '08 and voted for it. That change agent betrayed them, so they voted for change again this time. Or, more accurately, a lot of Obama voters stayed home, the Republican base held together, and Trump's team found necessary little pockets of ignored voters to energize. But that strategy would never have worked if not for Obama's and Clinton's malfeasance and incompetence. Honestly, Hillary got closer to a win that she had a right to. That ought to be the real story. ..."
Nov 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Altandmain November 23, 2016 at 5:09 pm

Does anyone else get the overwhelming impression that the US is heading for an impending collapse or serious decline at least, unless it puts a fight it against the status quo?

Judging by the people who Trump has appointed, it is looking like an ugly situation for the US. If he actually hires people like John Bolton, we will know that a betrayal was certain. While I think that it is probable that he is the lesser evil, he was supposed to avoid neoconservatives and Wall Street types (that Clinton associates herself with).

I find it amazing how tone deaf the Clinton campaign and Democratic Establishment are. Trump and apparently his son in law, no matter what else, are political campaigning geniuses given their accomplishments. For months people were criticizing their lack of experience in politics like a fatal mistake..

I think that no real change is going to happen until someone authentically left wing takes power or if the US collapses.

aab November 23, 2016 at 5:30 pm

I think it would be a mistake to attribute too much "genius" to Trump and Kushner. It sounds like Kushner exhibited competence, and that's great. But Trump won in great measure because Democratic Party governance eviscerated those communities.

This is akin to how Obama got WAY too much credit for being a brilliant orator. People wanted change in '08 and voted for it. That change agent betrayed them, so they voted for change again this time. Or, more accurately, a lot of Obama voters stayed home, the Republican base held together, and Trump's team found necessary little pockets of ignored voters to energize. But that strategy would never have worked if not for Obama's and Clinton's malfeasance and incompetence. Honestly, Hillary got closer to a win that she had a right to. That ought to be the real story.

Daryl November 23, 2016 at 6:09 pm

It is not clear to me what exactly a collapse entails. The US doesn't have obvious lines to fracture across, like say the USSR did. (I suppose an argument could be made for "cultural regions" like the South, Cascadia etc separating out, but it seems far less likely to happen, even in the case of continuing extreme economic duress and breakdown of democracy/civil rights).

The US is and has been in a serious decline, and will probably continue.

[Nov 20, 2016] Speculation: Trump Promotes NSA Boss Rogers To DNI Because He Leaked The Clinton Emails

Notable quotes:
"... Putin has been supporting right-wing movements across the West in order to weaken NATO ..."
"... prepare ourselves ..."
Nov 20, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
Speculation: Trump Promotes NSA Boss Rogers To DNI Because He Leaked The Clinton Emails

If some investigative journos start digging into the issue this story could develop into a really interesting scandal:

Pentagon and intelligence community chiefs have urged Obama to remove the head of the NSA

The heads of the Pentagon and the nation's intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.

The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
...
The news comes as Rogers is being considered by President-Elect Donald Trump to be his nominee for DNI, replacing Clapper as the official who oversees all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower.

Adm. Michael S. Rogers recently claimed in reference to the hack of the Democratic National Council emails that Wikileaks spreading them is "a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect." He obviously meant Russia.

Compare that with his boss James Clapper who very recently said (again) that the "intelligence agencies don't have good insight on when or how Wikileaks obtained the hacked emails."

Emails of the DNC and of Clinton's consigliere John Podesta were hacked and leaked. Additionally emails from Clinton's private email server were released. All these influenced the election in favor of Trump.

Wikileaks boss Assange says he does not know where the emails come from but he does not think they came from Russia.

Clapper and Carter wanted Rogers fired because he was generally disliked at the NSA, because two big breaches in the most secret Tailored Access Organization occurred on his watch even after the Snowden case and because he blocked, with the help of Senator McCain, plans to split the NSA into a spying and a cyber war unit.

Now let me spin this a bit.

Rogers obviously knew he was on the to-be-fired list and he had good relations with the Republicans.

Now follows some plausible speculation:

Some Rogers trusted dudes at the NSA (or in the Navy cyber arm which Rogers earlier led) hack into the DNC, Podesta emails and the Clinton private email server. An easy job with the tools the NSA provides for its spies. Whoever hacked the emails then pushes what they got to Wikileaks (and DCleaks , another "leak" outlet). Wikileaks publishes what it gets because that is what it usually does. Assange also has various reasons to hate Clinton. She was always very hostile to Wikileaks. She allegedly even mused of killing Assange by a drone strike.

Rogers then accuses Russia of the breach even while the rest of the spying community finds no evidence for such a claim. That is natural to do for a military man who grew up during the cold war and may wish that war (and its budgets) back. It is also a red herring that will never be proven wrong or right unless the original culprit is somehow found.

Next we know - Trump offers Rogers the Clapper job. He would replace the boss that wanted him fired.

Rogers support for the new cold war will also gain him favor with the various weapon industries which will eventually beef up his pension.

Some of the above is speculation. But it would make sense and explain the quite one-sided wave of leaks we saw during this election cycle.

Even if it isn't true it would at least be a good script for a Hollywood movie on the nastiness of the inside fighting in Washington DC.

Let me know how plausible you find the tale.

Posted by b on November 19, 2016 at 02:14 PM | Permalink

Comments woogs | Nov 19, 2016 2:29:47 PM | 1
As the song goes, "Aim high, shoot low".

Not sure about the speculation. There's justification for military spending beyond the cold war. Actually, the cold war could be sacrificed in order to re-prioritize military spending.

In any case, Trump's proposed picks are interesting. I especially like the idea of Dana Rohrabacher as Secretary of State if it comes to pass.

One thing for sure .... there's been so much 'fail' with the Obama years that there's an abundance of low-hanging fruit for Trump to feather his cap with success early on, which will give him a template for future successes. That depends largely on who his picks for key posts are, but there has seldom been so much opportunity for a new President as the one that greets Trump.

It's there to be had. Let's hope that Trump doesn't blow it.

jo6pac | Nov 19, 2016 2:36:32 PM | 2
Sounds about right and this just means a new criminal class has taken over the beltway. That doesn't do anything for us citizens, just more of the same.

Everything is on schedule and please there's nothing to see here.

Jen | Nov 19, 2016 2:37:52 PM | 3
I wonder if Rogers' statement appearing to implicate Russian government hackers in leaking DNC information to Wikileaks at that link to Twitter was made after the Democratic National Convention itself accused Russia of hacking into its database. In this instance, knowing when Rogers made his statement and when the DNC made its accusation makes all the difference.

If someone at the NSA had been leaking information to Wikileaks and Rogers knew of this, then the DNC blaming Russia for the leaked information would have been a godsend. All Rogers had to do then would be to keep stumm and if questioned, just say a "nation state" was responsible. People can interpret that however they want.

GoraDiva | Nov 19, 2016 2:38:45 PM | 4
Any of the scenarios you mention could be right. The one thing that is certain - Russia was not the culprit. Not because Russians would not be inclined to hack - I think it is plausible that everyone hacks everyone (as someone said) - but Russians would not likely go to Wikileaks to publicize their prize. They'd keep it to themselves... in that way, they are probably like LBJ, who knew that Nixon had sabotaged the end-of-war negotiations in Paris in 1968, but said nothing for fear of shocking the "system" and the people's trust in it... (didn't work out too well in the end, though). Putin was right when he said (referring to the 2016 US election) that it all should somehow be ... more dignified.

karlof1 | Nov 19, 2016 2:52:16 PM | 5
Makes me wonder who populates the Anonymous group of loosely affiliated hackers and if they were used. The tale has probability; it would be even more interesting if the motive could be framed within the hacker's fulfilling its oath of obligation to the Constitution. Le Carre might be capable of weaving such a tale plausibly. But what about the Russia angle? IMO, Russia had the biggest motive to insure HRC wouldn't become POTUS despite all its denials and impartiality statements. Quien Sabe? Maybe it was Chavez's ghost who did all the hacking; it surely had an outstanding motive.

PavewayIV | Nov 19, 2016 3:14:56 PM | 6
I'll add some color on Rogers in another post, but I just want to preface any remarks with one overriding aspect of the leaks. From the details of most of these leaks, speculation on tech blogs (and as far as anyone knows for certain):

There are many parties that had great incentive to acquire and leak the emails, but I have to insist with the utmost conviction (without a string of expletives) that a junior high school kid could have performed the same feat using hacking tools easily found on the internet . There was absolutely nothing technically sophisticated or NSA-like in someone's ability to get into the DNC server or grab Podesta's emails. It was a matter of opportunity and poor security. If anyone has a link to any other reasoning, I would love to see it. The DNC and Hillary leaks (among other hacks) were due to damn amateurish security practices. The reason you don't outsource or try to get by on the cheap for systems/network security is to reduce the risk of this happening to an acceptable cost/benefit level.

So the presumption of Wikileaks source being (or needing to be) a state actor with incredibly sophisticated hacking tools is utter nonsense. Yes, it could have been the Russian FSB or any one of the five-eyes intelligence agencies or the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. But it could have just as plausibly been Bart Simpson pwning the DNC from Springfield Elementary School and sending everything to Wikileaks, "Cool, I just REKT the Clintons!"

WikiLeaks doesn't care if the leak comes from the head of a western intel agency or a bored teenager in New Jersey. It cares that the material is authentic and carefully vets the content, not the source. At least until they kidnapped Assange and took over WikiLeaks servers a couple of weeks ago, but that's for a different tin-foil hat thread.

Carol Davidek-Waller | Nov 19, 2016 3:18:02 PM | 7
Is Trump that much of a deep thinker? Rebellious teenager who chooses anyone that the last administration didn't like seems more plausible to me. It doesn't matter who they are or what their record is. I don't think Trump plans to surrender any of his undeserved power to anyone. He'll be running the whole show. They'll do what he wants or be shown the door.

Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 3:42:42 PM | 8
Here is another tale I find very plausible:

rufus (aka "rufie") the MoA Hillbot uses a new persona - "Ron Showalter" - to attack Trump post-election. rufie/Ron conducts a false flag attack on MoA (making comments that are pages long) so that his new persona can claim that his anti-Trump views are being attacked by someone using his former persona.

See here , here , and here .

nmb | Nov 19, 2016 4:01:23 PM | 9
One thing Trump could do immediately to signal that he is not with the establishment

Qoppa | Nov 19, 2016 4:12:16 PM | 10
I generally dislike "theories" that go too much into speculation, -- however this one sounds actually quite plausible!

As for "Russia did it", this was obvious bullshit right from the start, not least because of what GoraDiva #4 says:
I think it is plausible that everyone hacks everyone (as someone said) - but Russians would not likely go to Wikileaks to publicize their prize. They'd keep it to themselves

Allegations against Russia worked on confusing different levels: hacking -- leaking -- "rigging".


It was all like this :-)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwI-ThzWIAApRki.jpg


This picture encapsulates IMO the full absurdity this election campaign had come down to:
MSM constantly bashing Trump for "lies", "post-factual", "populist rage", "hate speech", -- while themselves engaging in the same on an even larger level, in a completely irresponsible way that goes way beyond "bias", "preference" or even "propaganda".
I understand (and like) the vote for Trump mainly as a call to "stop this insanity!"

~~~

Some more on the issue:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/10/really-really-upset-foreign-office-security-services/
I left Julian [Assange] after midnight. He is fit, well, sharp and in good spirits. WikiLeaks never reveals or comments upon its sources, but as I published before a fortnight ago, I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not any Russian state actor or proxy that gave the Democratic National Committee and Podesta material to WikiLeaks.


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/10/russia-hack-dnc-really.html


And here about an inconspicuous detail suggesting one hacker actually planned to set up "Russians" as the source:
https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/the-yandex-domain-problem-2076089e330b#

Nice summary on Sputnik
https://sputniknews.com/us/201610261046768902-dnc-hack-speculation-carr-interview/


Qoppa | Nov 19, 2016 4:35:36 PM | 11
btw, the "inside job" theory goes quite nicely with what we know about alleged traces to "Russians":

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/

The following week, two cybersecurity firms, Fidelis Cybersecurity and Mandiant, independently corroborated Crowdstrike's assessment that Russian hackers infiltrated DNC networks, having found that the two groups that hacked into the DNC used malware and methods identical to those used in other attacks attributed to the same Russian hacking groups.

But some of the most compelling evidence linking the DNC breach to Russia was found at the beginning of July by Thomas Rid, a professor at King's College in London, who discovered an identical command-and-control address hardcoded into the DNC malware that was also found on malware used to hack the German Parliament in 2015. According to German security officials, the malware originated from Russian military intelligence. An identical SSL certificate was also found in both breaches.

Sooooo .... these "traces" all show known Russian methods (whether true or not). If they are known they can be faked and used by someone else.


Now who is the no. 1 organisation, worldwide, in having and being capable to use such information?


@b, your speculation gets better and better the more one thinks about it.


IhaveLittleToAdd | Nov 19, 2016 4:58:27 PM | 12
I'm out of my depth on cyber forensics, but would the NSA, and thus Clapper, know who hacked and leaked these documents? Or would the NSA be in the dark, as they suggest?

Just watched Oliver Stone's "Snowden". Awesome. Can't believe after seeing it that Clapper has survived all these years. Just another Hoover.

Posted by: Mina | Nov 19, 2016 5:18:42 PM | 13

Just watched Oliver Stone's "Snowden". Awesome. Can't believe after seeing it that Clapper has survived all these years. Just another Hoover.

Posted by: Mina | Nov 19, 2016 5:18:42 PM | 13

Manne | Nov 19, 2016 6:35:17 PM | 14
Sheer conspiracy talk, besides b are wrong on Assange, Assange know who leaked it and have denied that a nation is behind it!

james | Nov 19, 2016 6:50:23 PM | 15
thanks b.. i like the idea of it being an inside job.. makes a lot of sense too.

i like @3 jens question about the timing as a possible aid to understanding this better.

@4 gordiva comment - everyone hacks everyone comment..ditto. it's another form of warfare and a given in these times..

i agree with @6 paveway, and while it sounds trite, folks who don't look after their own health can blame all the doctors.. the responsibility for the e mail negligence rests with hillary and her coterie of bozos..

@7 carol. i agree.

@8 jr.. did you happen to notice a few posts missing from the thread from yesterday and who it was that's been removed? hint : poster who made the comment "more popcorn" is no longer around. they have a new handle today..

@20 manne.. you can say whatever you want and be speculative too, but i don't share your view on assange knowing who leaked it..

stumpy | Nov 19, 2016 7:00:28 PM | 16
Except that you have to consider the targeting. I've suspected an insider all along, given the pre-packaged spin points coordinated with the release vectors. Not that the Russies, Pakistanis, or Chinese wouldn't know more about the US than the US knows about itself, but the overall nuance really hits the anti-elitist spurned sidekick chord. This clashes a bit with b's interagency pissing match scenario, but, then again, you step on the wrong tail... Someone didn't get their piece of pie, or equally valid, someone really really disapproves of the pie's magnitude and relative position on the table.

Curious how Weenergate led to the perfectly timed 650K emails on that remarkably overlooked personal device.

MadMax2 | Nov 19, 2016 7:01:17 PM | 17
@20 Manne
Yes I think on this case Assange does know, if I remember correctly, he spoke to RT and said something to the effect of 'it's not Russia, we don't reveal our sources but if the DNC found out who it was they would have "egg on their faces"' ...and easy access, copy, paste, send job, my hunch it was the DNC staffer who was suicided.

Manne | Nov 19, 2016 7:05:51 PM | 18
James

Its what Assange himself says, do your homework, as someone else said here, Wikileaks wont reveal the source, that doesnt mean they dont know who leaked it.

Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 19, 2016 7:05:53 PM | 19
Is Trump that much of a deep thinker? Rebellious teenager who chooses anyone that the last administration didn't like seems more plausible to me. It doesn't matter who they are or what their record is. I don't think Trump plans to surrender any of his undeserved power to anyone. He'll be running the whole show. They'll do what he wants or be shown the door.
Posted by: Carol Davidek-Waller | Nov 19, 2016 3:18:02 PM | 7

I agree.
Trump's got charm and a good memory and doesn't need to be a deep thinker in order to network efficiently and listen carefully. Nor does he need to be a mathematician to figure out that 1 + 1 = 2.

james | Nov 19, 2016 7:07:22 PM | 20
@24 manne.. okay, thanks..

Oddlots | Nov 19, 2016 7:32:04 PM | 21
Has anyone else got the feeling that much of the panic inside Washington is due to the possibility that the crimes of the Obama administration might be exposed?

One of the most uncanny moments I've experienced watching the Syria crisis unfold is seeing the "Assad gasses his people" operation launched, fail miserably, then - mostly - interest is lost. I know: the lie, once asserted, has done most of its work already, debunked or not. I also understand that the western press is so in the tank for the establishment, so "captured" that it shouldn't surprise anyone that no follow up is offered. My point is, rather, that if you think back over just the Ukrainian and Syrian debacle the amount of dirt that could be exposed by a truly anti-establishment figure in the White House is mind boggling.

Just off the top of my head:

- the sabotage of the deal to save the Ukrainian constitutional order brokered by Putin, Merkel and Hollande c/o of the excuisitely timed and staged sniper shootings (otherwise known as the "most obvious coup in history")
- the farce that is the MH17 inquiry (and the implication: another false flag operation with a cut-out that killed, what was it, 279 innocents?)
- the Kherson pogrom and the Odessa massacre
- the targeting of both Libya and Syria with outright lies and with all the propaganda perfectly reflecting the adage that, in dis- info operations, the key is to accuse your enemies of all the crimes you are committing or planning to
- highlights of the above might include: Robert Ford's emails scheming to create "paranoia" in Damascus while completely justifying same; the "rat-lines" and Ghoutta gas operation; the farcically transparent White Helmets Psy-op *

And on and on...

If you or the institution that pays you had a closet full to bursting with skeletons like this and you were facing an incoming administration that seems to relish and flaunt it's outsider status wouldn't you be freaking out?

To ice the cake the latest Freudian slip is the crusade against "fake news." Seriously, if I were in their shoes that's the last phrase I would want people ruminating over. I think it was R. D. Laing who said "we always speak the truth." One way or another.


* This comes with the delicious irony that the operation's own success offers proof of the adage that sometimes you can succeed too well. The fact that the Omran photo was plastered across every paper in the west is good evidence of how completely "fake" our news has become. My favourite is this farcical interview between Amanpour and Lavrov: https://youtu.be/Tx8kiQyEkHc

MadMax2 | Nov 19, 2016 7:53:11 PM | 22
@27 Oddlots
Most of those are pretty easy picking under a firm rule of law - plenty of underling rats willing to squeal with even gentle pressure, I'm sure.

His legacy is horrific.

Obama taught constitutional law for 12 years... It would be sweet, sweet poetry to see him nailed... his 'white papers', formed in secret courts that no one can see, no oversight in the light of day... phony legal documents that allowed him to incinerate fellow humans via drone without charge, without trial...

Some brother, some nobel prize...

Circe | Nov 19, 2016 8:37:46 PM | 23
95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is a catastrophic error in judgment I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time.

And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden with the death penalty, if Snowden is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him to find out who he shared intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job. He already stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back from Russia and get the death penalty for treason.

Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against Assad and wrote this in the Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern of gratuitous and unpunished affronts to U.S. interests,".

That's not all, Pompeo wants to enhance the surveillance state, and he too wants to tear up the Iran deal.

Many of you here are extremely naďve regarding Trump.

Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 8:53:09 PM | 24
James @21 I noticed the different handle but b hasn't commented on the attack. I assumed that this meant that b didn't know for sure who did the attack.

As I wrote, rufus/Ron made himself the prime suspect when he described the attack as an attempt to shut down his anti-Trump message. Some of us thought that it might be a lame attempt to discredit rufus but only "Ron" thought that the attack was related to him.

If one doesn't believe - as I do - that Ron = rufus then you might be less convinced that rufus did the deed.

Gaianne | Nov 19, 2016 9:43:45 PM | 25
@20 Manne--

Yes, it is important to remember that Assange, though he did not state that he knew who provided the DNC emails, implied that he did, and further implied--but did not state--that it was Seth Rich. Assange's statement came shortly after Rich's death by shooting. Assange stated he specifically knew people had people had risked their lives uploading material, implying that they had in fact lost them.

--Gaianne

Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 10:20:57 PM | 26
b's speculation has the ring of truth. I've often wondered if Trump was encouraged to run by a deep-state faction that found the neocons to be abhorrent and dangerous.
Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible. Among these were those that spoke of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet.The neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon -unfriendly President was elected.

Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result in a shooting war with Iran. The 'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to fund security agencies and buy arms.

And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a placeholder until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran, and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad as they were before the "peace deal". So all the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly.

What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military) , the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.

And so it is interesting that those that want to undermine Trump have resorted to the claim that he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't attacked like that before the election, huh?

The profound changes and profound butt-hurt lead to the following poignant questions:

>> Have we just witnessed a counter-coup?

>> Isn't it sad that, in 2016(!), the only check on elites are other elite factions? An enormous cultural failure that has produced a brittle social fabric.

>> If control of NSA snooping power is so crucial, why would ANY ruling block ever allow the another to gain power?

Indeed, the answer to this question informs one's view on whether the anti-Trump protests are just Democratic Party ass-covering/distraction or a real attempt at a 'color revolution'.

ben | Nov 19, 2016 11:33:40 PM | 27
Plausible as hell b.

b said also.."Rogers support for the new cold war will also gain him favor with the various weapon industries which will eventually beef up his pension."


That's the long game for most of the "Hawks" in DC. Perpetual war is most profitable.

And, that game transcends both parties.

Circe | Nov 19, 2016 11:52:44 PM | 28
@32

What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military), the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.

Oh please! Trump is stacking his cabinet with Iran-obsessed Islam haters! Nominal enemy , my ass! And was every candidate for spending a Trillion more on defense??? Did you even read Trump's plan to build up the military?

You do Netanyahu proud with your deflection. What? Nothing regarding Pompeo's blistering comments on Russia or Ed Snowden?

Why are you trying to diminish the threat to Iran with the hawks, Islam-haters, and Iran-obsessed team that Trump cobbled together so far?

Trump's Israel adviser David Friedman is known to be more extreme than even Netanyahu.

No doubt Netanyahu has unleashed an army of IDF hasbara to crush criticism of Trump and his Iran-obsessed cabinet because he must be elated with his choices and wants to make them palatable to the American sheeple.

Netanyahu is the first leader Trump spoke with on the phone. Trump praised Netanyahu from day one. PNAC and Clean Break were war manifestos for rearranging the Middle East with the ultimate goal of toppling Iran.

Trump and his cabinet are all about tearing up the deal and assuming a much more hostile position with Iran. Tearing up the deal is a precursor to a casus belli. What more proof is there that Trump is doing the bidding of Zionist Neocons??? Oh, but you don't want more, do you?

Your comment reeks of duplicity and sophistry.

psychohistorian | Nov 20, 2016 1:28:45 AM | 29
I always try to "follow the money" concept.

As chipnik noted in a comment, Iran is one of the only countries that is yet to be under the control of private finance (see my latest Open Thread comments, please)

I personally see all this as obfuscation covering for throwing Americans under the bus by the global plutocrats. The elite can see, just like us, that the US empire's usefulness is beyond its "sold by" date and are acting accordingly. America and its Reserve Currency status are about to crash and the elites are working to preserve their supra-national private finance base of power/control while they let America devolve to who knows what level.

Too much heat and not enough light here...or if you prefer, the noise to signal ratio is highly skewed to noise.

psychohistorian | Nov 20, 2016 1:31:46 AM | 30
And in support of my noise to signal comment there is this comment I made recently in the MoA Fake News posting:

So is this real or fake news? Trump meeting with folks this week to expand his personal business interests in India....EGAD!

http://www.ebhsoc.org/journal/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/6/6

Crimes involving moral turpitude have an inherent quality of baseness, vileness, or depravity with respect to a person's duty to another or to society in general.

Given the above Trump would not be allowed to immigrate to the US.....just saying...

Manne | Nov 20, 2016 3:50:10 AM | 31

Assange: No state actor behind the leak.
http://fortune.com/2016/11/03/julian-assange-wikileaks-russia-podesta-emails/

the pair | Nov 20, 2016 3:55:42 AM | 32
the shadowbrokers say they have NSA malware/tools and to prove it after their auction was met with crickets riding tumbleweeds they released some teaser info on NSA servers used for proxy attacks and recon. of course a few just happened to be "owned" boxes in russia (and china and some other places for that matter). add their russian IP addresses to some (mostly useless) sigantures associated with supposedly russian-designed malware and you've got some good circumstantial evidence.

also: an email address associated with one or more attacks is from a russian site/domain but whoever registered was directed to the .com domain instead of the .ru one. this probably means someone got sloppy and didn't remember to check their DNS for fail.

in general these hacks look less like russians and more like someone who wants to look like russians. the overpaid consultants used by the DNC/clinton folks can put "bear" in the names and claim that a few bits of cyrillic are a "slam dunk" but all the "evidence" is easily faked. not that anyone in the "deep state" would ever fake anything.

Harry | Nov 20, 2016 5:35:50 AM | 33
@ Jackrabbit | 26

Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran.

I worry about it as well. Trump said he'll tear up nuclear agreement, and the people he is choosing also have rabid anti-Iranian agenda.

Nice start for Trump:

Thursday US House voted to stop civilian aircraft sales to Iran by both Boeing and Airbus.

Few days before - US extending economic sanctions against Iran through 2026.

Of course Trump can block it, but will he? Even if he does, he might blackmail Iran for something in return, etc. Iran is by no means off the hook for neocons and Israel, and I wouldnt be surprised if Trump follows the suit.

Trump will (or might) have better relations with Russia, but this cordiality doesnt extend to Iran. Or as Jackrabbit says, US neocons will simply switch the targeted state and Iran may soon become "worse threat to humanity than ISIS", again.

FecklessLeft | Nov 20, 2016 7:12:24 AM | 34
@33

I doubt separating the animosity towards Russia and Iran is even possible. Truth be told his comments towards Russia during the election seemed more like he was woefully unaware of the reality of the Russo-American situation in the Mideast than about being ready to negotiate major US power positions and accept Russia as anything more than enemy. Sounded very off the cuff to me. Maybe he thought he'd 'get along great with Putin' at the time but after realizing later that means making nice with Iran and giving up a large measure of US influence in the MENA he has reconsidered and taken the party line. It'd certainly be understandable for a noncareer politician. I'd imagine he'd be more interested now in currying favour with the MIC and the typical Republican party hawks than with Russia/Putin given his statements on military spending. Back when I saw him bow down at the altar of AIPAC earlier in the season I had trouble reconciling that with how he hoped to improve relationships with Russia at the same time given their radical differences wrt their allies. He's made a lot of those type of statements too, it was hard to read where he stood on most any issue during election season.

I imagine as he's brought into the fold and really shown the reality of how US imperialist power projection he'll change his mind considerably. I think we, as readers and amateur analysts of this type of material, take for granted how hard some of this knowledge is to come by without looking for it directly. When we hear someone is going to make nice with Russia we want to think "well he says that as he must surely recognize the insanity and destructive forces at work." Maybe it's more of a case where the person speaking actually thinks we're in Syria to fight ISIS - that they have very little grasp of how things really work over there.

In my eyes the names he's been considering are reason for much worry for those hoping Trump would be the one to usher in a multipolar world and end the cold war. I never had much hope in that regard (but I'm still praying for the best).

Oui | Nov 20, 2016 7:45:56 AM | 35
Figment of imagination ...

Putin has been supporting right-wing movements across the West in order to weaken NATO

Care to back this statement with arguments, examples ar a link to an excellent article?

Looking at most of "New Europe", it's the other way around ... fascist states allied with Nazi Germany against communism, participating in massacres of Jewish fellow citizens and functioning as a spearhead for US intelligence against communism after the defeat of Nazi Germany – see Gladio. Now used by the CIA in the coup d'état in Ukraine in Februari 2014.

Ahhh ... searched for it myself, a paper written earlier in 2016 ... how convenient!

Putinism and the European Far Right | IMR|

The paper, authored by Alina Polyakova , Ph.D., deputy director of the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council , was originally presented at the 2015 ASEEES Annual Convention.

Policy set by the Atlantic Council years ago: make Russia a pariah state . Written about it many times. BS and more western propaganda. The West has aligned itself with jihadists across the globe, Chechnya included. Same as in Afghanistan, these terrorists were called "freedom fighters". See John McCain in northern Syria with same cutthroats.

Absolutely outrageous! See her twitter account with followers/participants Anne Applebaum and former and now discredited Poland's FM Radoslaw Sikorski .

Pitiful and so uninformed!

Posted earlier @BT - To the Stake .. Burn the Heretic

Yonatan | Nov 20, 2016 7:58:10 AM | 36
"Emails of the DNC and of Clinton's consigliere John Podesta were hacked and leaked. Additionally emails from Clinton's private email server were released. All these influenced the election in favor of Trump."

Not necessarily so. An informal poll of people in blue collar flyover country about their voting intentions prior to the election expressed 4 common concerns

i) The risk of war.
ii) The Obamacare disaster especially recent triple digit percent increase in fees.
iii) Bringing back jobs.
iv) Punishing the Democrat Party for being indistinguishable from the Republicans.

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/when-shouting-stops.html

Newsboy | Nov 20, 2016 8:23:05 AM | 37
Fascists usually start off doing a lot of good work in the honeymoon-period.
Here we go!

Jackrabbit | Nov 20, 2016 9:03:25 AM | 38
Circe @28

We shouldn't take Trump's bluster at face value. For example, Trump said that he'd eliminate Obamacare. Now he has backed off that saying that some elements of Obamacare are worthwhile.

Trump called for a strong military while attacking Hillary as "trigger happy" . The implication is clear - Trump would not be looking for wars like Hillary would.

That the Israeli head of state is one of the first foreign leaders that any President-elect speaks to is no surprise. That you harp on what is essentially nonsense is telling.

In my view Trump is not anti-Jewish. He is anti-neocon/anti-Zionist. As Bannon said, America has been getting f*cked.

john | Nov 20, 2016 9:18:04 AM | 39
Oddlots @ 21 says:

To ice the cake the latest Freudian slip is the crusade against "fake news."

i see it more as another mindfucking meme than a Freudian slip. another paean to Discordia, the goddess of chaos. we've lived with 'fake news,' heretofore advertised by reliable sources , since forever. baptizing this bastardized melange only sinks us deeper into dissonant muck.

Jules | Nov 20, 2016 10:12:03 AM | 40
One would hope if that is true - Trump recognises this and fires him as well rather than promoting him.

However, if he were instrumental in getting Trump elected it is understandable if Trump decided to promote him.

It's well-known and clear Trump rewards those who have done him favours.

Let us hope it is not true.

The first thing Trump must do when elected is declassify all material related to MH17. This can be done in late January/ February as one of his first orders of business.

It's important to do this quickly - at least before the Dutch Elections in March 2017.

#MH17truth

If Trump does this he will do a number of things.

1 - Likely reveal that it was the Ukrainians who were involved in shooting down MH17. I say likely because it's possible this goes deeper than just Ukraine - if that's the case - more the better.

2. He will destroy the liar Porky Poroshenko and his corrupt regime with him. He will destroy Ukraine's corrupt Government's relationship with Europe.

3. He will destroy the sell-out traitor to his own people Mark Rutte of Netherlands. This will ensure an election win for a key Trump ally - Geert Wilders.

If Rutte is discredited for using the deaths of 200 Dutch citizens for his own political gain - he is finished and might end up in jail.

4. He will destroy Merkel utterly. Her chances of re-election (which she just announced she will stand!) will be utterly destroyed.

5. He will restory Russia-USA relations in an instant.

Trump must also do this ASAP because this is the kind of thing that could get him killed if he doesn't do it ASAP when he's inaugurated.

Of course - until then - he should keep his mouth shut about it - but the rest of us should be shouting it all around the Internet.

#MH17truth
#MH17truth
#MH17truth
#MH17truth
#MH17truth

Then - after that - he can move to do the same for September 11.

MH17 must come first ASAP because of the Dutch Elections and the chance to remove that globalist traitor to his own people Rutte.

Denis | Nov 20, 2016 10:19:43 AM | 41
b: "Let me know how plausible you find the tale."

Very, very, very plausible. Yes! (Fist-pump)

And very well documented, too. Sort of like the theory that 9/11 was carried out by the Boy Scouts of America. After all, the boost in jingoism and faux-patriotism gave the BSA a boost in revenue and membership, so that pretty well proves it, eh?

And if you dig deep enough I'm sure you'll find that on 9/10 the BSA shorted their stocks in United.

Yo! (Double fist-pump)

Jules | Nov 20, 2016 10:35:24 AM | 42
Re: Posted by: Oddlots | Nov 19, 2016 7:32:04 PM | 21

Totally agree Oddlots and that is why Trump must be on the front foot immediately.

Exposing MH17 and destroying Poroshenko, Rutte & Merkel - and Biden & Obama by the way and a bunch of others is absolutely key.

Blow MH17 skyhigh and watch Russia-USA relations be restored in a nanosecond.

It will be especially sweet to watch the Dutch traitor to his own people Rutte destroyed in the midst of an election campaign such that he might end up in jail charged with treason and replaced by Geert Wilders - the Dutch Donald Trump if ever there was one - within a matter of weeks.

However, a word of caution, it is precisely because of these possibilities that there has to be a high chance Trump will be assassinated.

Pence would not walk that line. Not at all.

There is no doubt Trump's life is in danger. I hope he has enough good people around him who will point the finger in the right direction if and when it happens.

Because frankly I doubt it.

juliania | Nov 20, 2016 10:37:15 AM | 43
I think it's a bit of a stretch. First of all, there are other, deeper areas of investigative matters concerning previous governments of the US, impeachable offenses and international crimes - remember when Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table? Not to mention, what did happen in Benghazi and why? It wouldn't matter who did that hacking of those emails- it's a bit like the exposure of the White House tapes in Nixon's presidency. We didn't worry about who revealed that - we went to the issues themselves. I think that is what Trump is doing as he brings people to his home for conversations. It is the opposite of Obama's 'moving forward, not looking back'. Trump is going to look back. It's not about reinstating the cold war; it's about gathering information.

Do we want another Obama? I don't think so.


Jules | Nov 20, 2016 10:43:57 AM | 44
Re: Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 10:20:57 PM | 26

I think Saudi Arabia are the ones who should be scared. Trump has implied before he knows who is responsible for September 11.

My guess is he wants to expose Saudi Arabia and the Bush Family.

Ever wondered why the Bushes hate and appear frightened of Trump? Because they understand he will expose their complicity in September 11 and potentially have them locked up.

Or perhaps he'll let Dubya off claiming he didn't know in return for a favour and lock up Dick Cheney instead. Quite possible.

The Saudis will get thrown down the river and lose any assets they hold in US Dollars - a significant amount I believe!

Sucks to be a Saudi Royal right about now - they better liquidate their US assets ASAP if they have any brains.

lysias | Nov 20, 2016 10:49:04 AM | 45
Retired UK ambassador Craig Murray said on his Web site, after meeting with Assange and then traveling to Washington where he met with former NSA officials, that he was 100 percent sure that Wikileaks's source was not the Russians and also suggested that the leaks came from inside the U.S. government.

lysias | Nov 20, 2016 10:52:19 AM | 46
Pursue the truth about 9/11, and you'll also find guilty paties in Israel (as well as Pakistan). Is Trump willing to do that?

lysias | Nov 20, 2016 10:54:41 AM | 47
Guilty parties

Jules | Nov 20, 2016 11:02:05 AM | 48
Re: Posted by: lysias | Nov 20, 2016 10:52:19 AM | 46

That would seem to be the truth wouldn't it, but I doubt he'd go that far down the rabbit hole? How would that serve him?

He'd go as far down as Saudi Arabia & Pakistan - and yes, that would serve his purpose for "enemies".

It would also serve Israel's interests. I can't imagine he'd go as far as to expose Israel - why would he? His life would then be in danger!

james | Nov 20, 2016 11:49:01 AM | 49
@24 jr.. i found the rs guy to be quite repugnant..rufus never came across quite the same way to me, but as always - i could be wrong! i see pac is gone today and been replaced with another name, lol.. and the beat goes on.. b has deleted posts and must be getting tired of them too.

@31 manne.. thanks.. does that rule out an insider with the nsa/cia as well?

@34 fecklessleft.. i agree with your last paragraph..

@36 yonatan.. i agree with that alternative take myself..

@40 jules.. would be nice to see happen, but most likely an exercise in wishful thinking.. sort of the same with your @44 too.. the saudis need to be taken down quite a few notches.. the usa/israel being in bed with the headchopper cult has all the wrong optics for suggesting anything positive coming from usa/israel..


Robert Beal | Nov 20, 2016 12:04:35 PM | 50
#1 election story, from 3 (indirectly 4) separate investigative journalists.

Also, see Sputnik comments at bottom of:

https://sputniknews.com/radio_the_bradcast/201611171047576289-us-election-exit-polls/

h | Nov 20, 2016 12:11:40 PM | 51
b says 'Next we [can speculate] - Trump offers Rogers the Clapper job. He would replace the boss that wanted him fired.' There, fixed it.

There appears to be a growing canyon in the intelligence world with some wanting to rid the Office of the National Intelligence agency altogether, while others are lobbying for it to remain.

Recall the 50+ intelligence analysts who went on record that the higher ups within the spying apparatus were cooking the books on Syria and the Islamic State - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html

Remember when Obama referred to the rise of the Islamic State as the 'JV team'? That nonchalant attitude by Obama towards the growing threat of the head choppers in Iraq and Syria was squarely placed on senior management within the intelligence community -

"Two senior analysts at CENTCOM signed a written complaint sent to the Defense Department inspector general in July alleging that the reports, some of which were briefed to President Obama, portrayed the terror groups as weaker than the analysts believe they are. The reports were changed by CENTCOM higher-ups to adhere to the administration's public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda's branch in Syria, the analysts claim."

Who knows, Rogers may very well have been one in senior management who encouraged these 50 analysts to come forward. Maybe the IG investigation is wrapping up and at least internally, the senior management who made intel reports to Obama full of 'happy talk' have been identified and are now leaving on their own.

Maybe Rogers is a 'White Hat' as is being suggested by the CTH - https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/11/19/shadow-fight-angst-within-obama-admin-as-intel-community-white-hats-align-w-trump/

Circe | Nov 20, 2016 1:25:22 PM | 52
@38

We shouldn't take Trump's bluster at face value. For example, Trump said that he'd eliminate Obamacare. Now he has backed off that saying that some elements of Obamacare are worthwhile.

For crying out loud! I don't give a rat's ass about Obamacare when he outlined a plan to boost the military by a trillion dollars and stacks his cabinet with crazy Iran-obsessed hawks who want to start a world war over effing Iran! And you're deflecting this with freakin' Obamacare -- It's speaks volumes about your credibility!

Trump is anti-Zionist??? Ha! His adviser to Israel David Friedman is an extreme right-wing Zionist! Or do you just prefer to completely ignore fact and reality???

And Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo can't stand Putin and their comments and record are there - FACT!

And Trump didn't only tell Hillary he was going to build up the military; he outlined it later in his plan with facts and figures and it's going to cost about a Trillion dollars, so quit comparing it to a gradual phasing out of Obamacare!

Okay, you know what? I see right through your little game. Unless you have something cogent with factual backup; I don't wanna read your responses based on pure fantasy and deflection. I look at the cold, hard facts and reality. I look at who Trump is surrounding himself with rabid Islam-haters obsessed with going after Iran and extremist Zionist loons and hawks like Pompeo and Pence making disturbing comments on Russia and Snowden and Trump's plan. So quit pretending you're not trying to obscure fact with fiction meant to deceive!

Quadriad | Nov 20, 2016 1:37:31 PM | 53
#23 Circe

"...and not a regular war where 300,000 people die..."

- Regular? So, you're calling an aggression on Syria just a 'Regular' war, on par with the course? The very least the Americans have to do, including those given the 'Nobel Peace Prize' (a bloody joke if there ever was one)? And those regular wars are needed to, what, regularly feed and the US MIC Beast? So... Obama and Hillary were just getting on with the inevitable?

Your other observations regarding Pompeo are more meaningful, but I think you underestimate the power of groupthink under the Clinton-Bush-Obama continuous administration complex. Anyway, if Pompeo doesn't wish to get "reassigned", he might be better off unmounting the neocon horse mindset and getting on better with the Tea Party dogma, where the enemies of thy enemies are more likely to be seen as friends then frenemies.

#34 Feckless Left

In a sense you are right, he is not a career politician and he might be underestimating the depth of the abyss. Yet, he has far more street cred than you seem to be giving him credit for. An honest, naive idealist, he is certainly not...

Lozion | Nov 20, 2016 1:51:14 PM | 54
Circe, I have addressed your panic about Iran in another thread and you failed to reply so again:

"Even if true that the future administration would shift its focus against Iran, what can they accomplish militarily against it? Nought. SAA & ISA would send militias to support Iran, nothing would prevent Russia from using Hamedan airbase just as it uses Hmeimim and deploy S-400 et al systems to bolster Iran's already existing ones. Plus on what grounds politically could they intervene? Nobody is buying Bibi's "Bomb" bs seriously anymore. Forget it, with Syria prevailing Iran is safe.."

Jackrabbit | Nov 20, 2016 1:57:06 PM | 55
@Circe

If Trump is so friendly with Zionists, why did they go crazy when Bannon was named as a senior adviser?

And, neocon angst about the Trump Administration is well summed up by Cohen's tweet :

After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly.

S.H.E. | Nov 20, 2016 2:03:31 PM | 56
Oddlots #21. insightful. you ignored the entire list on the financial side, but they are linked through the profound mutual support between Israel and Wall Street.

I have been really surprised at the lack of discussion of BHO's impromptu post-election tour of Germany and Greece. It seems to me Egypt flipped and it was met with silence, because WashDC must be secured before the neocons can respond. But the two countries that are game-set-match are Germany and Greece. The Greek navy with German support is a great power in the Mediterranean. How convenient to keep them at each other's throats for a decade. I think BHO was trying desperately to keep them onside. But he would either have to promise them something that he can no longer deliver after Jan 20th...or he has to clue them in to a different timeline than the one we think is playing out. Anyone have a idea why the Prez had to go and talk to Merkel and Tsipras *without intermediaries?*

Nick | Nov 20, 2016 2:22:33 PM | 57
Today Putin meeting Obama in Peru. Like, you lost nigga!
https://cdnbr2.img.sputniknews.com/images/623/35/6233517.jpg

TheRealDonald | Nov 20, 2016 2:47:05 PM | 58
28

Having now founded a central bank in every nation of the world, the Khazars have defeated the Pope and the Caliphate. Only Iran and North Korea don't have a Khazar central bank. And only Iran has the last stash of crown jewels and gold bullion that the Khazars don't already control.

They want Iran as part of Greater Israel, and they hate Russia for driving them out after the fall of the Soviet Union. The Khazars control the American Union under a Red/Blue Star. Just talking ethnics, not race, religion or creed, since Hebrew is a religion of pure commercial convenience for the Khazars.

US and IL are therefore aligned against IR and RU. Now we can get rid of all the race, religion or creed crap, and talk New Math set theory: {US,IL} ≠ {IR,RU}

Who are {US,IL} sanctions against? {IR,RU}. In this new Trump' Administration: {TA} ⊆ {US,IL}, and {TA} ⊄ {IR,RU}. From a chess perspective, Putin just got Kieningered, because the Khazars would have everyone believe that {TA} ❤ {RU}, when in reality, {TA} ∩ {RU} = {Ř}.

On to {IR}!!

ben | Nov 20, 2016 2:55:01 PM | 59
I'm fully expecting a radical change in rhetoric coming from Mr. Trump and his new team, but little else. The REAL movers and shakers who run the U$A have everything moving their direction right now, so why change? I expect "the Donald" to do as he's
told, like every other POTUS in modern history. They'll let him screw the workers, but, not the REAL owners of the U$A( 1%).

TheRealDonald | Nov 20, 2016 2:59:20 PM | 60
55

You don't know? Before he died, my father told me a trick. Once the bloom was off their marriage, his wife would deliberately provoke his heavy-handed management of the family, by doing whatever he didn't want. So he learned to always 'go crazy' over things, knowing that's exactly what she would do to spite him, ...and in that way, using 'reverse psychology', the Khazars would have you believe that they hate Trump, and Trump loves Russia. They're just putting the Maidan gears into motion.

Like taking c__ from a (ಥ‸ಥ).

Circe | Nov 20, 2016 3:14:41 PM | 61
If Trump is considering Mitt Romney for SoS then you can bet his policy towards Russia will be hostile because the only reason Trump would put someone between himself and Putin, who repeatedly called Russia, America's No. 1 enemy, is because he wants a bad cop on Russia in the State Department, in spite of his supposed good cop remarks regarding Putin. In other words, he wants someone who can put it straight to Putin so he himself can pretend to be the good cop. If Trump were being honest regarding a softening in policy with Russia do you really believe he would ever consider someone like Romney for SoS??? Again, Mitt Romney has made the most scathing comments of anyone against Putin, and then calling Russia the number one geopolitical enemy of the U.S. . Many on the Democratic and even Republican side felt he went overboard and many have since called his comment prophetic and today Romney feels vindicated.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/30/romney-again-makes-case-russia-most-dangerous-foe-amid-syrian-air-strikes.html

Many analysts on the Democratic side and Republican side are calling Romney prophetic since he made that statement on Russia before Russia messed with U.S. plans for Syria.

So, my point is this; it's possible, it's very possible that, Mike Pompeo, Trump's choice for CIA Director, who also has a hostile position towards Russia asked Trump to consider Romney because he know doubt also believes that Romney proved good foresight with that comment regarding Russia and urged Trump to give Romney a meeting.

My 2nd point is this: quit trying to make Trump into what he's not when he's spelling it all out for you in black and white!

It doesn't look good. This picture that's starting to develop is looking worse by the day. Look at who he's surrounding himself with; look at his actions and forget about his words. This man has sold ice to the eskimos in his business dealings. Look at the facts. Trump is not who you think he is and just because he made some comments favorable in Putin's regard doesn't mean he's not going to turn around and stick it to Putin a year or maybe a few years down the line. Kissinger told Fareed Zakaria today on GPS: One should not insist in nailing Trump to positions he took during the campaign.

I already wrote that I believe Trump is using this fake softer strategy to get Russia to look sideways on a coming Resolution to invade Iran and then he's going to deal with Putin and Russia.

If Trump picks someone like Romney for State; he'll have 3 individuals in the most important cabinet positions dealing with foreign policy and foreign enemies who will be hostile to Russia: VP, CIA Director and SoS. Therefore he would be sending his bad cop to deal with Russia and sending a message to Putin like: Don't put your money on whatever I said during the campaign, my positions are changing for the empire's benefit and strategic interests. And even if he doesn't choose Mitt, because on Breitbart where his base convenes they're up in arms about this meeting, I would still be wary of his direction because of the picks he's made already; the majority of his cabinet so far want war with Iran and his VP and CIA Director can't stand Putin and then looking at who's advising him, rabid Neocon Zionists like James Woolsey and David Friedman.

Look at what Trump does, who he's meeting with, who he's choosing to surround himself with and quit hanging on what he said, because talk is cheap, especially coming from someone who's now in the inner circle of American power.

@55

Please don't give me one measly Cohen tweet as fact! The entire Zionist Organization of America came to Bannon's defense and he will be attending their gala! It's been made public everywhere; so quit obscuring the truth.

@54

Yes, Russia could come to Iran's defense considering Iran allowed for Russia's use of that air base for Syria and rescued one of the two Russian pilots shot down by Turkey, and is fighting al-Nusra shoulder to shoulder with Russia, but the empire has something up its sleeve to stop Russia from coming to the defense of Iran, should the U.S. and Israel decide to circumvent the Security Council. Something stinks; Trump is top loading his cabinet with crazy, Iran-obsessed hawks and his VP and CIA Direct also have no love for Putin. They're planning something against Iran and I know they're going to do something to tie Putin's hands. Something's up and it's going to lead to war beyond Syria. Look the Russians are already depleting resources in Syria; already that puts Russia in a weakened position. I don't know what they're planning but it's not good. The picture unfolding with Trump's cabinet is very disturbing.

Circe | Nov 20, 2016 3:35:38 PM | 62
There's another aspect and maybe it's significant and maybe not that could influence a change in Trump's position on Russia that would have also made him take the extreme step of meeting with Romney while considering the SoS position. Trump is getting the highest level of security briefings now that he's President-elect. You wanna bet that Russia and Putin are mentioned in over 50% of those briefings and ISIS, Iran and others get the other 50% collectively???

Jackrabbit | Nov 20, 2016 3:41:53 PM | 63
@Circe

Hasbara hysteria to undermine Trump. Unrelenting bullshit and innuendo.

What was Bannon talking about when he said that America is getting f*cked? Globalism vs. Nationalism. Who equates nationalism with nazism? Zionists. Who is butt-hurt over Trump Presidency? Zionists and neocons.

Circe | Nov 20, 2016 3:47:15 PM | 64
@63

Unrelenting bullshit and innuendo.

Yep, describes your weak deception to a T! ...like I'm going to hang on Bannon's word as gospel when he's going to be wining and dining with Zionists at the ZOA gala.

Try again.

Circe | Nov 20, 2016 3:54:39 PM | 65
Oh, and one more thing: Zionists, FYI, relate very well with nationalists and supremacists since they got their own nationalist, supremacist operation in ISRAEL! So I'm only too sure they'll be commiserating and exchanging ideas on how best to secure their nationalist, supremacist vision for the empire. There's a whole lot of common ground for them to cover during the gala, and YOU CAN'T AND DIDN'T DENY THAT BANNON IS ATTENDING THE ZIONIST GALA! Did you???

So again, quit dogging me, quit presuming I'm some undercover hasbara, that maybe you are, and spare me the bullshit.

Circe | Nov 20, 2016 4:59:44 PM | 66
As if we didn't need anymore proof of where Trump is taking the U.S.: Trump tweeted a comment highly praising General James Mattis after their meeting considering him for Secretary of Defense. This is a major, major red flag signalling a very troubling direction in Trump's foreign policy.

Mattis served for two years as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. Although, he served under Obama, he was against the Iran deal and considers Iran more dangerous that ISIS!

Mattis is nicknamed "mad-dog mattis" for a reason: he is an extreme hawk and he is MIC incorporated.

But here's the kicker, Mattis like Pompeo, Pence and Romney has also made blistering comments against Russia, stating that Putin wants to break up NATO, sent "dogs and thugs" into Georgia and has been very critical of Putin's actions in Ukraine and Syria.

At the beginning of the primaries, Neocons wanted Mattis as a candidate for the Presidency on the Republican side. I like how the following article describes just how much Neocon war hawks salivated over the thought of Mattis in the White House:

http://original.antiwar.com/daniel-mcadams/2016/04/25/neocons-panting-president-mad-dog-mattis/

Well folks, Mattis, the darling of Neocons, will be in the White House next to Trump advising him on war strategy! And worst of all this mad-dog Neocon war hawk is going to run the Pentagon, oversee a trillion-dollar military expansion and command the next world war!

So are you convinced yet that Trump is perpetuating the Neocon PNAC/Clean Break plan or are you still totally blind???

Harry | Nov 20, 2016 5:17:23 PM | 67
More and more troubling news from Trump camp and his party, but lets not make snap judgements. We'll see soon enough.

jfl | Nov 20, 2016 5:24:10 PM | 68
@34 fl, 'In my eyes the names he's been considering are reason for much worry for those hoping Trump would be the one to usher in a multipolar world and end the cold war. I never had much hope in that regard (but I'm still praying for the best).'

Trump is in it for Trump. He's a solipsist. We and our 'real world' doesn't exist for Trump. He lives in Trump Tower. The only things he cares about are his personal interests. He'll put in people to 'run the government' who will insulate him and his interests from the consequences of their actions and that'll keep him happy and them in their jobs, no matter the consequences for our 'imaginary' real world. We're back to the mad Caesars. Our government has been steadily walking away from us since Bush XLI. It's on the run now, we're up to Nero. We 'barbarians' need to take care of our real world in its absence, prepare ourselves to pick up the pieces when it's become so unrecognizable that it's finally disappeared.

[Nov 19, 2016] The 2016 election sounded the death knell for the identity politics by Michael Hudson

www.counterpunch.org

What is the Democratic Party's former constituency of labor and progressive reformers to do? Are they to stand by and let the party be captured in Hillary's wake by Robert Rubin's Goldman Sachs-Citigroup gang that backed her and Obama?

The 2016 election sounded the death knell for the identity politics. Its aim was to persuade voters not to think of their identity in economic terms, but to think of themselves as women or as racial and ethnic groups first and foremost, not as having common economic interests. This strategy to distract voters from economic policies has obviously failed...

This election showed that voters have a sense of when they're being lied to. After eight years of Obama's demagogy, pretending to support the people but delivering his constituency to his financial backers on Wall Street. 'Identity politics' has given way to the stronger force of economic distress. Mobilizing identity politics behind a Wall Street program will no longer work."

Michael Hudson

[Nov 19, 2016] Break Up the Democratic Party

Nov 19, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

RGC : , November 17, 2016 at 07:38 AM

Break Up the Democratic Party

By Michael Hudson
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
..................
The danger of not taking this opportunity to clean out the party now

The Democratic Party can save itself only by focusing on economic issues – in a way that reverses its neoliberal stance under Obama, and indeed going back to Bill Clinton's pro-Wall Street administration. The Democrats need to do what Britain's Labour Party did by cleaning out Tony Blair's Thatcherites. As Paul Craig Roberts wrote over the weekend: "Change cannot occur if the displaced ruling class is left intact after a revolution against them. We have proof of this throughout South America. Every revolution by the indigenous people has left unmolested the Spanish ruling class, and every revolution has been overthrown by collusion between the ruling class and Washington." Otherwise the Democrats will be left as an empty shell.
Now is the time for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and the few other progressives who have not been kept out of office by the DNC to make their move by appointing their own nominees to the DNC. If they fail, the Democratic Party is dead.

An indication of how hard the present Democratic Party leadership will fight against this change of allegiance is reflected in their long fight against Bernie Sanders and other progressives going back to Dennis Kucinich. The past five days of MoveOn demonstrations sponsored by Hillary's backer George Soros may be an attempt to preempt the expected push by Bernie's supporters, by backing Howard Dean for head of the DNC while organizing groups to be called on for what may be an American "Maidan Spring."

Perhaps some leading Democrats preferred to lose with their Wall Street candidate Hillary than win with a reformer who would have edged them out of their right-wing positions. But the main problem was hubris. Hillary's coterie thought they could make their own reality. They believed that hundreds of millions of dollars of TV and other advertising could sway voters. But eight years of Obama's rescue of Wall Street instead of the economy was enough for most voters to see how deceptive his promises had been. And they distrusted Hillary's feigned embrace of Bernie's opposition to the TPP.

The Rust Belt swing states that shifted away from backing Obama for the last two terms are not racist states. They voted for Obama twice, after all. But seeing his support Wall Street, they had lost faith in her credibility – and were won by Bernie in his primaries against Hillary.
Donald Trump is thus Obama's legacy. Last week's vote was a backlash. Hillary thought that getting Barack and Michelle Obama to campaign as her surrogates would help, but it turned out to be the kiss of death. Obama egged her on by urging voters to "save his legacy" by supporting her as his Third Term. But voters did not want his legacy of giveaways to the banks, the pharmaceutical and health-insurance monopolies.

Most of all, it was Hillary's asking voters to ignore her economic loyalty to Wall Street simply to elect a woman, and her McCarthy-like accusations that Trump was "Putin's candidate" (duly echoed by Paul Krugman). On Wednesday, Obama's former Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul tweeted that "Putin intervened in our elections and succeeded." It was as if the Republicans and even the FBI were a kind of fifth column for the KGB. Her receptiveness to cutting back Social Security and steering wage withholding into the stock market did not help – especially her hedge fund campaign contributors. Compulsory health-insurance fees continue to rise for healthy young people. This was the profit center Obamacare offered the health-insurance monopoly.

The anti-Trump rallies mobilized by George Soros and MoveOn look like a preemptive attempt to capture the potential socialist left for the old Clinton divide-and-conquer strategy. The group was defeated five years ago when it tried to enlist Occupy Wall Street as part of the Democratic Party. It's attempt to make a comeback right now should be heard as an urgent call to Bernie's supporters and other "real" Democrats that they need to create an alternative pretty quickly so as not to let "socialism" be captured by Soros and his apparatchiks carried over from the Clinton campaign.

http://michael-hudson.com/2016/11/break-up-the-democratic-party/

RGC -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 08:42 AM
"but without shutting out the wealthy, business interests, or US Corporations."

A very large part needs to be shut out. Or at least FDR thought so:

FDR: I Welcome Their Hatred

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjSTQwamo8M

RGC -> RGC... , November 17, 2016 at 08:49 AM
So does Bernie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlmuKtyhDKg

Dan Kervick -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 09:41 AM
"Reconstructed" might be a better term. But barging full steam ahead with the Wall Street-friendly Chuck Schumer, as though nothing has happened, seems particularly obtuse on the part of the Democrats to me.

There is now a growing movement among the Berniecrats to join the Democratic Socialists of America and build it up into a much larger and more influential organization capable of exerting real political pressure on the political process.

im1dc -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 12:19 PM
"without shutting out the wealthy, business interests, or US Corporations"

I should have been less opaque and simply added that America is a Capitalist based nation and shutting out its Capitalists, who risk their capital for profit, is exactly like biting the hand that feeds.

Obviously there are evil wealthy people such as that rich women who was caught asking Mitt Romney about 'eliminating, reducing or cutting off benefits to the 47% who refuse to work and earn a living' so her taxes would be cut. Obviously there are evil businesses that are predators and take and do not give back. Obviously there are evil MNC corporations, Apple is in my sites, that refuse to pay their fair share of taxes to run this nation.

But, as obviously there are super kind and nice wealthy people, businesses, and corporations that go out of their way to give back to their communities and the vote for Democrats.

The wealthy, American businesses, and MNC corporations will always be lead, in most places on earth, by those who want lower taxes and less regulation, that's built into the nature of having more and the desire to control it rather than give it to a government. IT IS NOT EVIL.

Accept that concept and you know why I believe the Democrat Party must be a welcoming home for the Capitalist Risk Takers, without any acrimony or embarrassment, but with open arms and respect for what they've accomplished with their lives.

Peter K. : , November 17, 2016 at 07:52 AM
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/why-liberals-should-support-a-trump-nomination.html

Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination

By Jonathan Chait

February 5, 2016
8:54 a.m.

The initial stupefaction and dismay with which liberals greeted Donald Trump's candidacy have slowly given way to feelings of Schadenfreude- reveling in the suffering of others, in this case the apoplectic members of the Republican Establishment. Are such feelings morally wrong? Or can liberals enjoy the spectacle unleavened by guilt? As Republican voters start actually voting, is it okay to be sad - alarmed, even - by the prospect that the Trump hostile takeover of the GOP may fail?

There are three reasons, in descending order of obviousness, for a liberal to earnestly and patriotically support a Trump Republican nomination. The first, of course, is that he would almost certainly lose. Trump's ability to stay atop the polls for months, even as critics predicted his demise, has given him an aura of voodoo magic that frightens some Democrats. But whatever wizardry Trump has used to defy the laws of political gravity has worked only within his party. Among the electorate as a whole, he is massively - indeed, historically - unpopular, with unfavorable ratings now hovering around 60 percent and a public persona almost perfectly designed to repel the Obama coalition: racial minorities, single women, and college-educated whites. It would take a landscape-altering event like a recession for him to win; even that might not be enough.

Second, a Trump nomination might upend his party. The GOP is a machine that harnesses ethno-nationalistic fear - of communists, criminals, matrimonial gays, terrorists, snooty cultural elites - to win elections and then, once in office, caters to its wealthy donor base. (This is why even a social firebrand like Ted Cruz would privately assure the billionaire investor Paul Singer that he wasn't particularly concerned about gay-marriage laws.) As its voting base has lost college-­educated voters and gained blue-collar whites, the fissure between the means by which Republicans attain power and the ends they pursue once they have it has widened.

What has most horrified conservative activists about Trump's rise is how little he or his supporters seem to care about their anti-government ideology. When presented with the candidate's previous support for higher taxes on the rich or single-payer insurance, heresies of the highest order, Trump fans merely shrug. During this campaign, Trump has mostly conformed to party doctrine, but without much conviction. Trump does not mouth the rote conservative formulation that government is failing because it can't work and that the solution is to cut it down to size. Instead, he says it is failing because it is run by idiots and that the solution is for it to instead be run by Trump. About half of Republicans favor higher taxes on the rich, a position that has zero representation among their party's leaders. And those Republicans are the most likely to support Trump.

Trump's candidacy represents, among other things, a revolt by the Republican proletariat against its master class. That is why National Review devoted a cover editorial and 22 columns to denouncing Trump as a heretic to the conservative movement. A Trump nomination might not actually cleave the GOP in two, but it could wreak havoc. If, like me, you think the Republican Party in its current incarnation needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt anew, Trump is the only one holding a match.

The third reason to prefer a Trump nomination: If he does win, a Trump presidency would probably wind up doing less harm to the country than a Marco Rubio or a Cruz presidency. It might even, possibly, do some good.

The Trump campaign may feel like an off-the-grid surrealistic nightmare, The Man in the High Castle meets Idiocracy. But something like it has happened before. Specifically, it happened in California, a place where things often happen before they happen to the rest of us, in 2003, when Arnold Schwarzenegger won the governorship. At the time, the prospect of Schwarzenegger governing America's largest state struck many of us as just as ghastly as the idea of a Trump presidency seems now. Like Trump, Schwarzenegger came directly to politics from the celebrity world without bothering to inform himself about public policy. He campaigned as a vacuous Man of Action in opposition to the Politicians, breezing by all the specifics as the petty obsessions of his inferiors.

...

Pinkybum -> Peter K.... , November 17, 2016 at 09:04 AM
I think the takeaway is that Republican politicians lie and lie and lie and lie even about recent history. The exasperating thing to me is the complete inability of a Democratic politician to effectively counter these lies with facts. I wasn't that impressed with Sanders ability to argue effectively to be honest.

My mind goes back to the abortion question in the last debate. Trump's accusation that Clinton wanted to rip babies out of mother's wombs at 9 months has no basis in medical science or actual practice. However, despite being someone who should be an "expert" on women's issues could not articulate accurately how medically preposterous this notion was or even the facts behind late term abortions and why women need them at all. Surely a politician of Clinton's "skill" would at least have an anecdote ready about a woman who had a late-term abortion.

Peter K. -> Pinkybum... , November 17, 2016 at 09:38 AM
" The exasperating thing to me is the complete inability of a Democratic politician to effectively counter these lies with facts. "

Yes but the election isn't just about that. Hillary was the establishment candidate and the establishment isn't delivering. Trump was the outsider - he took over the Republican party - and it didn't matter that he lies or is obnoxious to a certain type of voter.

I think either Sanders or Obama would have won.

Pinkybum -> Peter K.... , November 17, 2016 at 10:14 AM
Obama is the establishment candidate. However, Obama has charisma and I think we need more politicians like this. I'm past caring whether or not they are great at policy (apparently Hillary was and she still couldn't argue effectively against Trump!) I want someone who can effectively argue the case for progressive policies. We know progressive policies are the right ones we just need someone who can fight for those policies. They need an encyclopedic knowledge of the shit Republicans have done, why it is wrong and how progressive policies have worked for the betterment of the 99 percent.
Peter K. -> Pinkybum... , November 17, 2016 at 10:48 AM
Obama campaigned on hope and change, not that everything is great and shut up and don't complain. Plus he didn't have scandals hanging over him.

My basic point is that center-left pundits like Chait were very wrong about Trump and the election. They were probably wrong about Sanders as well.

RGC : , November 17, 2016 at 09:12 AM
November 15, 2016
The Roosevelt Institute

The unheard winning and bold economic agenda
Findings from Roosevelt Institute's Election night survey
....................
Economic change election and the working class vote

Throughout this election cycle, polling conducted on behalf of the Roosevelt Institute and others revealed the potential of a "rewrite the rules" narrative, message and bold policy agenda to win broad and deep public support. It fit the times where voters wanted change and were tired of corporate interests dominating politics at the expense of the middle class.

It was also appealing to swing groups including white college graduates and white working class women. True, Trump always enjoyed big margins among the white working class men who identified with him, and they turned out for him early and in growing numbers. But there were points where Clinton was outperforming Obama with white working class women.

The data does not support that idea that the white working class was inevitably lost, as polls showed fairly resilient support with white working class women, until the Clinton campaign stopped talking about economic change and asked people to vote for unity, temperament and experience and to continue on President Obama's progress. As we shall see, both the Democratic base and white working class voters are struggling economically and would demand change in their own ways.

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Dcor_PE_RTR_Ealert_11.15.2016_for-release.pdf

RGC -> RGC... , November 17, 2016 at 09:27 AM
Three Myths About Clinton's Defeat in Election 2016 Debunked

Posted on November 14, 2016
By Lambert Strether

This post is not an explainer about why and how Clinton lost (and Trump won). I think we're going to be sorting that out for awhile. Rather, it's a simple debunking of common talking points by Clinton loyalists and Democrat Establishment operatives; the sort of talking point you might hear on Twitter, entirely shorn of caveats and context. For each of the three talking points, I'll present an especially egregious version of the myth, followed by a rebuttal.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/11/three-myths-about-clintons-defeat-in-election-2016-debunked.html

Tom aka Rusty -> RGC... , November 17, 2016 at 09:46 AM
In Michigan and Ohio HRC was known as "Mrs. NAFTA."

Probably not fair, but what about politics is fair?

Pinkybum -> Tom aka Rusty... , November 17, 2016 at 12:31 PM
Clinton's responses to the charges about NAFTA were incredibly weak. This is strange considering she must have known that topic was going to be raised - why was she so unprepared?
ilsm -> Pinkybum... , November 17, 2016 at 01:05 PM
The dead did not vote enough in Pa. Oh, Wi, Fl, etc

She presumed the DNC could fix all those states.

Pinkybum -> ilsm... , November 17, 2016 at 03:21 PM
Did the dead also tell pollsters they were going to vote Democrat?
Tom aka Rusty -> Pinkybum... , November 17, 2016 at 01:07 PM
Lots of Dem post mortems reported in various media.

Interesting for us sideline players.

Peter K. : , November 17, 2016 at 09:34 AM
http://theweek.com/articles/661872/why-hillary-clinton-lost

Why Hillary Clinton lost

by Ryan Cooper

Nov. 16, 2016

llary Clinton was an extraordinarily terrible candidate for the Democrats to run in 2016.

Donald Trump's approval rating is 38 percent. President Obama's just bumped up to 57 percent. No amount of furious dissembling from humiliated Clinton partisans will convince me that Obama - and very probably Bernie Sanders* - wouldn't have beaten Trump handily.

So what gives?

Let me start by noting that the overall polls were off, but not by that much. They predicted a Clinton victory by about about 3 points. And in the popular vote, that prediction was reasonably close. Clinton is ahead by a bit less than 1 percent nationally, with many votes still to count.

What tipped the election was about 100,000 votes spread across just three states: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Here's where the polls did seriously botch things. Trump won these states by 1, 0.3, and 1.2 points respectively (assuming the close result in Michigan holds). The poll averages showed Clinton winning these states by roughly 6 points, 3 to 7 points, and 2 to 5 points respectively, depending on who you ask.

Some people did correctly point to this outcome being a possibility. Remarkably, most of them relied heavily on gut-check analysis. Zach Carter and Ryan Grim wrote way back in February that Trump could win by peeling off Rust Belt states, based on little more than intuitions about trade and general voting patterns. Michael Moore hypothesized something similar. Nathan J. Robinson wrote around the same time that Clinton would lose because she is a wooden, uninspiring campaigner who was almost uniquely vulnerable to Trump-style attacks on character and integrity.

Van Jones was perhaps most prescient of all. In June, he argued that Trump would not gaffe himself out of the election, because outrageous statements help him get attention on social media; that tut-tutting about his lack of realistic policy would not work, because voters neither know nor care about that; and that he could potentially win over Rust Belt whites attracted to Trump's anti-trade messaging, because "we're not paying attention to a big chunk of America that is hurting - that would accept any change, the bigger the better."

With the benefit of hindsight, I think we can add a couple more factors to the pile. First is the self-deception of the Clinton campaign and its media sycophants. She did not visit Wisconsin at all between April and the election, and largely abandoned Obama's working-class message from 2012 in favor of portraying Trump as a dangerous, woman-hating maniac.

They were enabled in this by pro-Clinton publications, which churned out endless slavish portrayals of Clinton as some kind of wizard of politics and policy, whose grasp of fine detail would surely deliver the electoral goods. In fact, it turned out that her vaunted algorithm-driven turnout machine was contacting tons of Trump voters. Paul Romer points to the problem of "mathiness" in economics, where complicated and intimidating theoretical symbolism is built up without establishing clear linkages to the real world. Lots of computers, theories, and datasets might be the most sophisticated way to attack voter turnout, or it might be a way to simply appear sophisticated while dismissing people whose ideas don't come packaged with a science-y veneer. (Something similar seems to have happened to the wonky election-simulator people.)

Then there is the Clintons' omnipresent aura of scandal and corruption, which is about 50 percent unfair double standard and 50 percent totally their fault. The political media has been obsessed with the Clintons for 20 years to a frankly psychotic degree, particularly given how much worse the stories about Trump were. On the other hand, the Clintons enable that coverage with a paranoid and secretive attitude, and an obvious hatred of the press. The Clinton Foundation coverage was unfair compared to the much worse Trump Foundation, but then again, there was some genuinely skeezy stuff in there. There's a good chance that FBI Director James Comey's vague letter about emails to congressional Republicans, which led to an extremely ill-timed media firestorm, tipped the election to Trump. But then again, she might have avoided the whole story by following the dang rules in the first place.

I always assumed that if Clinton were nominated for president, the race would be dominated by some weird quasi-scandal that dragged on for month after month. It's not fair, but it is simply the reality of the Clintons. At some point, one simply has to take that into account.

That brings me to a final point: Clinton's general political affect. She is not a great campaigner (by her own admission), a rather robotic speaker, and most of all, a dynasty politician who very obviously got the nomination because the party elite cleared the decks for her. Given how the party has evolved, her political history was filled with devastating indictments of her judgment and priorities. Even after getting a reasonably good party platform (after just barely beating back about the most unlikely primary challenger imaginable), she was a non-credible vehicle for it. Without Obama's mesmerizing charisma and political energy, her image was defined by things like taking millions of dollars for secret speeches to Wall Street banks and refusing to release the transcripts. She simply was not a good fit for the party, and a terrible avatar of the party in a country furious at self-dealing elite institutions of all kinds.

Hillary Clinton was a heavily compromised candidate and bad campaigner who grossly misjudged the political terrain, and thus bled just enough of the Obama coalition to let Trump sneak past. If we ever get to vote again, let's hope the party learns from this epic disaster.

And that, now, is the key question: Where do the Democrats go from here?

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/10/hillary-clinton-lost-bernie-sanders-could-have-won/?utm_term=.92d64f147de5

ilsm -> Peter K.... , November 17, 2016 at 01:06 PM
the split is 23%, 23% and 4% of registered voters. 50% sat it out.
RGC : , November 17, 2016 at 09:42 AM
Reading Keynes - Part 3
L3 Impact of Keynes

This 1000 word article traces the impact of Keynesian theories on the 20th century.

The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has created awareness of the great gap between academic models and reality. IMF Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard said that modern DSGE macroeconomic models currently used for policy decisions are based on assumptions which are profoundly at odds with what we know about consumers and firms. More than seven different schools of macroeconomic thought contend with each other, without coming to agreement on any fundamental issue. This bears a striking resemblance to the post-Depression era when Keynes set out to resolve the "deep divergences of opinion between fellow economists which have for the time being almost destroyed the practical influence of economic theory."

Likewise, today, the inability of mainstream economists to predict, understand, explain, or find remedies for the Global Financial Crisis, has deeply damaged the reputation of economists and economic theories. Recently, World Bank Chief Economist Paul Romer stated that for more than three decades, macroeconomics has gone backwards. Since modern macroeconomics bears a strong resemblance to pre-Keynesian theories, Keynesian theories have fresh relevance, as described below.

In the aftermath of the Great Depression, economic misery was a major factor which led to the Russian Revolution and the rise of Hitler in Germany. Conventional economic theory held that market forces would automatically and quickly correct the temporary disequilibrium of high unemployment and low production in Europe and USA. Keynes argued that high unemployment could persist, and government interventions in the form of active monetary and fiscal policy were required to correct the economic problems. Many have suggested that Keynes rescued Capitalism by providing governments with rationale to intervene on behalf of the workers, thereby preventing socialist or communist revolutions. There is no doubt that strong and powerful labor movements in Europe and USA derived strength from the economic misery of the masses, and also took inspiration from the pro-labor and anti-capitalist theories of Marx. While it is hard to be sure whether Keynes saved capitalism, we can be very sure that Keynes and Keynesian theories were extremely influential in shaping the economic landscapes of the 20th Century.

Keynes actually met Roosevelt (FDR) to try to persuade him of the necessity of an aggressive fiscal policy and of running budget deficits, in order to lift the US economy out of recession. He was only partially successful. FDR, like nearly all political leaders as well as economists of the time, was convinced of the necessity of balancing budgets: this is the same 'austerity' being touted today as the cure for economic problems. Leading economists like Lionel Robinson and Friedrich Hayek argued in favor of austerity, and said that Keynesian remedies were dangerously wrong. They held the view that the Great Depression had been caused by excessively easy monetary policies in the pre-Depression period, and Keynesian interventions in the form of further easy monetary and fiscal policies would only prolong the agony.

FDR was not quite convinced by Keynes, but was politically savvy enough to announce that he would not balance the budget on the backs of the American people. Accordingly, he did go against his personal convictions, as well as his campaign promises of balancing the budget, which he believed to be a sound and necessary economic policy. Keynes felt that the economic policies of FDR were timid and hesitant, and prolonged the recession un-necessarily. In light of contemporary experience of the tremendously aggressive expansionary monetary policy in the post-GFC era, we can see that bolder steps by FDR would not have caused the harms that he was afraid of. In fact, after the economy recovered somewhat, FDR went back to conventional wisdom and started reducing budget deficits in 1936. This created a mini-recession which has been labelled the "Roosevelt Recession of 1937". Duly chastened, FDR embraced Keynesian policies with greater conviction, and increased deficit spending right up to the second World War. It was the effectiveness of Keynesian policies that led even arch-enemy Friedman to state that "We are all Keynesians now," though he later recanted. Indeed, he master-minded the Monetarist counter-revolution in the 1970's which eventually led to a rejection of Keynesian insights, and a return to the pre-Keynesian ideas of austerity as a cure for recessions. Forgetting the hard-learned lessons of Keynes led to a recurrence of problems very similar to those faced by Keynes in the form of GFC 2007.

Following the GFC, there has been a resurgence of interest in Keynes and Keynesian Theories. In the "Return of Depression Economics", Krugman argued for the continuing relevance of Keynes, and stated that we could end the Great Recession immediately by implementing Keynesian policies. China implemented Keynesian policies, and used a fiscal stimulus of $586 billion spread over two years, to successfully combat the global recession created by the GFC. Unlike countries forced to implement austerity, which further wrecked their economies, the Chinese economy was able to perform well in the aftermath of the GFC. The Shanghai index had been falling sharply since the September 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, but the decline was halted when news of the planned stimulus leaked in late October. The day after the stimulus was officially announced, the Shanghai index immediately rose by 7.3%, followed by sustained growth. Speaking at the 2010 Summer Davos, Premier Wen Jiabao also credited the Keynesian fiscal stimulus for good performance of the Chinese economy over the two years following the GFC.

Meanwhile, even IMF acknowledged the failure of austerity, the anti-thesis of the Keynesian policy. Massive damage was caused to Greece, Ireland, Portugal and other economies which were forced to tighten budgets in response to the recession. In the see-saw battle between Keynesians and Monetarists, after three decades of darkness, the Keynesian star seems to be rising. Strange as it may seem, many fundamental insights of Keynes were never actually absorbed by conventional economists. Keynes himself said that he had the greatest difficulty in escaping the habits of thought created by an economics education. Mainstream economists never made this escape. As a result, Keynesian theories remain an undiscovered treasure offering deep insights into current economic conditions.

https://sites.google.com/site/21stcenturymacroeconomics/keynes/l3

Fred C. Dobbs : , November 17, 2016 at 10:25 AM
The Glaring Contradiction at the Heart of Donald Trump's
Economic Policy http://nyti.ms/2eJFsw4 via @UpshotNYT
NYT - Neil Irwin - November 17

Campaign promises are easy. Governing is hard.

It is a truism that Donald J. Trump and his team will soon learn. And a fascinating example has emerged since the election, courtesy of global currency markets. It is a study in the kind of complex trade-offs that Mr. Trump rarely grappled with during his campaign but will face many times a day in the Oval Office.

A centerpiece of Mr. Trump's campaign was the United States' trade deficits. He pledged to eliminate them and create a resurgence in American manufacturing.

He has also pledged tax cuts, infrastructure spending and deregulation. That set of policies has led markets to expect speedier economic growth and thus higher interest rates in coming years. That, in turn, is driving the value of the dollar higher on currency markets. Since Election Day, the dollar is up 2.6 percent against an index of six other major currencies. The value of the Mexican peso has fallen 10 percent against the dollar, a remarkable swing for the United States' third-largest trading partner.

You don't need to be an economist to see what that means: A pricier dollar makes it harder for American manufacturers to compete overseas; it gives an advantage to companies that locate operations elsewhere; and it will, all else being equal, tend to make the trade deficit higher rather than lower.

This is not to suggest that the shift in the currency so far is a major disaster for American manufacturers and other exporters (though those that ship their goods to Mexico will feel the brunt of it). There was a bigger rise in the dollar in 2014 and 2015 that damaged export sectors even more.
Photo

A board displaying the exchange rate for the Mexican peso and the dollar in a bank in Mexico City this week. Credit Henry Romero/Reuters

But let's imagine that Mr. Trump follows through on the policy mix he's hinted at so far: a combination of loose fiscal policy (think more spending on defense and infrastructure, and tax cuts) and tighter monetary policy (the Federal Reserve raising interest rates faster than
had seemed likely before the election). At that point, the dollar could move more decisively higher, creating a tension that the president and his advisers would have to resolve one way or the other.

As a rule of thumb, said Joseph Gagnon, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a 10 percent rise in the dollar would be expected to increase the current account deficit (a broader concept than trade deficit, but closely related) by 1 to 1.5 percent of G.D.P. in the ensuing two to three years.

In that scenario, Mr. Trump's pledge to eliminate the $500 billion United States trade deficit would have just become $180 billion to $270 billion harder.

This is the kind of dilemma presidents face all the time. The Oval Office debate might go something like this: The Commerce Secretary complains, "Mr. President, this strong dollar is just killing our manufacturers; they can't compete with this kind of appreciation." The Treasury Secretary, who is in charge of the currency, responds, "It's a necessary evil, Mr. President; our economy is booming so much that global investors just can't get enough of United States assets."

When there are these kinds of disputes, the president has to decide. And when a president tries to find a solution that answers both concerns, there are always complex ripples. For example, "let's appoint Fed officials who will cut interest rates" might temporarily let you have both a booming domestic economy and a competitive export sector, but would mean an increase in inflation - which will make both the bond market and many retired Americans living on fixed incomes unhappy.

The tension between currency policy and trade policy is just one example. Mr. Trump's promises to repeal Obamacare while keeping some of its most popular features would be hard to carry out in practice. Virtually every issue in tax policy, diplomacy and regulatory policy features similar complex trade-offs.

None of this is to say that these tensions are unsolvable, or that Mr. Trump won't overcome his lack of a policy background to arrive at good solutions. But he will almost certainly find out soon that "Make America Great Again" is a slogan, not an answer.

RGC : , November 17, 2016 at 10:39 AM
Jo Michell

Economics, Ideology and Trump

So the post-mortem begins. Much electronic ink has already been spilled and predictable fault lines have emerged. Debate rages in particular on the question of whether Trump's victory was driven by economic factors. Like Duncan Weldon, I think Torsten Bell gets it about right – economics is an essential part of the story even if the complete picture is more complex.

Neoliberalism is a word I usually try to avoid. It's often used by people on the left as an easy catch-all to avoid engaging with difficult issues. Broadly speaking, however, it provides a short-hand for the policy status quo over the last thirty years or so: free movement of goods, labour and capital, fiscal conservatism, rules-based monetary policy, deregulated finance and a preference for supply-side measures in the labour market.
Some will argue this consensus has nothing to with the rise of far-right populism. I disagree. Both economics and economic policy have brought us here.

But to what extent has academic economics provided the basis for neoliberal policy? The question had been in my mind even before the Trump and Brexit votes. A few months back, Duncan Weldon posed the question, 'whatever happened to deficit bias?' In my view, the responses at the time missed the mark. More recently, Ann Pettifor and Simon Wren Lewis have been discussing the relationship between ideology, economics and fiscal austerity.
I have great respect for Simon – especially his efforts to combat the false media narratives around austerity. But I don't think he gets it right on economics and ideology. His argument is that in a standard model – a sticky-price DSGE system – fiscal policy should be used when nominal rates are at the zero lower bound. Post-2008 austerity policies are therefore at odds with the academic consensus.
This is correct in simple terms, but I think misses the bigger picture of what academic economics has been saying for the last 30 years. To explain, I need to recap some history.

Fiscal policy as a macroeconomic management tool is associated with the ideas of Keynes. Against the academic consensus of his day, he argued that the economy could get stuck in periods of demand deficiency characterised by persistent involuntary unemployment. The monetarist counter-attack was led by Milton Friedman – who denied this possibility. In the long run, he argued, the economy has a 'natural' rate of unemployment to which it will gravitate automatically (the mechanism still remains to be explained). Any attempt to use activist fiscal or monetary policy to reduce unemployment below this natural rate will only lead to higher inflation. This led to the bitter disputes of the 1960s and 70s between Keynesians and Monetarists. The Monetarists emerged as victors – at least in the eyes of the orthodoxy – with the inflationary crises of the 1970s. This marks the beginning of the end for fiscal policy in the history of macroeconomics.

In Friedman's world, short-term macro policy could be justified in a deflationary situation as a way to help the economy back to its 'natural' state. But, for Friedman, macro policy means monetary policy. In line with the doctrine that the consumer always knows best, government spending was proscribed as distortionary and inefficient. For Friedman, the correct policy response to deflation is a temporary increase in the rate of growth of the money supply.
It's hard to view Milton Friedman's campaign against Keynes as disconnected from ideological influence. Friedman's role in the Mont Pelerin society is well documented. This group of economic liberals, led by Friedrich von Hayek, formed after World War II with the purpose of opposing the move towards collectivism of which Keynes was a leading figure. For a time at least, the group adopted the term 'neoliberal' to describe their political philosophy. This was an international group of economists whose express purpose was to influence politics and politicians – and they were successful.

Hayek's thesis – which acquires a certain irony in light of Trump's ascent – was that collectivism inevitably leads to authoritarianism and fascism. Friedman's Chicago economics department formed one point in a triangular alliance with Lionel Robbins' LSE in London, and Hayek's fellow Austrians in Vienna. While in the 1930s, Friedman had expressed support for the New Deal, by the 1950s he had swung sharply in the direction of economic liberalism. As Brad Delong puts it:
by the early 1950s, his respect for even the possibility of government action was gone. His grudging approval of the New Deal was gone, too: Those elements that weren't positively destructive were ineffective, diverting attention from what Friedman now believed would have cured the Great Depression, a substantial expansion of the money supply. The New Deal, Friedman concluded, had been 'the wrong cure for the wrong disease.'

While Friedman never produced a complete formal model to describe his macroeconomic vision, his successor at Chicago, Robert Lucas did – the New Classical model. (He also successfully destroyed the Keynesian structural econometric modelling tradition with his 'Lucas critique'.) Lucas' New Classical colleagues followed in his footsteps, constructing an even more extreme version of the model: the so-called Real Business Cycle model. This simply assumes a world in which all markets work perfectly all of the time, and the single infinitely lived representative agent, on average, correctly predicts the future.
This is the origin of the 'policy ineffectiveness hypothesis' – in such a world, government becomes completely impotent. Any attempt at deficit spending will be exactly matched by a corresponding reduction in private spending – the so-called Ricardian Equivalence hypothesis. Fiscal policy has no effect on output and employment. Even monetary policy becomes totally ineffective: if the central bank chooses to loosen monetary policy, the representative agent instantly and correctly predicts higher inflation and adjusts her behaviour accordingly.

This vision, emerging from a leading centre of conservative thought, is still regarded by the academic economics community as a major scientific step forward. Simon describes it as `a progressive research programme'.
What does all this have to with the current status quo? The answer is that this model – with one single modification – is the 'standard model' which Simon and others point to when they argue that economics has no ideological bias. The modification is that prices in the goods market are slow to adjust to changes in demand. As a result, Milton Friedman's result that policy is effective in the short run is restored. The only substantial difference to Friedman's model is that the policy tool is the rate of interest, not the money supply. In a deflationary situation, the central bank should cut the nominal interest rate to raise demand and assist the automatic but sluggish transition back to the `natural' rate of unemployment.

So what of Duncan's question: what happened to deficit bias? – this refers to the assertion in economics textbooks that there will always be a tendency for governments to allow deficits to increase. The answer is that it was written out of the textbooks decades ago – because it is simply taken as given that fiscal policy is not the correct tool.
To check this, I went to our university library and looked through a selection of macroeconomics textbooks. Mankiw's 'Macroeconomics' is probably the mostly widely used. I examined the 2007 edition – published just before the financial crisis. The chapter on 'Stabilisation Policy' dispenses with fiscal policy in half a page – a case study of Romer's critique of Keynes is presented under the heading 'Is the Stabilization of the Economy a Figment of the Data?' The rest of the chapter focuses on monetary policy: time inconsistency, interest rate rules and central bank independence. The only appearance of the liquidity trap and the zero lower bound is in another half-page box, but fiscal policy doesn't get a mention.
The post-crisis twelfth edition of Robert Gordon's textbook does include a chapter on fiscal policy – entitled `The Government Budget, the Government Debt and the Limitations of Fiscal Policy'. While Gordon acknowledges that fiscal policy is an option during strongly deflationary periods when interest rates are at the zero lower bound, most of the chapter is concerned with the crowding out of private investment, the dangers of government debt and the conditions under which governments become insolvent. Of the textbooks I examined, only Blanchard's contained anything resembling a balanced discussion of fiscal policy.

So, in Duncan's words, governments are 'flying a two engined plane but choosing to use only one motor' not just because of media bias, an ill-informed public and misguided politicians – Simon's explanation – but because they are doing what the macro textbooks tell them to do.

The reason is that the standard New Keynesian model is not a Keynesian model at all – it is a monetarist model. Aside from the mathematical sophistication, it is all but indistinguishable from Milton Friedman's ideologically-driven description of the macroeconomy. In particular, Milton Friedman's prohibition of fiscal policy is retained with – in more recent years – a caveat about the zero-lower bound (Simon makes essentially the same point about fiscal policy here).

It's therefore odd that when Simon discusses the relationship between ideology and economics he chooses to draw a dividing line between those who use a sticky-price New Keynesian DSGE model and those who use a flexible-price New Classical version. The beliefs of the latter group are, Simon suggests, ideological, while those of the former group are based on ideology-free science. This strikes me as arbitrary. Simon's justification is that, despite the evidence, the RBC model denies the possibility of involuntary unemployment. But the sticky-price version – which denies any role for inequality, finance, money, banking, liquidity, default, long-run unemployment, the use of fiscal policy away from the ZLB, supply-side hysteresis effects and plenty else besides – is acceptable. He even goes so far as to say 'I have no problem seeing the RBC model as a flex-price NK model' – even the RBC model is non-ideological so long as the hierarchical framing is right.
Even Simon's key distinction – the New Keynesian model allows for involuntary unemployment – is open to question. Keynes' definition of involuntary unemployment is that there exist people willing and able to work at the going wage who are unable to find employment. On this definition the New Keynesian model falls short – in the face of a short-run demand shortage caused by sticky prices the representative agent simply selects a new optimal labour supply. Workers are never off their labour supply curve. In the Smets Wouters model – a very widely used New Keynesian DSGE model – the labour market is described as follows: 'household j chooses hours worked Lt(j)'. It is hard to reconcile involuntary unemployment with households choosing how much labour they supply.

What of the position taken by the profession in the wake of 2008? Reinhart and Rogoff's contribution is by now infamous. Ann also draws attention to the 2010 letter signed by 20 top-ranking economists – including Rogoff – demanding austerity in the UK. Simon argues that Ann overlooks the fact that '58 equally notable economists signed a response arguing the 20 were wrong'.
It is difficult to agree that the signatories to the response letter, organised by Lord Skidelsky, are 'equally notable'. Many are heterodox economists – critics of standard macroeconomics. Those mainstream economists on the list hold positions at lower-ranking institutions than the 20. I know many of the 58 personally – I know none of the 20. Simon notes:
Of course those that signed the first letter, and in particular Ken Rogoff, turned out to be a more prominent voice in the subsequent debate, but that is because he supported what policymakers were doing. He was mostly useful rather than influential.
For Simon, causality is unidirectional: policy-makers cherry-pick academic economics to fit their purpose but economists have no influence on policy. This seems implausible. It is undoubtedly true that pro-austerity economists provided useful cover for small-state ideologues like George Osborne. But the parallels between policy and academia are too strong for the causality to be unidirectional.

Osborne's small state ideology is a descendent of Thatcherism – the point when neoliberalism first replaced Keynesianism. Is it purely coincidence that the 1980s was also the high-point for extreme free market Chicago economics such as Real Business Cycle models?
The parallel between policy and academia continues with the emergence of the sticky-price New Keynesian version as the 'standard' model in the 90s alongside the shift to the third way of Blair and Clinton. Blairism represents a modified, less extreme, version of Thatcherism. The all-out assault on workers and the social safety net was replaced with 'workfare' and 'flexicurity'.

A similar story can be told for international trade, as laid out in this excellent piece by Martin Sandbu. In the 1990s, just as the 'heyday of global trade integration was getting underway', economists were busy making the case that globalisation had no negative implications for employment or inequality in rich nations. To do this, they came up with the 'skill-biased technological change' (SBTC) hypothesis. This states that as technology advances and the potential for automation grows, the demand for high-skilled labour increases. This introduces the hitch that higher educational standards are required before the gains from automation can be felt by those outside the top income percentiles. This leads to a `race between education and technology' – a race which technology was winning, leading to weaker demand for middle and low-skill workers and rising 'skill premiums' for high skilled workers as a result.
Writing in the Financial Times shortly before the financial crisis, Jagdish Bagwati argued that those who looked to globalisation as an explanation for increasing inequality were misguided:
The culprit is not globalization but labour-saving technical change that puts pressure on the wages of the unskilled. Technical change prompts continual economies in the use of unskilled labour. Much empirical argumentation and evidence exists on this. (FT, January 4, 2007, p. 11)
As Krugman put it:
The hypothesis that technological change, by raising the demand for skill, has led to growing inequality is so widespread that at conferences economists often use the abbreviation SBTC – skill-biased technical change – without explanation, assuming that their listeners know what they are talking about (p. 132)
Over the course of his 2007 book, Krugman sets out on a voyage of discovery – 'That, more or less, is the story I believed when I began working on this book' (p. 6). He arrives at the astonishing conclusion – '[i]t sounds like economic heresy' (p. 7) – that politics can influence inequality:
[I]nstitutions, norms and the political environment matter a lot more for the distribution of income – and impersonal market forces matter less – than Economics 101 might lead you to believe (p. 8)

The idea that rising pay at the top of the scale mainly reflect social and political change, strikes some people as too much at odds with Economics 101.
If a left-leaning Nobel prize-winning economist has trouble escaping from the confines of Economics 101, what hope for the less sophisticated mind?
As deindustrialisation rolled through the advanced economies, wiping out jobs and communities, economists continued to deny any role for globalisation. As Martin Sandbu argues,

The blithe unconcern displayed by the economics profession and the political elites about whether trade was causing deindustrialisation, social exclusion and rising inequality has begun to seem Pollyannish at best, malicious at worst. Kevin O'Rourke, the Irish economist, and before him Lawrence Summers, former US Treasury Secretary, have called this "the Davos lie."

For mainstream macroeconomists, inequality was not a subject of any real interest. While the explanation for inequality lay in the microeconomics – the technical forms of production functions – and would be solved by increasing educational attainment, in macroeconomic terms, the use of a representative agent and an aggregate production function simply assumed the problem away. As Stiglitz puts it:
[I]f the distribution of income (say between labor and capital) matters, for example, for aggregate demand and therefore for employment and output, then using an aggregate Cobb-Douglas production function which, with competition, implies that the share of labor is fixed, is not going to be helpful. (p.596)
Robert Lucas summed up his position as follows: 'Of the tendencies that are harmful to sound economics, the most seductive, and in my opinion the most poisonous, is to focus on questions of distribution.' It is hard to view this statement as more strongly informed by science than ideology.
But while economists were busy assuming away inequality in their models, incomes continued to diverge in most advanced economies. It was only with the publication of Piketty's book that the economics profession belatedly began to turn its back on Lucas.

The extent to which economic insecurity in the US and the UK is driven by globalisation versus policy is still under discussion – my answer would be that it is a combination of both – but the skill-biased technical change hypothesis looks to be a dead end – and a costly one at that.
Similar stories can be told about the role of household debt, finance, monetary theory and labour bargaining power and monopoly – why so much academic focus on 'structural reform' in the labour market but none on anti-trust policy? Heterodox economists were warning about the connections between finance, globalisation, current account imbalances, inequality, household debt and economic insecurity in the decades before the crisis. These warnings were dismissed as unscientific – in favour of a model which excluded all of these things by design.
Are economic factors – and economic policy – partly to blame for the Brexit and Trump votes? And are academic economists, at least in part, to blame for these polices? The answer to both questions is yes. To argue otherwise is to deny Keynes' dictum that 'the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood.'
This quote, 'mounted and framed, takes pride of place in the entrance hall of the Institute for Economic Affairs' – the think-tank founded, with Hayek's encouragement, by Anthony Fisher, as a way to promote and promulgate the ideas of the Mont Pelerin Society. The Institute was a success. Fisher was, in the words of Milton Friedman, 'the single most important person in the development of Thatcherism'.
The rest, it seems, is history.

https://criticalfinance.org/2016/11/15/economics-ideology-and-trump/

ilsm : , November 17, 2016 at 01:13 PM
A feat Goebbels could hardly pull off.

Obomber's new conference with Ms. Merkel. The peace prize winner who ordered 25000 bombing sorties in 2015 against places US is not warring against.

Per Obomber Assad caused all that suffering in Syria, despite US arming al Qaeda since 2010 to replace him with the kind of guys who rammed a bayonet through Qaddafi's rectum, and sending assassinated Qaddafi's weaponry through Benghazi at the time Clinton got her envoy killed there.

The greater threat to American democracy is the bizarre world of the US fighting for the Sunnis in the middle east. Also known as Obomber's Stalinist definitions of atrocities versus fictions about fascists.

Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm... , November 17, 2016 at 02:22 PM
Why would one of Qadaffi's own
citizens do such a nasty deed on the
sadly misunderstood guy who brought down
Pan Am flight #103 over Lockerbie Scotland
killing 259 passenger & crew, previously
killing three people & injuring around
230 in La Belle discothčque in Berlin,
& why do you keep bringing this up?)
im1dc : , November 17, 2016 at 01:20 PM
Predictions for a Trump Presidency from a black Democrat woman activist

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/17/president-elect-donald-trump-gets-to-work-betraying-his-backers.html

"President-Elect Donald Trump Gets to Work Betraying His Backers"

'Millions of voters who thought they'd elected a populist hero will soon find out that men who live in golden penthouses are rarely heroes'

by Joy-Ann Reid...11.17.16...1:00 AM ET

"I should probably get out of the predictions business, having so misjudged the country before the recent election. But I will hazard two more. The first: Donald Trump will turn on his supporters. The second: The Democrats will turn on theirs, too.

Trump got a head start this week, floating the names of Iraq war supporters and promoters of a grand, global war with Islam like John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani for the job of secretary of state. Trump voters who claimed that Hillary Clinton would bring on World War III might be surprised by some of the views of Clinton and John Kerry's likely successor (and Giuliani is a vigorous neocon, too.)

Trump is now part of a global ring of ethno-nationalist leaders of far-right parties in thrall to Vladimir Putin's Russia. National security experts are shuddering at the demeanor of the people surrounding the next president who are busy mounting what Republican leakers are calling a "Stalinesque purge" of the insufficiently loyal. With the transition team in chaos, and experienced hands reluctant to join such an administration, who knows what kind of bizarre cabinet he'll wind up assembling.

Meanwhile, to the extent that he is doing something other than trying to figure out what a president does Trump-or rather the people around him who know how to take advantage of an opportunity-are preparing to stack his team with Wall Street and big-business friendly insiders and establishment cronies poised to raid the treasury on behalf of the one percent.

Working-class voters who thought they'd elected a populist hero will soon find out that men who live in golden penthouses are rarely populists, and even more rarely heroic. Trump, who in his own history as a developer preferred mob concrete and Chinese steel to the variety produced in the Rust Belt, cannot bring back the steel and manufacturing jobs lost in Lorain, Ohio or western Pennsylvania. No president can force shuttered mills to reopen, or companies who've left in search of cheaper labor to relocate to the United States (or those who have come back to choose expensive humans over cheaper robots.) Even if he manages to slap massive tariffs on Chinese-made goods, the only outcome will be much higher prices at Wal-Mart.

Meanwhile, anyone still wondering why Paul Ryan quietly slipped on his MAGA cap during the election will soon understand. On the off chance Trump pulled off an improbable win, Ryan knew he would be on track to enact his life's dream: turning Medicare into a voucher program and forcing future of the most popular government program since Social Security into private insurance HMOs. According to Josh Marshall, who cites Ryan's own website, the "phasing out" of Medicare begins in March.

Trump's tax plan will sock it to single mothers, by ending the ability to file as head of household and thus raising taxes on unmarried filers. The tax hikes will be higher the more children you have. Anyone who doesn't itemize deductions will likely get a onetime check for a few hundred dollars, the way George W. Bush did his "middle class tax cut." Count that as bill money.

Trump's trade and immigration policies will deliver an economic shock to states like Texas where trade produces a substantial share of the jobs, and which depend on high oil prices. Trump's North Dakota pipeline (in which he is personally financially invested) will flood more oil onto an already glutted world market, further forcing down prices and putting both the Lone Star state in an unpleasant economic position.

But not to worry, Republicans have a fix, to ensure there is no voter backlash against them.

They are already preparing to reverse their opposition to earmarks, with three red state Senators (from Florida, Alabama and of course, Texas) pushing to revive the kind of spending that helps members go back to their districts with something to show for their time in Washington, and which long greased the skids of congress. You see, most in the GOP never really objected to government spending. They just objected to government spending that might make their constituents look more favorably on Barack Obama's tenure.

Also watch as the objections to raising the debt ceiling and to infrastructure spending-so vehement during the Obama years-vanish into thin air. This will be a big spending administration, with the full backing of congress. The small number of conservatives preparing to fight back are likely to cave, eventually, in the interests of party unity and maintaining total Republican control.

All the while, Trump fans can maintain their euphoria over taking America back from the multiculturalists, the politically correct, leftie Hollywood and Beyoncé, by purchasing clothing and jewelry from Ivanka Trump's retail line, which she'll dutifully model during television appearances, after which her staff will inform the media on where faithful followers can "shop the look." The Trump children, armed with security clearances and still in charge of the family business and the ephemeral "foundation" will be in a position to stuff the family coffers for four years, African dictator style, with the possible aid of information marked "secret" and thus unavailable to their competitors. And if you expect the fearsome House Republicans who hounded Hillary Clinton over her emails to lift a finger to investigate what already look to be spiraling conflicts of interest, you don't understand the Republican Party.

But it isn't just Trump who is poised to betray those who voted for him. Some Democrats and their allies are already rushing to get their Trump tattoos, knowing that the coming spending boom helps them too. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia excoriated Harry Reid, the out-going minority leader, who alone came out forthrightly to defend the black and brown women, men, children, businesses and even churches being brutalized by gleeful Trump supporters from the GOP's white supremacist wing, in cities around the country. Reid, whose Nevada Democratic Party operation was actually successful in the 2016 elections, including getting a Latina elected to his seat, has bravely called out the white nationalists and anti-Semites of the alt-right and stood against the normalization of people like soon-to-be Trump senior counselor Stephen Bannon. But Reid is a lonely voice standing athwart anti-history yelling, "stop," while his party and the mainstream media fall into a swoon of presidential succession pageantry.

Even Bernie Sanders couldn't rush fast enough to get on the Trump side of the line, declaring himself a member of the white working class (his and his wife's three homes and high six-figure income aside) and cautioning Democrats-who belong to a party of which he is still not a member-to start focusing on these voters too. Sanders ran a campaign that echoed Trump's in many ways; appealing to a majority white, populist audience that hated Hillary Clinton more than it disdained Republicans. A majority of Black Americans were unimpressed, which is why he didn't become the nominee, and they should be unsurprised that he is dropping them faster than he and his supporters wrote off "the South" as insignificant during the primary campaign.

Bernie is not alone. Think pieces are already being written admonishing Dems to throw black and brown, LGBT, Muslim and Hispanic voters and progressive women under the bus in favor of the never-ending chase for the Pabst Blue Ribbon vote. Democrats continue to practice "identity politics" at their peril, they say; demanding that issues around rape culture, Black Lives Matter and merciful immigration policy be scotched in favor of bucking up men, dialing back blunt talk on race, policing and DREAMers, and emphasizing things like border security. In other words, Democrats must learn to talk more like Republicans and marginalized groups must learn to be quiet. The party has been here before, and ironically, that kind of thinking is what produced Bill Clinton, whose surname, and wife, the very people hawking this prescription loathe.

The message to African-Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, LGBT people (well, mostly Trans folks, since Trump has declared his movement can live with "the gays") and women, who stand in the crosshairs of the coming "retail authoritarian" presidency, is that you're on your own. Your party will not come to your aid. They'll be too busy trying to ride the Trump train, or to least avoid being tied to the tracks and run over by it in the next election.

There are small green shoots of hope. The coming battle for DNC chair, which could come down to two black candidates: Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison and South Carolina Democratic Party chair Jamie Harrison, is a proxy for whether the party will push a message of Sandersian working class populism or press forward on the ongoing fight for racial justice, voting rights and the rights of the poor. Perhaps one of these men can help the party find a way to do both.

And despite her immediate statement of conciliation to Trump, one can only hope Elizabeth Warren will hold strong on issues concerning Wall Street, once Republicans begin the process of dismantling restrictions on bankers' worst practices, restoring the robber baron era in lower Manhattan and on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, where the "tea party movement" was born amid furious presumptions that Obama would dare to help struggling homeowners instead of their mortgage note holders. We'll just have to wait and see.

In the end, the lessons of American history, from Reconstruction to the Fusion movement of the late 19th century; that an openness to the aspirations of racial, ethnic and religious minorities will always produce a fierce backlash among the country's majority population and cost the party dearly, have proven thrice true in the modern era-in the bloody political aftermath of Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton and now Barack Obama. All three marched the country forward on race, culture and economics, only to cede federal and state governmental power for years to the Republican right, which quickly proceeded, each time, to reward the rich and the powerful on the backs of their working class supporters who just wanted to feel like winners again.

In a sense, who can blame the Democrats for running away? But run they will. Count on it."

im1dc -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 01:22 PM
I very much like the idea of bringing back "earmarks", for the record.

I did not know that Paul Ryan's website is proclaiming the end of Medicare as we know it to begin March 2017. That is ominous indeed.

Fred C. Dobbs -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 02:10 PM
Trump pledges to earmark $20B for school choice
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/295034-trump-to-earmark-20b-for-school-choice
The Hill = Sep 8

(Personally, I'll take a block
grant over an earmark any day.)

Fred C. Dobbs : , November 17, 2016 at 01:23 PM
(Premium members only.)

McDonald's gets fancy, says table
service coming to US locations

NEW YORK - McDonald's says it plans to offer table service across its U.S. stores to make the ordering process less stressful, but did not say when the overhaul will be complete.

The world's biggest burger chain says about 500 of its more than 14,000 domestic stores have been testing table service and ordering kiosks for people who do not want to wait for the cashier. People in those stores order at the counter or kiosks, then sit and wait for an employee to bring them their food.

Early next year, McDonald's says it will expand the offering in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C. ...

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/11/17/mcdonald-gets-fancy-says-table-service-coming-locations/xVHddwT9ZcZc1B24lzDYtL/story.html

Fred C. Dobbs : , November 17, 2016 at 01:23 PM
(Premium members only.)

McDonald's gets fancy, says table
service coming to US locations

NEW YORK - McDonald's says it plans to offer table service across its U.S. stores to make the ordering process less stressful, but did not say when the overhaul will be complete.

The world's biggest burger chain says about 500 of its more than 14,000 domestic stores have been testing table service and ordering kiosks for people who do not want to wait for the cashier. People in those stores order at the counter or kiosks, then sit and wait for an employee to bring them their food.

Early next year, McDonald's says it will expand the offering in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C. ...

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/11/17/mcdonald-gets-fancy-says-table-service-coming-locations/xVHddwT9ZcZc1B24lzDYtL/story.html

im1dc : , November 17, 2016 at 01:44 PM
This goes together with RGC's post above whether it is time to "Break up the Democratic Party"

This article suggests changing its message as well as its messengers would work better to seat Democrats in Elected Office

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/17/democrats-dig-deep-after-being-trump-d.html

"Democrats Dig Deep After Being Trump'd"

'Democrats on the Hill began soul searching this week-but the process appears to be longer for some than others'

by Matt Laslo...11.17.16...1:00 AM ET

"The Democratic Party is at a crossroads, but everyone on Capitol Hill seems to have a different roadmap.

Democrats, still in shock over Hillary Clinton's surprise loss to president-elect Donald Trump, are faced with a stark new reality: they are not only the minority party in all corners of Capitol Hill and across the nation-but there are cracks in places where their foundation was thought to be very strong.

The party is debating how it got here and whether it's time to tack left, in the Bernie Sanders' vein of populism, or to go back to the middle, which is how they won in the nineties and regained control of the House in 2006.

The change didn't come overnight. The party has been devastated in the past three election cycles, losing more than 900 state legislative seats and 11 governorships since President Barack Obama took office.

But it was Clinton's string of losses in the Rust Belt-Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio-that caused the soul searching in the party.

"So you can't conclude anything else but that our message is wrong. Our values aren't wrong, but our message is wrong," Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) told The Daily Beast. "The one thing we must commit to is that whatever our message is going forward must be different than what we had in the past because that one has failed."...

im1dc : , November 17, 2016 at 01:51 PM
re Paul Ryan's fast track changes to Medicare

Rep Price, Chairman of House Budget Committee is on it

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tom-price-reveals-republicans-eyeing-medicare-overhaul-in-2017

"Rep. Tom Price Reveals Republicans Eyeing Medicare Overhaul In 2017"

By Lauren Fox...November 17, 2016...12:13 PM EDT

"Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), the chairman of the budget committee, told reporters on Thursday that Republicans are eyeing major changes to Medicare in 2017.

Price, who is being floated as a possible Health and Human Services Secretary in the next administration, said that he expects Republican in the House to move on Medicare reforms "six to eight months" into the Trump administration.

Privatization of Medicare has been a central feature of Speaker of the House Paul Ryan's budget proposal for years, and the House GOP has voted in favor of it multiple times. Ryan himself said last week that Medicare would be on the table in the new Congress, signaling it could be taken up early in the new year. Price's comments suggest privatization won't be part of the first round of legislative initiatives rolled out by the Trump administration and GOP-controlled Congress.

Price also noted that Republicans are eyeing using a tactic known as budget reconciliation to make the change. That process allows Republicans to pass bills with a simple majority in the U.S. Senate.

When asked by TPM about timing for changes to Medicare, Price said "I think that is probably in the second phase of reconciliation, which would have to be in the FY 18 budget resolution in the first 6-8 months."

Republicans plan to tackle the Affordable Care Act in the first budget reconciliation process, which could take place as early as January. Tackling Medicare reform and Obamacare repeal at the same time could prove too high a risk for Republicans who have yet to reveal a clear plan to replace Obamacare with.

During his weekly press conference House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) remained vague about the timing for such reforms, saying only that those discussions are still underway."

im1dc -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 01:56 PM
Why should the Democrat Party change now that the Republicans have begun over reaching by believing they have a mandate from the voters?

Change Medicare? Was that on the ballot?

Seriously was that what the Electorate wants from Donald Trump and the Republicans?

Am I alone in seeing a huge opportunity for Democrats politically here?

ilsm -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 03:51 PM
I saw the idea of a Trump presidency as the best thing that could happen to progressive since Hoover.
im1dc -> ilsm... , November 17, 2016 at 05:24 PM
we still need an electable candidate to emerge from the ferment.
Pinkybum -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 05:02 PM
Privatizing Medicare will be a disaster it can only end in the service being worse. I'm sure they have plans to go after Social Security too. Getting rid of Obamacare won't hurt the white middle class too bad but even there too most people will know someone with a preexisting condition who can't get medical insurance. Good luck with all that Republicans!!
anne : , -1
https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/list#/mutual-funds/asset-class/month-end-returns

November 17, 2016

The 3 month Treasury interest rate is at 0.43%, the 2 year Treasury rate is 1.03%, the 5 year rate is 1.72%, while the 10 year is 2.29%.

The Vanguard Aa rated short-term investment grade bond fund, with a maturity of 3.2 years and a duration of 2.6 years, has a yield of 1.63%. The Vanguard Aa rated intermediate-term investment grade bond fund, with a maturity of 6.4 years and a duration of 5.5 years, is yielding 2.37%. The Vanguard Aa rated long-term investment grade bond fund, with a maturity of 23.0 years and a duration of 13.6 years, is yielding 3.75%. *

The Vanguard Ba rated high yield corporate bond fund, with a maturity of 5.6 years and a duration of 4.4 years, is yielding 5.40%.

The Vanguard unrated convertible corporate bond fund, with an indefinite maturity and a duration of 4.1 years, is yielding 2.04%.

The Vanguard A rated high yield tax exempt bond fund, with a maturity of 6.8 years and a duration of 6.4 years, is yielding 2.66%.

The Vanguard Aa rated intermediate-term tax exempt bond fund, with a maturity of 5.4 years and a duration of 4.8 years, is yielding 1.59%.

The Vanguard Government National Mortgage Association bond fund, with a maturity of 5.7 years and a duration of 3.4 years, is yielding 2.05%.

The Vanguard inflation protected Treasury bond fund, with a maturity of 8.8 years and a duration of 8.3 years, is yielding - 0.21%.

* Vanguard yields are after cost. Federal Funds rates are no more than 0.50%.

anne : , November 17, 2016 at 02:53 PM
http://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe/

Ten Year Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings Ratio, 1881-2016

(Standard and Poors Composite Stock Index)

November 17, 2016 PE Ratio ( 27.08)

Annual Mean ( 16.70)
Annual Median ( 16.05)

-- Robert Shiller

anne : , November 17, 2016 at 02:53 PM
http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-dividend-yield/

Dividend Yield, 1881-2016

(Standard and Poors Composite Stock Index)

November 17, 2016 Div Yield ( 2.06)

Annual Mean ( 4.38)
Annual Median ( 4.33)

-- Robert Shiller

im1dc : , November 17, 2016 at 03:26 PM
"Consumer prices show big increase on rising gasoline costs and rents"

Looks like a go for the FedRes to raise rates in December

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/consumer-prices-show-big-increase-on-rising-gasoline-costs-and-rents/2016/11/17/9cad99d2-accd-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html

"Consumer prices show big increase on rising gasoline costs and rents"

Reuters...November 17, 2016...5:27 PM

'Consumer prices show big increase'

"Consumer prices recorded their biggest increase in six months in October on rising gasoline costs and rents, suggesting a pickup in inflation that potentially clears the way for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates in December.

Prospects for a rate hike next month also got a boost from other data on Thursday showing first-time applications for unemployment benefits tumbling to a 43-year low last week and housing starts surging to a nine-year high in October.

The reports painted an upbeat picture of the economy early in the fourth quarter and came as Fed Chair Janet L. Yellen told lawmakers that the U.S. central bank could lift borrowing costs "relatively soon."

The Labor Department said its consumer price index increased 0.4 percent last month after rising 0.3 percent in September. In the 12 months through October, the CPI advanced 1.6 percent, the biggest year-on-year increase since October 2014. The CPI increased 1.5 percent in the year to September.

Underlying inflation continued to slow last month as health-care costs moderated after recent hefty gains. But with rents pushing higher, that trend is unlikely to be sustained.

The so-called core CPI, which strips out food and energy costs, climbed 0.1 percent last month after a similar gain in September. That slowed the year-on-year increase in the core CPI to 2.1 percent from a 2.2 percent rise in September.

The Fed has a 2 percent inflation target and tracks an inflation measure that is now at 1.7 percent.

In another report, the Labor Department said initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 19,000 to a seasonally adjusted 235,000 for the week ended Nov. 12, the lowest level since November 1973.

Claims have now been below 300,000, a threshold associated with a healthy labor market, for 89 straight weeks. That is the longest run since 1970, when the labor market was much smaller.

With the labor market firming and rents rising, housing is getting a lift. In a third report, the Commerce Department said housing starts jumped 25.5 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual pace of 1.32 million units last month, the highest level since August 2007."

Reuters

im1dc : , November 17, 2016 at 03:36 PM
This is what Chairman Yellen told Congress today

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/17/502480053/federal-reserve-chair-throws-cold-water-on-trump-economic-plan

"Federal Reserve Chair Throws Cold Water On Trump's Economic Plan"

by Chris Arnold...November 17, 2016...5:25 PM ET

"President-elect Donald Trump has pledged a $1 trillion infrastructure spending program to help jump-start an economy that he said during the campaign was in terrible shape.

Speaking on Capitol Hill Thursday, Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet Yellen warned lawmakers that as they consider such spending, they should keep an eye on the national debt. Yellen also said that while the economy needed a big boost with fiscal stimulus after the financial crisis, that's not the case now.

"The economy is operating relatively close to full employment at this point," she said, "so in contrast to where the economy was after the financial crisis when a large demand boost was needed to lower unemployment, we're no longer in that state."

Yellen cautioned lawmakers that if they spend a lot on infrastructure and run up the debt, and then down the road the economy gets into trouble, "there is not a lot of fiscal space should a shock to the economy occur, an adverse shock, that should require fiscal stimulus."

In other words, lawmakers should consider keeping their powder dry so they have more options whenever the next economic downturn comes along.

Trump was harshly critical of Yellen during his campaign. But testifying before the Joint Economic Committee, Yellen said she is not going to quit just because Trump won the election. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., asked Yellen, "Can you envision any circumstances where you would not serve out your term as chair of the Federal Reserve?" "No, I cannot," answered Yellen, "It is fully my intention to serve out that term." Yellen's appointment goes through January 2018.

Another target of Trump's during the campaign came up at the hearing: the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Rep. Pat Tiberi, R-Ohio, cited Trump's criticism that the Dodd-Frank banking rules were stifling lending and stunting the economy. But Yellen gave her support to Dodd-Frank, saying:

"We lived through a devastating financial crisis, and a high priority for all Americans should be that we want to see put in place safeguards through supervision and regulation that result in a safer and sounder financial system, and I think we have been doing that and our financial system as a consequence is safer and sounder and many of the appropriate reforms are embodied in Dodd-Frank."

Yellen added, "We wouldn't want to go back to the mortgage lending standards that led to the financial crisis."

She also said she thought banks were actually willing to lend to small businesses, but that sales haven't been growing sufficiently fast to justify borrowing, suggesting the demand for loans was the real problem.

As far as the ever-present question about when the Fed will raise interest rates, Yellen signaled that she didn't see any reason to alter the Fed's prior guidance now that Trump has been elected as the next president."

ilsm -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 03:52 PM
What Humpty Dumpty : ......
im1dc : , November 17, 2016 at 04:45 PM
"What do the Amish lobby, gay wedding vans and the ban of the national anthem have in common?"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/technology/ct-facebook-fake-news-donald-trump-wp-bsi-20161117-story.html

"Facebook fake-news writer: 'I think Donald Trump is in the White House because of me'"

by Caitlin Dewey...The Washington Post

"What do the Amish lobby, gay wedding vans and the ban of the national anthem have in common? For starters, they're all make-believe - and invented by the same man.

Paul Horner, the 38-year-old impresario of a Facebook fake-news empire, has made his living off viral news hoaxes for several years. He has twice convinced the Internet that he's British graffiti artist Banksy; he also published the very viral, very fake news of a Yelp vs. "South Park" lawsuit last year.

But in recent months, Horner has found the fake-news ecosystem growing more crowded, more political and vastly more influential: In March, Donald Trump's son Eric and his then-campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, even tweeted links to one of Horner's faux-articles. His stories have also appeared as news on Google.

In light of concerns that stories like Horner's may have affected the presidential election, and in the wake of announcements that both Google and Facebook would take action against deceptive outlets, The Washington Post called Horner to discuss his perspective on fake news.

Q: You've been writing fake news for a while now - you're kind of like the OG Facebook news hoaxer. Well, I'd call it hoaxing or fake news. You'd call it parody or satire. How is that scene different now than it was three or five years ago? Why did something like your story about Obama invalidating the election results (almost 250,000 Facebook shares, as of this writing) go so viral?

A: Honestly, people are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything anymore - I mean, that's how Trump got elected. He just said whatever he wanted, and people believed everything, and when the things he said turned out not to be true, people didn't care because they'd already accepted it. It's real scary. I've never seen anything like it.

Q: You mentioned Trump, and you've probably heard the argument, or the concern, that fake news somehow helped him get elected. What do you make of that?

A: My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time. I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don't fact-check anything - they'll post everything, believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist.

Q: Why? I mean - why would you even write that?

A: Just 'cause his supporters were under the belief that people were getting paid to protest at their rallies, and that's just insane. I've gone to Trump protests - trust me, no one needs to get paid to protest Trump. I just wanted to make fun of that insane belief, but it took off. They actually believed it.

I thought they'd fact-check it, and it'd make them look worse. I mean that's how this always works: Someone posts something I write, then they find out it's false, then they look like idiots. But Trump supporters - they just keep running with it! They never fact-check anything! Now he's in the White House. Looking back, instead of hurting the campaign, I think I helped it. And that feels (bad).

Q: You think you personally helped elect Trump?

A: I don't know. I don't know if I did or not. I don't know. I don't know.

Q: I guess I'm curious, if you believed you might be having an unfair impact on the election - especially if that impact went against your own political beliefs - why didn't you stop? Why keep writing?

A: I didn't think it was possible for him to get elected president. I thought I was messing with the campaign, maybe I wasn't messing them up as much as I wanted - but I never thought he'd actually get elected. I didn't even think about it. In hindsight, everyone should've seen this coming - everyone assumed Hillary (Clinton) would just get in. But she didn't, and Trump is president.

Q: Speaking of Clinton - did you target fake news at her supporters? Or Gary Johnson's, for that matter? (Horner's Facebook picture shows him at a rally for Johnson.)

A: No. I hate Trump.

Q: Is that it? You posted on Facebook a couple weeks ago that you had a lot of ideas for satirizing Clinton and other figures, but that "no joke in doing this for six years, the people who clicked ads the most, like it's the cure for cancer, is right-wing Republicans." That makes it sound like you've found targeting conservatives is more profitable.

A: Yeah, it is. They don't fact-check.

Q: But a Trump presidency is good for you from a business perspective, right?

A: It's great for anybody who does anything with satire - there's nothing you can't write about now that people won't believe. I can write the craziest thing about Trump, and people will believe it. I wrote a lot of crazy anti-Muslim stuff - like about Trump wanting to put badges on Muslims, or not allowing them in the airport, or making them stand in their own line - and people went along with it!

Q: Facebook and Google recently announced that they'd no longer let fake-news sites use their advertising platforms. I know you basically make your living from those services. How worried are you about this?

A: This whole Google AdSense thing is pretty scary. And all this Facebook stuff. I make most of my money from AdSense - like, you wouldn't believe how much money I make from it. Right now I make like $10,000 a month from AdSense.

I know ways of getting hooked up under different names and sites. So probably if they cracked down, I would try different things. I have at least 10 sites right now. If they crack down on a couple, I'll just use others. They could shut down advertising on all my sites, and I think I'd be OK. Plus, Facebook and AdSense make a lot of money from (advertising on fake news sites) for them to just get rid of it. They'd lose a lot of money.

But if it did really go away, that would suck. I don't know what I would do.

Q: Thinking about this less selfishly, though - it might be good if Facebook and Google took action, right? Because the effects you're describing are pretty scary.

A: Yeah, I mean - a lot of the sites people are talking about, they're just total BS sites. There's no creativity or purpose behind them. I'm glad they're getting rid of them. I don't like getting lumped in with Huzlers. I like getting lumped in with the Onion. The stuff I do - I spend more time on it. There's purpose and meaning behind it. I don't just write fake news just to write it.

So, yeah, I see a lot of the sites they're listing, and I'm like - good. There are so many horrible sites out there. I'm glad they're getting rid of those sites.

I just hope they don't get rid of mine, too."

im1dc -> im1dc... , November 17, 2016 at 04:46 PM
The takeaway: "Honestly, people are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything anymore"

[Nov 18, 2016] Ellison is a dud, Bernie tweets support for Schumer theres nobody I know better prepared and more capable of leading our caucus than Chuck Schumer -- Well theres a good

Nov 18, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
chunder maker in that statement eh? Hope dashed! jo6pac November 17, 2016 at 3:13 pm

Lambert you were on to something when you mention his twitter account.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/17/the-skeletons-in-keith-ellisons-display-case/

I know my Muslim friends would never want to hurt anyone but this guy is as crazy as hillabillie.

cocomaan November 17, 2016 at 7:44 pm

Support for Syria and Libya interventions? Gross. No thanks.

Who else do we got? Wait this is it? WHAT?!!

uncle tungsten November 18, 2016 at 7:25 am

Ellison is a dud, Bernie tweets support for Schumer "there's nobody I know better prepared and more capable of leading our caucus than Chuck Schumer"!
Well there's a good chunder maker in that statement eh? Hope dashed!

There are no doubt many who are better informed, more progressive and principled, more remote from Wall Street and oligarchic capture than Chuck Schumer and Ellison. So there you have it – this is reform in the Democrats after a crushing defeat.

Vale democrats, and now the journey becomes arduous with these voices to smother hope. A new party is urgently needed (I know how difficult that is) and these voices of the old machine need to be ignored for the sake of sanity.

[Nov 18, 2016] The statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes by Bruce Wilder

Notable quotes:
"... The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance. ..."
"... It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. ..."
"... When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. ..."
"... Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. ..."
"... It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics. ..."
"... This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints. ..."
"... No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence. ..."
"... If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying. ..."
"... Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. ..."
Nov 18, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:07 pm 30

At the center of Great Depression politics was a political struggle over the distribution of income, a struggle that was only decisively resolved during the War, by the Great Compression. It was at center of farm policy where policymakers struggled to find ways to support farm incomes. It was at the center of industrial relations politics, where rapidly expanding unions were seeking higher industrial wages. It was at the center of banking policy, where predatory financial practices were under attack. It was at the center of efforts to regulate electric utility rates and establish public power projects. And, everywhere, the clear subtext was a struggle between rich and poor, the economic royalists as FDR once called them and everyone else.

FDR, an unmistakeable patrician in manner and pedigree, was leading a not-quite-revolutionary politics, which was nevertheless hostile to and suspicious of business elites, as a source of economic pathology. The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance.

It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle.

In retrospect, though the New Deal did use direct employment as a means of relief to good effect economically and politically, it never undertook anything like a Keynesian stimulus on a Keynesian scale - at least until the War.

Where the New Deal witnessed the institution of an elaborate system of financial repression, accomplished in large part by imposing on the financial sector an explicitly mandated structure, with types of firms and effective limits on firm size and scope, a series of regulatory reforms and financial crises beginning with Carter and Reagan served to wipe this structure away.

When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup.

I don't know what considerations guided Obama in choosing the size of the stimulus or its composition (as spending and tax cuts). Larry Summers was identified at the time as a voice of caution, not "gambling", but not much is known about his detailed reasoning in severely trimming Christina Romer's entirely conventional calculations. (One consideration might well have been worldwide resource shortages, which had made themselves felt in 2007-8 as an inflationary spike in commodity prices.) I do not see a case for connecting stimulus size policy to the health care reform. At the time the stimulus was proposed, the Administration had also been considering whether various big banks and other financial institutions should be nationalized, forced to insolvency or otherwise restructured as part of a regulatory reform.

Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. Accelerating the financialization of the economy from 1999 on made New York and Washington rich, but the same economic policies and process were devastating the Rust Belt as de-industrialization. They were two aspects of the same complex of economic trends and policies. The rise of China as a manufacturing center was, in critical respects, a financial operation within the context of globalized trade that made investment in new manufacturing plant in China, as part of globalized supply chains and global brand management, (arguably artificially) low-risk and high-profit, while reinvestment in manufacturing in the American mid-west became unattractive, except as a game of extracting tax subsidies or ripping off workers.

It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics.

It is conceding too many good intentions to the Obama Administration to tie an inadequate stimulus to a Rube Goldberg health care reform as the origin story for the final debacle of Democratic neoliberal politics. There was a delicate balancing act going on, but they were not balancing the recovery of the economy in general so much as they were balancing the recovery from insolvency of a highly inefficient and arguably predatory financial sector, which was also not incidentally financing the institutional core of the Democratic Party and staffing many key positions in the Administration and in the regulatory apparatus.

This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints.

No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence.

bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:33 pm ( 31 )

The short version of my thinking on the Obama stimulus is this: Keynesian stimulus spending is a free lunch; it doesn't really matter what you spend money on up to a very generous point, so it seems ready-made for legislative log-rolling. If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying.

Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.

likbez 11.18.16 at 4:48 pm 121

bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:07 pm 30

Great comment. Simply great. Hat tip to the author !

Notable quotes:

"… The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance. …"

"… It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. …"

"… When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. … "

"… Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. …"

"… It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics. …"

"… This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints. …"

"… No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence. …"

"… If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying. …"

"… Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. …"

[Nov 16, 2016] Being now a party of Wall street, neolibral democrats did not learn the lesson and do not want to: they attempt to double down on the identity politics, keep telling the pulverized middle class how great the economy is

Notable quotes:
"... I know what it is like to have to juggle creditors to make it through a week. I know what it is like to have to swallow my pride and constantly dun people to pay me so that I can pay others. ..."
"... I know what it is like to dread going to the mailbox, because there will always be new bills to pay but seldom a check with which to pay them. I know what it is like to have to tell my daughter that I didn't know if I would be able to pay for her wedding; it all depended on whether something good happened. And I know what it is like to have to borrow money from my adult daughters because my wife and I ran out of heating oil ..."
"... Two-thirds of Americans would have difficulty coming up with the money to cover a $1,000 emergency, according to an exclusive poll released Thursday, a signal that despite years after the Great Recession, Americans' finances remain precarious as ever. ..."
"... These difficulties span all incomes, according to the poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Three-quarters of people in households making less than $50,000 a year and two-thirds of those making between $50,000 and $100,000 would have difficulty coming up with $1,000 to cover an unexpected bill. ..."
"... Even for the country's wealthiest 20 percent - households making more than $100,000 a year - 38 percent say they would have at least some difficulty coming up with $1,000 ..."
"... Chronicle for Higher Education: ..."
"... Meanwhile, 91% of all the profits generated by the U.S. economy from 2009 through 2012 went to the top 1%. As just one example, the annual bonuses (not salaries, just the bonuses) of all Wall Street financial traders last year amounted to 28 billion dollars while the total income of all minimum wage workers in America came to 14 billion dollars. ..."
"... "Between 2009 and 2012, according to updated data from Emmanuel Saez, overall income per family grew 6.9 percent. The gains weren't shared evenly, however. The top 1 percent saw their real income grow by 34.7 percent while the bottom 99 percent only saw a 0.8 percent gain, meaning that the 1 percent captured 91 percent of all real income. ..."
"... Adjusting for inflation and excluding anything made from capital gains investments like stocks, however, shows that even that small gains for all but the richest disappears. According to Justin Wolfers, adjusted average income for the 1 percent without capital gains rose from $871,100 to $968,000 in that time period. For everyone else, average income actually fell from $44,000 to $43,900. Calculated this way, the 1 percent has captured all of the income gains." ..."
"... There actually is a logic at work in the Rust Belt voters for voted for Trump. I don't think it's good logic, but it makes sense in its own warped way. The calculation the Trump voters seem to be making in the Rust Belt is that it's better to have a job and no health insurance and no medicare and no social security, than no job but the ACA (with $7,000 deductibles you can't afford to pay for anyway) plus medicare (since most of these voters are healthy, they figure they'll never get sick) plus social security (most of these voters are not 65 or older, and probably think they'll never age - or perhaps don't believe that social security will be solvent when they do need it). ..."
"... It's the same twisted logic that goes on with protectionism. Rust Belt workers figure that it's better to have a job and not be able to afford a Chinese-made laptop than not to have a job but plenty of cheap foreign-made widgets you could buy if you had any money (which you don't). That logic doesn't parse if you run through the economics (because protectionism will destroy the very jobs they think they're saving), but it can be sold as a tweet in a political campaign. ..."
"... The claim "Trump's coalition is composed of overt racists and people who are indifferent to overt racism" is incomplete. Trump's coalition actually consists of 3 parts and it's highly unstable: [1] racists, [2] plutocrats, [3] working class people slammed hard by globalization for whom Democrats have done little or nothing. ..."
"... The good news is that Trump's coalition is unstable. The plutocrats and Rust Belters are natural enemies. ..."
"... Listen to Steve Bannon, a classic stormfront type - he says he wants to blow up both the Democratic and the Republican party. He calls himself a "Leninist" in a recent interview and vows to wreck all elite U.S. institutions (universities, giant multinationals), not just the Democratic party. ..."
"... Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. ..."
Nov 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

mclaren 11.16.16 at 9:52 am 7

Eric places the blame for this loss squarely on economics, which, it seems to me, gets the analysis exactly right. And the statistics back up his analysis, I believe.

It's disturbing and saddening to watch other left-wing websites ignore those statistics and charge off the cliff into the abyss, screaming that this election was all about racism/misogyny/homophobia/[fill in the blank with identity politics demonology of your choice]. First, the "it's all racism" analysis conveniently lets the current Democratic leadership off the hook. They didn't do anything wrong, it was those "deplorables" (half the country!) who are to blame. Second, the identity politics blame-shifting completely overlooks and short-circuits any real action to fix the economy by Democratic policymakers or Democratic politicians or the Democratic party leadership. That's particularly convenient for the Democratic leadership because these top-four-percenter professionals "promise anything and change nothing" while jetting between Davos and Martha's Vineyard, ignoring the peons who don't make $100,000 or more a year because the peons all live in flyover country.

"Trump supporters were on average affluent, but they are always Republican and aren't numerous enough to deliver the presidency (538 has changed their view in the wake of the election result). Some point out that looking at support by income doesn't show much distinctive support for Trump among the "poor", but that's beside the point too, as it submerges a regional phenomenon in a national average, just as exit polls do. (..)
"When commentators like Michael Moore and Thomas Frank pointed out that there was possibility for Trump in the Rust Belt they were mostly ignored or, even more improbably, accused of being apologists for racism and misogyny. But that is what Trump did, and he won. Moreover, he won with an amateurish campaign against a well-funded and politically sophisticated opponent simply because he planted his flag where others wouldn't.

"Because of the obsession with exit polls, post-election analysis has not come to grips with the regional nature of the Trump phenomenon. Exit polls divide the general electorate based on individual attributes: race, gender, income, education, and so on, making regional distinctions invisible. Moreover, America doesn't decide the presidential election that way. It decides it based on the electoral college, which potentially makes the characteristics of individual states decisive. We should be looking at maps, not exit polls for the explanation. Low black turnout in California or high Latino turnout in Texas do not matter in the slightest in determining the election, but exit polls don't help us see that. Exit polls deliver a bunch of non-explanatory facts, in this election more than other recent ones."
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/11/11/23174/

"Donald Trump performed best on Tuesday in places where the economy is in worse shape, and especially in places where jobs are most at risk in the future.

"Trump, who in his campaign pledged to be a voice for `forgotten Americans,' beat Hillary Clinton in counties with slower job growth and lower wages. And he far outperformed her in counties where more jobs are threatened by automation or offshoring, a sign that he found support not just among workers who are struggling now but among those concerned for their economic future."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-was-stronger-where-the-economy-is-weaker/

Meanwhile, the neoliberal Democrats made claims about the economy that at best wildly oversold the non-recovery from the 2009 global financial meltdown, and at worst flat-out misrepresented the state of the U.S. economy. For example, president Obama in his June 1 2016 speech in Elkhart Indiana, said:

"Now, one of the reasons we're told this has been an unusual election year is because people are anxious and uncertain about the economy. And our politics are a natural place to channel that frustration. So I wanted to come to the heartland, to the Midwest, back to close to my hometown to talk about that anxiety, that economic anxiety, and what I think it means. (..) America's economy is not just better than it was eight years ago - it is the strongest, most durable economy in the world. (..) Unemployment in Elkhart has fallen to around 4 percent. (Applause.) At the peak of the crisis, nearly one in 10 homeowners in the state of Indiana were either behind on their mortgages or in foreclosure; today, it's one in 30. Back then, only 75 percent of your kids graduated from high school; tomorrow, 90 percent of them will. (Applause.) The auto industry just had its best year ever. (..) So that's progress.(..) We decided to invest in job training so that folks who lost their jobs could retool. We decided to invest in things like high-tech manufacturing and clean energy and infrastructure, so that entrepreneurs wouldn't just bring back the jobs that we had lost, but create new and better jobs By almost every economic measure, America is better off than when I came here at the beginning of my presidency. That's the truth. That's true. (Applause.) It's true. (Applause.) Over the past six years, our businesses have created more than 14 million new jobs - that's the longest stretch of consecutive private sector job growth in our history. We've seen the first sustained manufacturing growth since the 1990s."

None of this is true. Not is a substantive sense, not in the sense of being accurate, not in the sense of reflecting the facts on the ground for real working people who don't fly their private jets to Davos.

The claim that "America's economy is the strongest and most durable economy in the world" is just plain false. China has a much higher growth rate, at 6.9% nearly triple the U.S.'s - and America's GDP growth is trending to historic long-term lows, and still falling. Take a look at this chart of the Federal Reserve board's projections of U.S. GDP growth since 2009 compared with the real GDP growth rate:

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/2015-03-2.png

"[In the survey] [t]he Fed asked respondents how they would pay for a $400 emergency. The answer: 47 percent of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all. Four hundred dollars! Who knew?

"Well, I knew. I knew because I am in that 47 percent.

" I know what it is like to have to juggle creditors to make it through a week. I know what it is like to have to swallow my pride and constantly dun people to pay me so that I can pay others. I know what it is like to have liens slapped on me and to have my bank account levied by creditors. I know what it is like to be down to my last $5-literally-while I wait for a paycheck to arrive, and I know what it is like to subsist for days on a diet of eggs.

I know what it is like to dread going to the mailbox, because there will always be new bills to pay but seldom a check with which to pay them. I know what it is like to have to tell my daughter that I didn't know if I would be able to pay for her wedding; it all depended on whether something good happened. And I know what it is like to have to borrow money from my adult daughters because my wife and I ran out of heating oil ."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/

" Two-thirds of Americans would have difficulty coming up with the money to cover a $1,000 emergency, according to an exclusive poll released Thursday, a signal that despite years after the Great Recession, Americans' finances remain precarious as ever.

" These difficulties span all incomes, according to the poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Three-quarters of people in households making less than $50,000 a year and two-thirds of those making between $50,000 and $100,000 would have difficulty coming up with $1,000 to cover an unexpected bill.

" Even for the country's wealthiest 20 percent - households making more than $100,000 a year - 38 percent say they would have at least some difficulty coming up with $1,000 .

"`The more we learn about the balance sheets of Americans, it becomes quite alarming,' said Caroline Ratcliffe, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute focusing on poverty and emergency savings issues."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/965e48ed609245539ed315f83e01b6a2

The rest of Obama's statistics are deceptive to the point of being dissimulations - unemployment has dropped to 4 percent because so many people have stopped looking for work and moved into their parents' basements that the Bureau of Labor Statistics no longer counts them as unemployed. Meanwhile, the fraction of working-age adults who are not in the workforce has skyrocketed to an all-time high. Few homeowners are now being foreclosed in 2016 compared to 2009 because the people in 2009 who were in financial trouble all lost their homes. Only rich people and well-off professionals were able to keep their homes through the 2009 financial collapse. Since 2009, businesses did indeed create 14 million new jobs - mostly low-wage junk jobs, part-time minimum-wage jobs that don't pay a living wage.

"The deep recession wiped out primarily high-wage and middle-wage jobs. Yet the strongest employment growth during the sluggish recovery has been in low-wage work, at places like strip malls and fast-food restaurants.

"In essence, the poor economy has replaced good jobs with bad ones."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/business/economy/recovery-has-created-far-more-low-wage-jobs-than-better-paid-ones.html

And the jobs market isn't much better for highly-educated workers:

New research released Monday says nearly half of the nation's recent college graduates work jobs that don't require a degree.

The report, from the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, concludes that while college-educated Americans are less likely to collect unemployment, many of the jobs they do have aren't worth the price of their diplomas.

The data calls into question a national education platform that says higher education is better in an economy that favors college graduates.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/underemployed-overeducated_n_2568203.html

Don't believe it? Then try this article, from the Chronicle for Higher Education:

Approximately 60 percent of the increase in the number of college graduates from 1992 to 2008 worked in jobs that the BLS considers relatively low skilled-occupations where many participants have only high school diplomas and often even less. Only a minority of the increment in our nation's stock of college graduates is filling jobs historically considered as requiring a bachelor's degree or more.

http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-great-college-degree-scam/28067

As for manufacturing, U.S. manufacturing lost 35,000 jobs in 2016, and manufacturing employment remains 2.2% below what it was when Obama took office.

Meanwhile, 91% of all the profits generated by the U.S. economy from 2009 through 2012 went to the top 1%. As just one example, the annual bonuses (not salaries, just the bonuses) of all Wall Street financial traders last year amounted to 28 billion dollars while the total income of all minimum wage workers in America came to 14 billion dollars.

"Between 2009 and 2012, according to updated data from Emmanuel Saez, overall income per family grew 6.9 percent. The gains weren't shared evenly, however. The top 1 percent saw their real income grow by 34.7 percent while the bottom 99 percent only saw a 0.8 percent gain, meaning that the 1 percent captured 91 percent of all real income.

Adjusting for inflation and excluding anything made from capital gains investments like stocks, however, shows that even that small gains for all but the richest disappears. According to Justin Wolfers, adjusted average income for the 1 percent without capital gains rose from $871,100 to $968,000 in that time period. For everyone else, average income actually fell from $44,000 to $43,900. Calculated this way, the 1 percent has captured all of the income gains."

https://thinkprogress.org/the-1-percent-have-gotten-all-the-income-gains-from-the-recovery-6bee14aab1#.1frn3lu8y

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/14/upshot/wall-street-bonuses-vs-total-earnings-of-full-time-minimum-wage-workers.html

Does any of this sound like "the strongest, most durable economy in the world"? Does any of this square with the claims by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that "By almost every economic measure, America is better off "? The U.S. economy is only better off in 2016 by disingenuous comparison with the stygian depths of the 2009 economic collapse.

Hillary Clinton tied herself to Barack Obama's economic legacy, and the brutal reality for working class people remains that the economy today has barely improved for most workers to what it was in 2009, and is in many ways worse. Since 2009, automation + outsourcing/offshoring has destroyed whole classes of jobs, from taxi drivers (wiped out by Uber and Lyft) to warehoues stock clerks (getting wiped out by robots) to paralegals and associates at law firms (replaced by databases and legal search algorithms) to high-end programmers (wiped out by an ever-increasing flood of H1B via workers from India and China).

Yet vox.com continues to run article after article proclaiming "the 2016 election was all about racism." And we have a non-stop stream of this stuff from people like Anne Laurie over at balloon-juice.com:

"While the more-Leftist-than-thou "progressives" - including their latest high-profile figurehead - are high-fiving each other in happy anticipation of potential public-outrage gigs over the next four years, at least some people are beginning to push back on the BUT WHITE WORKING CLASS HAS ALL THE SADS!!! meme so beloved of Very Serious Pundits."

That's the ticket, Democrats double down on the identity politics, keep telling the pulverized middle class how great the economy is. Because that worked so well for you this election.

Cranky Observer 11.16.16 at 12:34 pm ( 11 )

= = = mclaren@9:52 am: The rest of Obama's statistics are deceptive to the point of being dissimulations -[ ] Only rich people and well-off professionals were able to keep their homes through the 2009 financial collapse. = = =

Some food for thought in your post, but you don't help your argument with statements such as this one. Rich people and well-off professionals make up at most 10% of the population. US homeownership rate in 2005 was 68.8%, in 2015 is 63.7. That's a big drop and unquestionably represents a lot of people losing their houses involuntarily. Still, even assuming no "well-off professionals" lost their houses in the recession that still leaves the vast majority of the houses owned by the middle class. Which is consistent with foreclosure and sales stats in middle class areas from 2008-2014. Remember that even with 20% unemployment 80% of the population still has a job.

Similarly, I agree that the recession and job situation was qualitatively worse than the quantitative stats depicted. Once you start adding in hidden factors not captured by the official stats, though, where do you stop? How do you know the underground economy isn't doing far better than it was in the boom years of the oughts, thus reducing actual unemployment? Etc.

Finally, you need to address the fundamental question: assuming all you say is true (arguendo), how does destroying the Affordable Care Act, Social Security, and Medicare help those in the economically depressed areas? I got hit bad by the recession myself. Know what helped from 2010 forward? Knowing that I could change jobs, keep my college-age children on my spouse's heath plan, not get hit with pre-existing condition fraud, and that if worse came to worse in a couple years I would have the plan exchange to fall back on. Kansas has tried the Ryan/Walker approach, seen it fail, doubled down, and seen that fail 4x as badly. Now we're going to make it up on unit sales by trying the Ryan plan nationally? How do you expect that to "work out for you"?

WLGR 11.16.16 at 4:11 pm

mclaren @ 7: "high-end programmers (wiped out by an ever-increasing flood of H1B via workers from India and China)"

I'm on board with the general thrust of what you're saying, but this is way, way over the line separating socialism from barbarism. The fact that it's not even true is beside the point, as is the (quite frankly) fascist metaphor of "flood" to describe human fucking beings traveling in search of economic security, at least as long as you show some self-awareness and contrition about your language. Some awareness about the insidious administrative structure of the H1-B program would also be nice - the way it works is, an individual's visa status more or less completely depends on remaining in the good graces of their employer, meaning that by design these employees have no conceivable leverage in any negotiation over pay or working conditions, and a program of unconditional residency without USCIS as a de facto strikebreaker would have much less downward pressure on wages - but anti-immigration rhetoric remaining oblivious to actual immigration law is par for the course.

No, the real point of departure here from what deserves to be called "socialism" is in the very act of blithely combining effects of automation (i.e. traditional capitalist competition for productive efficiency at the expense of workers' economic security) and effects of offshoring/outsourcing/immigration (i.e. racialized fragmentation of the global working class by accident of birth into those who "deserve" greater economic security and those who don't) into one and the same depiction of developed-world economic crisis. In so many words, you're walking right down neoliberal capitalism's ideological garden path: the idea that it's not possible to be anticapitalist without being an economic nationalist, and that every conceivable alternative to some form of Hillary Clinton is ultimately reducible to some form of Donald Trump. On the contrary, those of us on the socialism side of "socialism or barbarism" don't object to capitalism because it's exploiting American workers , we object because it's exploiting workers , and insisting on this crucial point against all chauvinist pressure ("workers of all lands , unite!") is what fundamentally separates our anticapitalism from the pseudo-anticapitalism of fascists.

marku52 11.16.16 at 5:01 pm 16

Maclaren: I'm with you. I well remember Obama and his "pivot to deficit reduction" and "green shoots" while I was screaming at the TV 'No!! Not Now!"

And then he tried for a "grand bargain" with the Reps over chained CPI adjustment for SS, and he became my active enemy. I was a Democrat. Where did my party go?

politicalfootball 11.16.16 at 5:27 pm ( 17 )

Just chiming in here: The implicit deal between the elites and the hoi polloi was that the economy would be run with minimal competence. Throughout the west, those elites have broken faith with the masses on that issue, and are being punished for it.

I'm less inclined to attach responsibility to Obama, Clinton or the Democratic Party than some. If Democrats had their way, the economy would have been managed considerably more competently.

Always remember that the rejection of the elites wasn't just a rejection of Democrats. The Republican elite also took it in the neck.

I'll also dissent from the view that race wasn't decisive in this election. Under different circumstances, we might have had Bernie's revolution rather than Trump's, but Trump's coalition is composed of overt racists and people who are indifferent to overt racism.

engels 11.16.16 at 7:12 pm 18

I find the discussions over identity politics so intensely frustrating. A lot of people on the left have gone all-in on self-righteous anger

Identity politics (and to some extent probably the rhetorical style that goes with it) isn't a 'left' thing, it's a liberal thing. It's a bęte noire for many on the left-see eg. Nancy Fraser's work.

The Anglo/online genus what you get when you subtract class, socialism and real-world organisation from politics and add in a lot of bored students and professionals with internet connections in the context of a political culture (America's) that already valorises individual aggression to a unique degree.

Omega Centauri 11.16.16 at 7:15 pm ( 19 )

As polticalfoorball @15 says. The Democrats just didn't have the political muscle to deliver on those things. There really is a dynamic thats been playing out: Democrats don't get enough governing capacity because they did poorly in the election, which means their projects to improve the economy are neutered or allowed through only in a very weakened form. Then the next election cycle the neuterers use that failure as a weapon to take even more governing capacity away. Its not a failure of will, its a failure to get on top of the political feedback loop.

Manta 11.16.16 at 7:32 pm 20

@15 politicalfootball 11.16.16 at 5:27 pm
"Throughout the west, those elites have broken faith with the masses on that issue, and are being punished for it."

Could you specify some "elite" that has been punished?

nastywoman 11.16.16 at 7:36 pm ( 21 )

@13
'I'm not sure what the thinking is here.'

The definition of 'Keynesianism' is:

'the economic theories and programs ascribed to John M. Keynes and his followers; specifically : the advocacy of monetary and fiscal programs by government to increase employment and spending'

– and if it is done wisely – like in most European countries before 2000 it is one of the least 'braindead' things.

But with the introduction of the Euro – some governmental programs – lead (especially in Spain) to horrendous self-destructive housing and building bubbles – which lead to the conclusion that such programs – which allow 'gambling with houses' are pretty much 'braindead'.

Or shorter: The quality of Keynesianism depends on NOT doing it 'braindead'.

mclaren 11.16.16 at 8:28 pm ( 25 )

Cranky Observer in #11 makes some excellent points. Crucially, he asks: "Finally, you need to address the fundamental question: assuming all you say is true (arguendo), how does destroying the Affordable Care Act, Social Security, and Medicare help those in the economically depressed areas?"

There actually is a logic at work in the Rust Belt voters for voted for Trump. I don't think it's good logic, but it makes sense in its own warped way. The calculation the Trump voters seem to be making in the Rust Belt is that it's better to have a job and no health insurance and no medicare and no social security, than no job but the ACA (with $7,000 deductibles you can't afford to pay for anyway) plus medicare (since most of these voters are healthy, they figure they'll never get sick) plus social security (most of these voters are not 65 or older, and probably think they'll never age - or perhaps don't believe that social security will be solvent when they do need it).

It's the same twisted logic that goes on with protectionism. Rust Belt workers figure that it's better to have a job and not be able to afford a Chinese-made laptop than not to have a job but plenty of cheap foreign-made widgets you could buy if you had any money (which you don't). That logic doesn't parse if you run through the economics (because protectionism will destroy the very jobs they think they're saving), but it can be sold as a tweet in a political campaign.

As for 63.7% home ownership stats in 2016, vast numbers of those "owned" homes were snapped up by giant banks and other financial entities like hedge funds which then rented those homes out. So the home ownership stats in 2016 are extremely deceptive. Much of the home-buying since the 2009 crash has been investment purchases. Foreclosure home purchases for rent is now a huge thriving business, and it's fueling a second housing bubble. Particularly because in many ways it repeats the financially frothy aspects of the early 2000s housing bubble - banks and investment firms are issuing junks bonds based on rosy estimates of ever-escalating rents and housing prices, they use those junk financial instruments (and others like CDOs) to buy houses which then get rented out at inflated prices, the rental income gets used to fund more tranches of investment which fuels more buy-to-rent home buying. Rents have already skyrocketed far beyond incomes on the East and West Coast, so this can't continue. But home prices and rents keep rising. There is no city in the United States today where a worker making minimum wage can afford to rent a one-bedroom apartment and have money left over to eat and pay for a car, health insurance, etc. If home ownership were really so robust, this couldn't possibly be the case. The fact that rents keep skyrocketing even as undocumented hispanics return to Mexico in record numbers while post-9/11 ICE restrictions have hammered legal immigration numbers way, way down suggests that home ownership is not nearly as robust as the deceptive numbers indicate.

Political football in #15 remarks: "I'll also dissent from the view that race wasn't decisive in this election. Under different circumstances, we might have had Bernie's revolution rather than Trump's, but Trump's coalition is composed of overt racists and people who are indifferent to overt racism."

Race was important, but not the root cause of the Trump victory. How do we know this? Tump himself is telling us. Look at Trump's first announced actions - deport 3 million undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, ram through vast tax cuts for the rich, and end the inheritance tax.

If Trump's motivation (and his base's motivation) was pure racism, Trump's first announced action would be something like passing laws that made it illegal to marry undocumented workers. His first act would be to roll back the legalization of black/white marriage and re-instate segregation. Trump isn't promising any of that.

Instead Trump's (bad) policies are based around enriching billionaires and shutting down immigration. Bear in mind that 43% of all new jobs created since 2009 went to immigrants and you start to realize that Trump's base is reacting to economic pressure by scapegoating immigrants, not racism by itself. If it were pure racism we'd have Trump and Ryan proposing a bunch of new Nuremberg laws. Make it illegal to have sex with muslims, federally fund segregated black schools and pass laws to force black kids to get bussed to them, create apartheid-style zones where only blacks can live, that sort of thing. Trump's first announced actions involve enriching the fantastically wealthy and enacting dumb self-destructive protectionism via punitive immigration control. That's protectionism + class war of the rich against everyone else, not racism. The protectionist immigration-control + deportation part of Trump's program is sweet sweet music to the working class people in the Rust Belt. They think the 43% of jobs taken by immigrants will come back. They don't realize that those are mostly jobs no one wants to do anyway, and that most of those jobs are already in the process of getting automated out of existence.

The claim "Trump's coalition is composed of overt racists and people who are indifferent to overt racism" is incomplete. Trump's coalition actually consists of 3 parts and it's highly unstable: [1] racists, [2] plutocrats, [3] working class people slammed hard by globalization for whom Democrats have done little or nothing.

Here's an argument that may resonate: the first two groups in Trump's coalition are unreachable. Liberal Democrats can't sweet-talk racists out of being racist and we certainly have nothing to offer the plutocrats. So the only part of Trump's coalition that is really reachable by liberal Democrats is the third group. Shouldn't we be concentrating on that third group, then?

The good news is that Trump's coalition is unstable. The plutocrats and Rust Belters are natural enemies. Since the plutocrats are perceived as running giant corporations that import large numbers of non-white immigrants to lower wages, the racists are not big fans of that group either.

Listen to Steve Bannon, a classic stormfront type - he says he wants to blow up both the Democratic and the Republican party. He calls himself a "Leninist" in a recent interview and vows to wreck all elite U.S. institutions (universities, giant multinationals), not just the Democratic party.

Why? Because the stormfront types consider elite U.S. institutions like CitiBank as equally culpable with Democrats in supposedly destroying white people in the U.S. According to Bannon's twisted skinhead logic, Democrats are allegedly race traitors for cultural reasons, but big U.S. corporations and elite institutions are supposedly equally guilty of economic race treason by importing vast numbers of non-white immigrants via H1B visas, by offshoring jobs from mostly caucasian-populated red states to non-white countries like India, Africa, China, and by using elite U.S. universities to trawl the world for the best (often non-white) students, etc. Bannon's "great day of the rope" includes the plutocrats as well as people of color.

These natural fractures in the Trump coalition are real, and Democrats can exploit them to weaken and destroy Republicans. But we have to get away from condemning all Republicans as racists because if we go down that route, we won't realize how fractured and unstable the Trump coalition really is.

bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:33 pm 31 ( 31 )

The short version of my thinking on the Obama stimulus is this: Keynesian stimulus spending is a free lunch; it doesn't really matter what you spend money on up to a very generous point, so it seems ready-made for legislative log-rolling. If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying.

Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.

engels 11.16.16 at 10:33 pm 32

Ps. Should prob add that identity politics isn't the same thing as feminism, anti-racism, LGBT politics, etc. They're all needed now more than ever.

What we don't need more of imo is a particular liberal/middle-class form of those things with particular assumptions (meritocratic and individualist), epistemology (strongly subjectivist) and rhetorical style (which often aims humiliating opponents from a position of relative knowledge/status rather than verbal engagement).

Helen 11.16.16 at 10:35 pm ( 33 )

I don't know why I'm even having to say this, as it's so obvious. The "leftists" (for want of a better word) and feminists who I know are also against neoliberalism. They are against the selloff of public assets to enterprises for private profit. They want to see a solution to the rapidly shrinking job market as technology replaces jobs (no, it's not enough for the Heroic Workers to Seize the Means of Production – the means of production are different now and the solution is going to have to be more complex than just "bring back manufacturing" or "introduce tariffs".) They want to roll back the tax cuts for the rich which have whittled down our revenue base this century. They want corporations and the top 10% to pay their fair share, and concomitantly they want pensioners, the unemployed and people caring for children to have a proper living wage.

They support a universal "single payer" health care system, which we social democratic squishy types managed to actually introduce in the 1970s, but now we have to fight against right wing governments trying to roll it back They support a better system of public education. They support a science-based approach to climate change where it is taken seriously for the threat it is and given priority in Government policy. They support spending less on the Military and getting out of international disputes which we (Western nations) only seem to exacerbate.

This is not an exhaustive list.

Yet just because the same people say that the dominant Western countries (and my own) still suffer from institutionalised racism and sexism, which is not some kind of cake icing but actually ruin lives and kill people, we are "all about identity politics" and cannot possibly have enough brain cells to think about the issues I described in para 1.

I don't find it instructive or useful.

Main Street Muse 11.16.16 at 10:54 pm 34

The slow recovery was only one factor. Wages have been stagnant since Reagan. And honestly, if a white Republican president had stabilized the economy, killed Osama Bin Laden and got rid of pre-existing condition issue with healthcare, the GOP would be BRAGGING all over it. Let's remember that we have ONE party that has been devoted to racist appeals, lying and putting party over country for decades.

Obama entered office as the economy crashed over a cliff. Instead of reforming the banks and punishing the bankers who engaged in fraudulent activities, he waded into healthcare reform. Banks are bigger today than they were in 2008. And tell me again, which bankers were punished for the fraud? Not a one All that Repo 105 maneuvering, stuffing the retirement funds with toxic assets – etc. and so on – all of that was perfectly legal? And if legal, all of that was totally bonusable? Yes! In America, such failure is gifted with huge bonuses, thanks to the American taxpayer.

Meanwhile, homeowners saw huge drops the value of their homes. Some are still underwater with the mortgage. It's a shame that politicians and reporters in DC don't get out much.

Concurrently, right before the election, ACA premiums skyrocketed. If you are self-insured, ACA is NOT affordable. It doesn't matter that prior to ACA, premiums increased astronomically. Obama promised AFFORDABLE healthcare. In my state, we have essentially a monopoly on health insurance, and the costs are absurd. But that's in part because the state Republicans refused to expand Medicaid.

Don't underestimate HRC's serious issues. HRC had one speech for the bankers and another for everyone else. Why didn't she release the GS transcripts? When did the Democrats become the party of Wall Street?

She also made the same idiotic mistake that Romney did – disparage a large swathe of American voters (basket of deplorables is this year's 47%.)

And then we had a nation of voters intent on the outsider. Bernie Sanders had an improbable run at it – the Wikileaks emails showed that the DNC did what they could to get rid of him as a threat.

Well America has done and gone elected themselves an outsider. Lucky us.

[Nov 16, 2016] Strong woman and her gay minion DESTROY mansplaining stale pale male

Notable quotes:
"... 'A big part of Bill's anger toward Hillary was that he was sidelined during the entire campaign by her advisers,' said the source. 'He can't be effective if he sees himself as just another hired hand. He wasn't listened to and that infuriated him. After all, he knows something about campaigns, and he told me in early October that Hillary and her advisers were blowing it. ..."
"... 'Hillary wouldn't listen. She told Bill that his ideas were old and that he was out of touch. In the end, there was nothing he could do about it because Hillary and her people weren't listening to anything he said.' ..."
www.unz.com

'Bill always campaigned as a guy who felt your pain, but Hillary came across as someone who was pissed off at her enemy [Trump], not someone who was reaching out and trying to make life better for the white working class.'

'Bill also said that many African Americans were deeply disappointed with the results of eight years of Obama,' the source continued.

'Despite more and more government assistance, black weren't economically any better off, and black-on-black crime was destroying their communities. He said Hillary should have gone into the South Side of Chicago and condemned the out-of-control violence.'

'A big part of Bill's anger toward Hillary was that he was sidelined during the entire campaign by her advisers,' said the source. 'He can't be effective if he sees himself as just another hired hand. He wasn't listened to and that infuriated him. After all, he knows something about campaigns, and he told me in early October that Hillary and her advisers were blowing it.

'Hillary wouldn't listen. She told Bill that his ideas were old and that he was out of touch. In the end, there was nothing he could do about it because Hillary and her people weren't listening to anything he said.'

[Nov 16, 2016] This is evidence that the elites in the Democrat Party would rather lose with their candidate than win with an outsider

Notable quotes:
"... Of course, the DNC was too busy trying to blow the Sanders campaign to smithereens and Hillary decided that comforting the Democrat Party's donor base was more important than attracting working class voters in the Rust Belt. ..."
Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Greg T November 16, 2016 at 2:05 pm

I read all of these points and conclude that Bernie Sanders would have defeated Trump in the general election. Sanders would have held all of the Democratic strongholds, and he would have beaten Trump in the Midwest.

Of course, the DNC was too busy trying to blow the Sanders campaign to smithereens and Hillary decided that comforting the Democrat Party's donor base was more important than attracting working class voters in the Rust Belt.

This is evidence that the elites in the Democrat Party would rather lose with a ' made ' candidate than win with an outsider.

[Nov 16, 2016] Two More Myths About Clintons Defeat in Election 2016 Debunked

Notable quotes:
"... "It's not a question of what happens in the last week. The question is that she should have won this election by 10 percentage points. ..."
Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Talking Point: The Clinton Campaign Was Well-Managed

Here are two examples of the talking point. From the Washington Post (November 10, 2016):

At Brooklyn headquarters on Wednesday, Podesta expressed his gratitude and support for the team, and for Mook. "We have the No. 1 campaign manager," he said, in a staffwide gathering in the afternoon. "I've been doing this since 1968, and I've never seen a culture and a spirit like we created in this campaign." On the conference call with thousands of staff across the country, Clinton also called in [how kind] and thanked her team for their dedication.

Mook tried to end the campaign on a high note.

"What you've created is going to live on," he told his troops. "Leaders all over this country, local networks around the nation, future candidates who are going to step forward. Someone in this room is going to manage a presidential campaign one day."

Talking Point: The Clinton Defeat Had Nothing To Do With Economics

Here's an example of the talking point. From, naturally, Amanda Marcotte (November 11, 2016):

Because this anger is so real and so palpable, there's been an unfortunate tendency in much of the media to assume that this anger must also be valid . The entire election cycle was a clusterfuck of articles demanding empathy for Trump voters , insisting that their rage must have some rational roots - perhaps economic insecurity ?

The persistence of the "economic insecurity" angle in the face of overwhelming evidence against it was a testament to the power of hope over reason.

(The subtext here is usually that if you don't retweet approvingly, you're a racist yourself, and possibly a racist Trump supporter.) There are four reasons why this talking point is false.

... .... ...

To be fair, Clinton is correct that "there are lots of reasons," in an election this close. However, to me, blaming Comey is like blaming the last pebble in an avalanche of #FAIL. Sanders asks the right question. Talking about the Comey letters , Sanders said:

"It's not a question of what happens in the last week. The question is that she should have won this election by 10 percentage points.

[Nov 16, 2016] The my way or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening

Notable quotes:
"... The "my way" or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening. When Bush was called a warmonger for Iraq, that was fine. When Clinton was called a warmonger for Iraq and Libya, the Clintonites went on the offensive, often throwing around crap like "if she was a man, she wouldn't be a warmonger!" ..."
"... On racism: "what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they acted exactly like us." ..."
"... I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive. And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities." ..."
"... And the rural folk are called a "basket of deplorables" and other names. If you want to fight racism, a battle that is Noble and Honorable, you have to understand the nuances between racism and hopelessness. The wizard-wannabe idiots are a tiny fringe. The "deplorables" are a huge part of rural America. If you alienate them, you're helping the idiots mentioned above. ..."
Nov 16, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
ucgsblog, November 14, 2016 at 3:50 pm
Erm, atheist groups are known to target smaller Christian groups with lawsuits. A baker was sued for refusing to bake a cake for a Gay Wedding. She was perfectly willing to serve the couple, just not at the wedding. In California we had a lawsuit over a cross in a park. Atheists threatened a lawsuit over a seal. Look, I get that there are people with no life out there, but why are they bringing the rest of us into their insanity, with constant lawsuits. There's actually a concept known as "Freedom from Religion" – what the heck? Can you imagine someone arguing about "Freedom from Speech" in America? But it's ok to do it to religious folk! And yes, that includes Muslims, who had to fight to build a Mosque in New York. They should've just said it was a Scientology Center

The "my way" or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening. When Bush was called a warmonger for Iraq, that was fine. When Clinton was called a warmonger for Iraq and Libya, the Clintonites went on the offensive, often throwing around crap like "if she was a man, she wouldn't be a warmonger!"

The problem with healthcare in the US deserves its own thread, but Obamacare did not fix it; Obamacare made it worse, especially in the rural communities. The laws in schools are fundamentally retarded. A kid was suspended for giving a friend Advil. Another kid suspended for bringing in a paper gun. I could go on and on. A girl was expelled from college for trying to look gangsta in a L'Oreal mask. How many examples do you need? Look at all of the new "child safety laws" which force kids to leave in a bubble. And when they enter the Real World, they're fucked, so they pick up the drugs. In cities it's crack, in farmvilles it's meth.

Hillary didn't win jack shit. She got a plurality of the popular vote. She didn't win it, since winning implies getting the majority. How many Johnson votes would've gone to Trump if it was based on popular vote, in a safe state? Of course the biggest issue is the attack on the way of life, which is all too real. I encourage you to read this, in order to understand where they're coming from: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

"Nothing that happens outside the city matters!" they say at their cocktail parties, blissfully unaware of where their food is grown. Hey, remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind of weird that a big hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV shows about it), you'd barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and doing an astounding $125 billion in damage. But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy about a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New Orleans is culturally important. It matters. To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites. "Are you assholes listening now?"

On racism: "what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they acted exactly like us."

"They're getting the shit kicked out of them. I know, I was there. Step outside of the city, and the suicide rate among young people fucking doubles. The recession pounded rural communities, but all the recovery went to the cities. The rate of new businesses opening in rural areas has utterly collapsed."

^ That, I'd say, is known as destroying their lives. Also this:

"In a city, you can plausibly aspire to start a band, or become an actor, or get a medical degree. You can actually have dreams. In a small town, there may be no venues for performing arts aside from country music bars and churches. There may only be two doctors in town - aspiring to that job means waiting for one of them to retire or die. You open the classifieds and all of the job listings will be for fast food or convenience stores. The "downtown" is just the corpses of mom and pop stores left shattered in Walmart's blast crater, the "suburbs" are trailer parks. There are parts of these towns that look post-apocalyptic.

I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive. And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities."

And the rural folk are called a "basket of deplorables" and other names. If you want to fight racism, a battle that is Noble and Honorable, you have to understand the nuances between racism and hopelessness. The wizard-wannabe idiots are a tiny fringe. The "deplorables" are a huge part of rural America. If you alienate them, you're helping the idiots mentioned above.

[Nov 16, 2016] What Was the Election All About

Nov 12, 2016 | www.independent.org

...In fact, the entire Democratic Party has mainly ceased to campaign on issues-choosing instead to invest heavily in identity politics. The message to black voters is: vote for us because you are black, not because of anything we are going to do. Ditto for Hispanics. And women. And the LGBT community. And others. Hillary does have an agenda. More on that in a future post. But she didn't campaign on it.

As for the mainstream media, I have never seen an election in which the media was so biased. And not just biased. The media's entire view of the election was Hillary Clinton's view. Even on Fox News, the entire focus on election night and in the days that followed was on identity politics. How many blacks were voting? How many Hispanics? How many women?

As if demography were destiny.

Now, as it turns out, a greater percentage of blacks voted for Trump than voted for Romney. The same thing is true of Hispanics. In fact, Trump did better among minorities than any Republican since Ronald Reagan. He even got a majority of white female votes.

Why were all these people doing something they weren't supposed to do? On network television and even on cable television, no one had an answer.

Putting the media aside for the moment, do you know what Hillary's position is on trade deals with other countries? Of course, you don't. And neither does anyone else. When she spoke about the issue at all, she said one thing behind closed doors and another in public. The reason this doesn't matter on Wall Street (or to the editors of the New York Times ) is that they assume she has no real convictions and that money and special interest influence will always win out.

What about Hillary's solution to the problem of illegal immigration? Do you know what that is? How about her position on corporate tax reform? Or school choice? Or Obamacare? Or opportunities for blacks in inner cities?

I bet you don't know her positions on any of these topics. But I bet you do know Donald Trump's. Not in detail, of course. But I bet you know the general way in which he differs from Obama administration policies.

[Nov 16, 2016] Ultimately the Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one

Notable quotes:
"... Judging by the volume of complaints from Clinton sycophants insisting that people did not get behind Clinton or that it was purely her gender, they won't. Why would anyone get behind Clinton save the 1%? Her policies were pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and at odds with what the American people needed. Also, we should judge based on policy, not gender and Clinton comes way short of Sanders in that regard – in many regards, she is the antithesis of Sanders. ..."
"... "Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility" I disagree. In my view, it is not a question at all. They have never taken responsibility for anything, and they never will. ..."
"... What would make Democrats focus on the working class? Nothing. They have lost and brought about destruction of the the Unions, which was the Democratic Base, and have become beholden to the money. The have noting in common with the working class, and no sympathy for their situation, either. ..."
"... What does Bill Clinton, who drive much of the policy in the '90s, and spent his early years running away form the rural poor in Arkansas (Law School, Rhodes Scholarship), have in common with working class people anywhere? ..."
"... Iron law of institutions applies. Position in the D apparatus is more important than political power – because with power come blame. ..."
"... I notice Obama worked hard to lose majorities in the house and Senate so he could point to the Republicans and say "it was their fault" except when he actually wanted something, and made it happen (such as TPP). ..."
"... Agreed with the first but not the second. It's typical liberal identity politics guilt tripping. That won't get you too far on the "white side" of Youngstown Ohio. ..."
"... Also suspect that the working-class, Rust-Belt Trump supporters will soon be thrown under the bus by their Standard Bearer, if the Transition Team appointments are any indicator: e.g. Privateers at SSA. ..."
"... My wife teaches primary grades in an inner city school. She has made it clear to me over the years that the challenges her children are facing are related to poverty, not race. She sees a big correlation between the financial status of a family and its family structure (one or more parents not present or on drugs) and the kids' success in school. Race is a minor factor. ..."
"... The problem with running on a class based platform in America is, well, it's America; and in good ol' America, we are taught that anyone can become a successful squillionare – ya know, hard work, nose-to-the-grindstone, blah, blah, blah. ..."
"... The rags to riches American success fable is so ingrained that ideas like taxing the rich a bit more fall flat because everyone thinks "that could be me someday. Just a few house flips, a clever new app, that ten-bagger (or winning lottery ticket) and I'm there" ("there" being part of the 1%). ..."
"... The idea that anyone can be successful (i.e. rich) is constantly promoted. ..."
"... I think this fantasy is beginning to fade a bit but the "wealth = success" idea is so deeply rooted in the American psyche I don't think it will ever fade completely away. ..."
"... If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy - which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog - you will come to an awful realization. It wasn't Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that. ..."
"... Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain't what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down. ..."
"... The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. ..."
"... White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America ..."
"... Poor or Poorer whites have been demonised since the founding of the original Colonies, and were continuously pushed west to the frontiers by the ruling elites of New England and the South as a way of ridding themselves of "undesirables", who were then left to their own resources, and clung together for mutual assistance. ..."
"... White trash is a central, if disturbing, thread in our national narrative. The very existence of such people – both in their visibility and invisibility – is proof that American society obsesses over the mutable labels we give to the neighbors we wish not to notice. "They are not who we are". But they are who we are and have been a fundamental part of our history, whether we like it or not". ..."
"... "To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists " ..."
"... working class white women ..."
"... Obama is personally likeable ..."
"... History tells us the party establishment will move further right after election losses. And among the activist class there are identity purity battles going on. ..."
"... Watch as this happens yet again: "In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years." That is why we need a strong third party, a reformed election system with public support of campaigns and no private money, and free and fair media coverage. But it ain't gonna happen. ..."
"... Obviously, if the Democrats nominate yet another Clintonite Obamacrat all over again, I may have to vote for Trump all over again . . . to stop the next Clintonite before it kills again. ..."
www.nakedcapitalism.com
Altandmain November 15, 2016 at 10:08 am

Ultimately the Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility for what happened.

Judging by the volume of complaints from Clinton sycophants insisting that people did not get behind Clinton or that it was purely her gender, they won't. Why would anyone get behind Clinton save the 1%? Her policies were pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and at odds with what the American people needed. Also, we should judge based on policy, not gender and Clinton comes way short of Sanders in that regard – in many regards, she is the antithesis of Sanders.

Class trumps race, to make a pun. If the left doesn't take the Democratic Party back and clean house, I expect that there is a high probability that 2020's election will look at lot like the 2004 elections.

I'd recommend someone like Sanders to run. Amongst the current crop, maybe Tulsi Gabbard or Nina Turner seem like the best candidates.

Carla November 15, 2016 at 10:42 am

"Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility" I disagree. In my view, it is not a question at all. They have never taken responsibility for anything, and they never will.

Synoia November 15, 2016 at 10:13 am

What would make Democrats focus on the working class? Nothing. They have lost and brought about destruction of the the Unions, which was the Democratic Base, and have become beholden to the money. The have noting in common with the working class, and no sympathy for their situation, either.

What does Bill Clinton, who drive much of the policy in the '90s, and spent his early years running away form the rural poor in Arkansas (Law School, Rhodes Scholarship), have in common with working class people anywhere?

The same question applies to Hillary, to Trump and the remainder of our "representatives" in Congress.

Without Unions, how are US Representatives from the working class elected?

What we are seeing is a shift in the US for the Republicans to become the populist party. They already have the churches, and with Trump they can gain the working class – although I do not underestimate the contempt help by our elected leaders for the Working Class and poor.

The have forgotten, if they ever believed: "There, but for the grace of God, go I".

Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 2:22 pm

> What would make Democrats focus on the working class?

The quest for political power.

Synoia November 15, 2016 at 11:19 pm

Iron law of institutions applies. Position in the D apparatus is more important than political power – because with power come blame.

I notice Obama worked hard to lose majorities in the house and Senate so he could point to the Republicans and say "it was their fault" except when he actually wanted something, and made it happen (such as TPP).

James Dodd November 15, 2016 at 10:46 am

What So Many People Don't Get About the U.S. Working Class – Harvard Business Review

anonymouse November 15, 2016 at 11:07 am

We know that class and economic insecurity drove many white people to vote for Trump. That's understandable. And now we are seeing a rise in hate incidents inspired by his victory. So obviously there is a race component in his support as well. So, if you, white person, didn't vote for Trump out of white supremacy, would you consider making a statement that disavows the acts of extremist whites? Do you vow to stand up and help if you see people being victimized? Do you vow not to stay silent when you encounter Trump supporters who ARE obviously in thrall to the white supremacist siren call?

Brad November 15, 2016 at 11:45 am

Agreed with the first but not the second. It's typical liberal identity politics guilt tripping. That won't get you too far on the "white side" of Youngstown Ohio.

And I wouldn't worry about it. When I worked at the at the USX Fairless works in Levittown PA in 1988, I was befriended by one steelworker who was a clear raving white supremacist racist. (Actually rather nonchalant about about it). However he was the only one I encountered who was like this, and eventually I figured out that he befriended a "newbie" like me because he had no friends among the other workers, including the whites. He was not popular at all.

Harold November 15, 2016 at 11:14 am

Left-wing populism unites people of all classes and all identities by emphasizing policies. That was what Bernie Sanders meant to me, at least.

Citizen Sissy November 15, 2016 at 11:38 am

I've always thought that Class, not Race, was the Third Rail of American Politics, and that the US was fast-tracking to a more shiny, happy feudalism.

Also suspect that the working-class, Rust-Belt Trump supporters will soon be thrown under the bus by their Standard Bearer, if the Transition Team appointments are any indicator: e.g. Privateers at SSA.

Gonna get interesting very quickly.

rd November 15, 2016 at 11:47 am

My wife teaches primary grades in an inner city school. She has made it clear to me over the years that the challenges her children are facing are related to poverty, not race. She sees a big correlation between the financial status of a family and its family structure (one or more parents not present or on drugs) and the kids' success in school. Race is a minor factor.

She also makes it clear to me that the Somali/Syrian/Iraqi etc. immigrant kids are going to do very well even though they come in without a word of English because they are working their butts off and they have the full support of their parents and community. These people left bad places and came to their future and they are determined to grab it with both hands. 40% of her class this year is ENL (English as a non-native language). Since it is an inner city school, they don't have teacher's aides in the class, so it is just one teacher in a class of 26-28 kids, of which a dozen struggle to understand English. Surprisingly, the class typically falls short of the "standards" that the state sets for the standardized exams. Yet many of the immigrant kids end up going to university after high school through sheer effort.

Bullying and extreme misbehavior (teachers are actually getting injured by violent elementary kids) is largely done by kids born in the US. The immigrant kids tend to be fairly well-behaved.

On a side note, the CSA at our local farmer's market said they couldn't find people to pick the last of their fall crops (it is in a rural community so a car is needed to get there). So the food bank was going out this week to pick produce like squash, onions etc. and we were told we could come out and pick what we wanted. Full employment?

Dave November 15, 2016 at 11:55 am

"Women and minorities encouraged to apply" is a Class issue?

shinola November 15, 2016 at 12:13 pm

The problem with running on a class based platform in America is, well, it's America; and in good ol' America, we are taught that anyone can become a successful squillionare – ya know, hard work, nose-to-the-grindstone, blah, blah, blah.

The rags to riches American success fable is so ingrained that ideas like taxing the rich a bit more fall flat because everyone thinks "that could be me someday. Just a few house flips, a clever new app, that ten-bagger (or winning lottery ticket) and I'm there" ("there" being part of the 1%).

The idea that anyone can be successful (i.e. rich) is constantly promoted.

I think this fantasy is beginning to fade a bit but the "wealth = success" idea is so deeply rooted in the American psyche I don't think it will ever fade completely away.

Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 2:15 pm

I'm recalling (too lazy to find the link) a poll a couple years ago that showed the number of American's identifying as "working class" increased, and the number as "middle class" decreased.

Vatch November 15, 2016 at 2:19 pm

Here ya go!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/182918/fewer-americans-identify-middle-class-recent-years.aspx

jrs November 15, 2016 at 6:11 pm

even working class is a total equivocation. A lot of them are service workers period.

TarheelDem November 15, 2016 at 12:24 pm

It is both. And it is a deliberate mechanism of class division to preserve power. Bill Cecil-Fronsman,

Common Whites: Class and Culture in Antebellum North Carolina identifies nine classes in the class structure of a state that mixed modern capitalist practice (plantations), agrarian YOYO independence (the non-slaveowning subsistence farms), town economies, and subsistence (farm labor). Those classes were typed racially and had certain economic, power, and social relations associated with them. For both credit and wages, few escaped the plantation economy and being subservient to the planter capitalists locally.

Moreover, ethnic identity was embedded in the law as a class marker. This system was developed independently or exported through imitation in various ways to the states outside North Carolina and the slave-owning states. The abolition of slavery meant free labor in multiple senses and the capitalist use of ethnic minorities and immigrants as scabs integrated them into an ethnic-class system, where it was broad ethnicity and not just skin-color that defined classes. Other ethnic groups, except Latinos and Muslim adherents, now have earned their "whiteness".

One suspects that every settler colonial society develops this combined ethnic-class structure in which the indigenous ("Indians" in colonial law) occupy one group of classes and imported laborers or slaves or intermixtures ("Indian", "Cape Colored" in South Africa) occupy another group of classes available for employment in production. Once employed, the relationship is exactly that of the slaveowner to the slave no matter how nicely the harsh labor management techniques of 17th century Barbados and Jamaica have been made kinder and gentler. But outside the workplace (and often still inside) the broader class structure applies even contrary to the laws trying to restrict the relationship to boss and worker.

Blacks are not singling themselves out to police; police are shooting unarmed black people without punishment. The race of the cop does not matter, but the institution of impunity makes it open season on a certain class of victims.

It is complicated because every legal and often managerial attempt has been made to reduce the class structure of previous economies to the pure capitalism demanded by current politics.

So when in a post Joe McCarthy, post-Cold War propaganda society, someone wants to protest the domination of capitalism, attacking who they perceive as de facto scabs to their higher incomes (true or not) is the chosen mode of political attack. Not standing up for the political rights of the victims of ethnically-marked violence and discrimination allows the future depression of wages and salaries by their selective use as a threat in firms. And at the individual firm and interpersonal level even this gets complicated because in spite of the pressure to just be businesslike, people do still care for each other.

This is a perennial mistake. In the 1930s Southern Textile Strike, some organizing was of both black and white workers; the unions outside the South rarely stood in solidarity with those efforts because they were excluding ethnic minorities from their unions; indeed, some locals were organized by ethnicity. That attitude also carried over to solidarity with white workers in the textile mills. And those white workers who went out on a limb to organize a union never forgot that failure in their labor struggle. It is the former textile areas of the South that are most into Trump's politics and not so much the now minority-majority plantation areas.

It still is race in the inner ring suburbs of ethnically diverse cities like St. Louis that hold the political lock on a lot of states. Because Ferguson to them seems like an invasion of the lower class. Class politics, of cultural status, based on ethnicity. Still called by that 19h century scientific racism terminology that now has been debunked - race - Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid. Indigenous, at least in the Americas, got stuck under Mongoloid.

You go organize the black, Latino, and white working class to form unions and gain power, and it will happen. It is why Smithfield Foods in North Carolina had to negotiate a contract. Race can be transcended in action.

Pretending the ethnic discrimination and even segregation does not exist and have its own problems is political suicide in the emerging demographics. Might not be a majority, but it is an important segment of the vote. Which is why the GOP suppressed minority voters through a variety of legal and shady electoral techniques. Why Trump wants to deport up to 12 million potential US citizens and some millions of already birthright minor citizens. And why we are likely to see the National Labor Review Board gutted of what little power it retains from 70 years of attack. Interesting what the now celebrated white working class was not offered in this election, likely because they would vote it down quicker because, you know, socialism.

armchair November 15, 2016 at 2:50 pm

Your comment reminded me of an episode in Seattle's history. Link . The unions realized they were getting beat in their strikes, by scabs, who were black. The trick was for the unions to bring the blacks into the union. This was a breakthrough, and it worked in Seattle, in 1934. There is a cool mural the union commissioned by, Pablo O'Higgins , to celebrate the accomplishment.

barrisj November 15, 2016 at 12:49 pm

Speaking of class, and class contempt , one must recall the infamous screed published by National Review columnist Kevin Williamson early this year, writing about marginalised white people here is a choice excerpt:

If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy - which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog - you will come to an awful realization. It wasn't Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that.

Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain't what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down.

The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin.

http://crasstalk.com/2016/03/poor-white-america-deserves-to-die-says-national-review/

Now it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to state that Williamson's animus can be replicated amongst many of the moneyed elite currently pushing and shoving their way into a position within the incoming Trump Administration. The Trump campaign has openly and cynically courted and won the votes of white people similar to those mentioned in Williamson's article, and who – doubtlessly – will be stiffed by policies vigourously opposed to their welfare that will be enacted during the Trump years. The truly intriguing aspect of the Trump election is: what will be the consequences of further degradation of the "lower orders' " quality of life by such actions? Wholesale retreat from electoral politics? Further embitterment and anger NOT toward those in Washington responsible for their lot but directed against ethnic and racial minorities "stealing their jawbs" and "getting welfare while we scrounge for a living"? I sincerely doubt whether the current or a reconstructed Democratic Party can at all rally this large chunk of white America by posing as their "champions" the class divide in the US is as profound as the racial chasm, and neither major party – because of internal contradictions – can offer a credible answer.

Waldenpond November 15, 2016 at 1:25 pm

[In addition to the growing inequality and concomitant wage stagnation for the middle and working classes, 9/11 and its aftermath has certainly has contributed to it as well, as, making PEOPLE LONG FOR the the Golden Age of Managerial Capitalism of the post-WWII era,]

Oh yeah, I noticed a big ol' hankerin' for that from the electorate. What definition could the author be using for Managerial Capitalism that could make it the opposite of inequality? The fight for power between administration and shareholders does not lead to equality for workers.

[So this gave force to the idea that the government was nothing but a viper's nest full of crony capitalist enablers,]

I don't think it's an 'idea' that the govt is crony capitalists and enablers. Ds need to get away from emotive descriptions. Being under/unemployed, houseless, homeless, unable to pay for rent, utilities, food . aren't feelings/ideas. When that type of language is used, it comes across as hand waving. There needs to be a shift of talking to rather than talking about.

If crony capitalism is an idea, it's simply a matter for Ds to identify a group (workers), create a hierarchy (elite!) and come up with a propaganda campaign (celebrities and musicians spending time in flyover country-think hanging out in coffee shops in a flannel shirt) to get votes. Promise to toss them a couple of crumbs with transfer payments (retraining!) or a couple of regulations (mandatory 3 week severance!) and bring out the obligatory D fall back- it would be better than the Rs would give them. On the other hand, if it's factual, the cronies need to be stripped of power and kicked out or the nature of the capitalist structure needs to be changed. It's laughable to imagine liberals or progressives would be open to changing the power and nature of the corporate charter (it makes me smile to think of the gasps).

The author admits that politicians lie and continue the march to the right yet uses the ACA, a march to the right, as a connection to Obama's (bombing, spying, shrinking middle class) likability.

[[But emphasizing class-based policies, rather than gender or race-based solutions, will achieve more for the broad swathe of voters, who comprehensively rejected the "neo-liberal lite" identity politics]

Oops. I got a little lost with the neo-liberal lite identity politics. Financialized identity politics? Privatized identity politics?

I believe women and poc have lost ground (economic and rights) so I would like examples of successful gender and race-based (liberal identity politics) solutions that would demonstrate that identity politics targeting is going to work on the working class.

If workers have lost power, to balance that structure, you give workers more power (I predict that will fail as unions fall under the generic definition of corporatist and the power does not rest with the members but with the CEOs of the unions – an example is a union that block the members from voting to endorse a candidate, go against the member preference and endorse the corporatist candidate), or you remove power from the corporation. Libs/progs can't merely propose something like vesting more power with shareholders to remove executives as an ameliorating maneuver which fails to address the power imbalance.

[This is likely only to accelerate the disintegration of the political system and economic system until the elephant in the room – class – is honestly and comprehensively addressed.]

barrisj November 15, 2016 at 1:41 pm

For a thorough exposition of lower-class white America from the inception of the Republic to today, a must-read is Nancy Isenberg's White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America . Poor or Poorer whites have been demonised since the founding of the original Colonies, and were continuously pushed west to the frontiers by the ruling elites of New England and the South as a way of ridding themselves of "undesirables", who were then left to their own resources, and clung together for mutual assistance.

Thus became the economic and cultural subset of "crackers", "hillbillies", "rednecks", and later, "Okies", a source of contempt and scorn by more economically and culturally endowed whites. The anti-bellum white Southern aristocracy cynically used poor whites as cheap tenant farming, all the while laying down race-based distinctions between them and black slaves – there is always someone lower on the totem pole, and that distinction remains in place today. Post-Reconstruction, the South maintained the cult of white superiority, all the while preserving the status of upper-class whites, and, by race-based public policies, assured lower-class whites that such "superiority" would be maintained by denying the black populations access to education, commerce, the vote, etc. And today, "white trash", or "trailer trash", or poorer whites in general are ubiquitous and as American as apple pie, in the North, the Midwest, and the West, not just the South. Let me quote Isenberg's final paragraph of her book:

White trash is a central, if disturbing, thread in our national narrative. The very existence of such people – both in their visibility and invisibility – is proof that American society obsesses over the mutable labels we give to the neighbors we wish not to notice. "They are not who we are". But they are who we are and have been a fundamental part of our history, whether we like it or not".

Enquiring Mind November 15, 2016 at 5:56 pm

Also read Albion's Seed for interesting discussion about the waves of immigration and how those went on to impact subsequent generations.

vegeholic November 15, 2016 at 2:04 pm

Presenting a plan for the future, which has a chance to be supported by the electorate, must start with scrupulous, unwavering honesty and a willingness to acknowledge inconvenient facts. The missing topic from the 2016 campaigns was declining energy surpluses and their pervasive, negative impact on the prosperity to which we feel entitled. Because of the energy cost of producing oil, a barrel today represents a declining fraction of a barrel in terms of net energy. This is the major factor in sluggish economic performance. Failing to make this case and, at the same time, offering glib and vacuous promises of growth and economic revival, are just cynical exercises in pandering.

Our only option is to mange the coming decline in a way that does not descend into chaos and anarchy. This can only be done with a clear vision of causes and effects and the wisdom and courage to accept facts. The alternative is yet more delusions and wishful thinking, whose shelf life is getting shorter.

ChrisAtRU November 15, 2016 at 2:26 pm

Marshall is awesome.

To be fair to the article, Marshall did in fact say:

"To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists "

IMO the point Marshall is making that race was not the primary reason #DJT won. And I concur.

This is borne out by the vote tallies which show that the number of R voters from 2012 to 2016 was pretty much on the level (final counts pending):
2016 R Vote: 60,925,616
2012 R Vote: 60,934,407
(Source: US Election Atlas )

Stop and think about this for a minute. Every hard core racist had their guy this time around; and yet, the R's could barely muster the same amount of votes as Mittens in 2012. This is huge, and supports the case that other things contributed far more than just race.

Class played in several ways:
Indifference/apathy/fatigue: Lambert posted some data from Carl Beijer on this yesterday in his Clinton Myths piece yesterday.
Anger: #HRC could not convince many people who voted for Bernie that she was interested in his outreach to the working class. More importantly, #HRC could not convince working class white women that she had anything other than her gender and Trump's boorishness as a counterpoint to offer.
Outsider v Insider: Working class people skeptical of political insiders rejected #HRC.

TG November 15, 2016 at 3:00 pm

Kudos. Well said.

If black workers were losing ground and white workers were gaining, one could indeed claim that racism is a problem. However, both black and white workers are losing ground – racism simply cannot be the major issue here. It's not racism, it's class war.

The fixation on race, the corporate funding of screaming 'black lives matter' agitators, the crude attempts to tie Donald Trump to the KKK (really? really?) are just divide and conquer, all over again.

Whatever his other faults, Donald Trump has been vigorous in trying to reach out to working class blacks, even though he knew he wouldn't get much of their vote and he knew that the media mostly would not cover it. Last I heard, he was continuing to try and reach out, despite the black 'leadership' class demanding that he is a racist. Because as was so well pointed out here, the one thing the super-rich fear is a united working class.

Divide and conquer. It's an old trick, but a powerful one.

Suggestion: if (and it's a big if) Trump really does enact policies that help working class blacks, and the Republicans peel away a significant fraction of the black vote, that would set the elites' hair on fire. Because it would mean that the black vote would be in play, and the Neoliberal Democrats couldn't just take their votes for granted. And wouldn't that be a thing.

pretzelattack November 16, 2016 at 3:09 am

that was good for 2016. I will look to see if he has stats for other years. i certainly agree that poor whites are more likely to be shot; executions of homeless people by police are one example. the kind of system that was imposed on the people of ferguson has often been imposed on poor whites, too. i do object to the characterization of black lives matter protestors as "screaming agitators"; that's all too reminiscent of the meme of "outside agitators" riling up the local peaceful black people to stand up for their rights that was characteristically used to smear the civil rights movement in the 60's.

tongorad November 15, 2016 at 3:18 pm

I might not have much in common at all with certain minorities, but it's highly likely that we share class status.
That's why the status quo allows identity politics and suppresses class politics.

Sound of the Suburbs November 15, 2016 at 5:02 pm

Having been around for sometime, I often wonder what The Guardian is going on about in the UK as it is supposed to be our left wing broadsheet.

It isn't a left I even recognised, what was it?

I do read it to try and find out what nonsense it is these people think.

Having been confused for many a year, I think I have just understood this identity based politics as it is about to disappear.

I now think it was a cunning ploy to split the electorate in a different way, to leave the UK working class with no political outlet.

Being more traditional left I often commented on our privately educated elite and private schools but the Guardian readership were firmly in favour of them.

How is this left?

Thank god this is now failing, get back to the old left, the working class and those lower down the scale.

It was clever while it lasted in enabling neoliberalism and a neglect of the working class, but clever in a cunning, nasty and underhand way.

Sound of the Suburbs November 15, 2016 at 5:33 pm

Thinking about it, so many of these recent elections have been nearly 50% / 50% splits, has there been a careful analysis of who neoliberalism disadvantages and what minorities need to be bought into the fold to make it work in a democracy.

Women are not a minority, but obviously that is a big chunk if you can get them under your wing. The black vote is another big group when split away and so on.

Brexit nearly 50/50; Austria nearly 50/50; US election nearly 50/50.

giovanni zibordi November 15, 2016 at 5:56 pm

So, 85% of Blacks vote Hillary against Sanders (left) and 92% vote Hillary against Trump (right), but is no race. It's the class issue that sends them to the Clintons. Kindly explain how.

dk November 15, 2016 at 7:54 pm

Obama is personally likeable

Funny think about likeability, likeable people can be real sh*ts. So I started looking into hanging out with less likeable people. I found that they can be considerably more appreciative of friendship and loyalty, maybe because they don't have such easy access to it.

Entertainment media has cautiously explored some aspect so fthis, but in politics, "nice" is still disproportionately values, and not appreciated as a possible flag.

Erelis November 15, 2016 at 10:59 pm

Watch out buddy. They are onto you. I have seen some comments on democratic party sites claiming the use of class to explain Hillary's loss is racist. The democratic party is a goner. History tells us the party establishment will move further right after election losses. And among the activist class there are identity purity battles going on.

Gaylord November 15, 2016 at 11:24 pm

Watch as this happens yet again: "In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years." That is why we need a strong third party, a reformed election system with public support of campaigns and no private money, and free and fair media coverage. But it ain't gonna happen.

different clue November 16, 2016 at 3:47 am

Well it certainly won't happen by itself. People are going to have to make it happen. Here in Michigan we have a tiny new party called Working Class Party running 3 people here and there. I voted for two of them. If the Democrats run somebody no worse than Trump next time, I will be free to vote Working Class Party to see what happens.

Obviously, if the Democrats nominate yet another Clintonite Obamacrat all over again, I may have to vote for Trump all over again . . . to stop the next Clintonite before it kills again.

[Nov 15, 2016] Thomas Frank Clintons Led the Democratic Betrayal of the Average Working American For Big Money

Notable quotes:
"... We so easily forget. Once the cry of so-called prosperity is heard in the land, we all become so stampeded by the spirit of the god Mammon, that we cannot serve the dictates of social conscience. . . . We are here to serve notice that the economic order is the invention of man; and that it cannot dominate certain eternal principles of justice and of God... ..."
"... The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." ..."
"... You can fool all of the people, some of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time- but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. ..."
Nov 14, 2016 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
"There are two theories of prosperity and of well-being: The first theory is that if we make the rich richer, somehow they will let a part of their prosperity trickle down to the rest of us. The second theory - and I suppose this goes back to the days of Noah - I won't say Adam and Eve, because they had a less complicated situation - but, at least, back in the days of the flood, there was the theory that if we make the average of mankind comfortable and secure, their prosperity will rise upward, just as yeast rises up, through the ranks...

We so easily forget. Once the cry of so-called prosperity is heard in the land, we all become so stampeded by the spirit of the god Mammon, that we cannot serve the dictates of social conscience. . . . We are here to serve notice that the economic order is the invention of man; and that it cannot dominate certain eternal principles of justice and of God...

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

You can fool all of the people, some of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time- but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Here is Youtube video ( Nov 2, 2016 )

[Nov 15, 2016] Break Up the Democratic Party Its Time for the Clintons and Rubin to Go – and Soros Too by Michael Hudson

Notable quotes:
"... Democrats still seem amazed that voters are more concerned about economic conditions and resentment against Wall Street (no bankers jailed, few junk mortgages written down). It is a sign of their wrong path that party strategists are holding onto the same identity politics they have used since the 1960s to divide Americans into hyphenated special-interest groups. ..."
"... Obviously, the bottom 95 Percent realize that their incomes and net worth have declined, not recovered. ..."
"... On the bright side, these "trade" agreements to enable corporations to block public laws protecting the environment, consumers and society at large are now presumably dead. ..."
"... Instead of a love fest within the Democratic Party's ranks, the blame game is burning. The Democrats raised a reported $182 million dollars running up to the election. But when democratic candidates from Russ Feingold in Wisconsin and other candidates in Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania asked for help. Hillary monopolized it all for TV ads, leaving these candidates in the lurch. The election seemed to be all about her, about personality and identity politics, not about the economic issues paramount in most voters' minds. ..."
"... Six months ago the polls showed her $1 billion spent on data polling, TV ads and immense staff of sycophants to have been a vast exercise in GIGO. ..."
"... If the party is to be recaptured, now is the moment to move. The 2016 election sounded the death knell for the identity politics. Its aim was to persuade voters not to think of their identity in economic terms, but to think of themselves as women or as racial and ethnic groups first and foremost, not as having common economic interests. This strategy to distract voters from economic policies has obviously failed. ..."
"... It did not work with women. In Florida, only 51 percent of white women are estimated to have voted for Hillary. It didn't even work very well in ethnic Hispanic precincts. They too were more concerned about their own job opportunities. ..."
"... The ethnic card did work with many black voters (although not so strongly; fewer blacks voted for Hillary than had showed up for Obama). Under the Obama administration for the past eight years, blacks have done worse in terms of income and net worth than any other grouping, according to the Federal Reserve Board's statistics. But black voters were distracted from their economic interests by the Democrats' ethnic-identity politics. ..."
"... This election showed that voters have a sense of when they're being lied to. After eight years of Obama's demagogy, pretending to support the people but delivering his constituency to his financial backers on Wall Street. "Identity politics" has given way to the stronger force of economic distress. Mobilizing identity politics behind a Wall Street program will no longer work. ..."
"... The Rust Belt swing states that shifted away from backing Obama for the last two terms are not racist states. They voted for Obama twice, after all. But seeing his support Wall Street, they had lost faith in her credibility – and were won by Bernie in his primaries against Hillary. ..."
"... Most of all, it was Hillary's asking voters to ignore her economic loyalty to Wall Street simply to elect a woman, and her McCarthy-like accusations that Trump was "Putin's candidate" (duly echoed by Paul Krugman). ..."
"... The anti-Trump rallies mobilized by George Soros and MoveOn look like a preemptive attempt to capture the potential socialist left for the old Clinton divide-and-conquer strategy. ..."
Nov 15, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org
In the week leading up to last Tuesday's election the press was busy writing obituaries for the Republican Party. This continued even after Donald Trump's "surprising" victory – which, like the 2008 bank-fraud crash, "nobody could have expected." The pretense is that Trump saw what no other politician saw: that the economy has not recovered since 2008.

Democrats still seem amazed that voters are more concerned about economic conditions and resentment against Wall Street (no bankers jailed, few junk mortgages written down). It is a sign of their wrong path that party strategists are holding onto the same identity politics they have used since the 1960s to divide Americans into hyphenated special-interest groups.

Obviously, the bottom 95 Percent realize that their incomes and net worth have declined, not recovered. National Income and Federal Reserve statistics show that all growth has accrued to just 5 percent of the population. Hillary is said to have spent $1 billion on polling, TV advertising and high-salaried staff members, but managed not to foresee the political reaction to this polarization. She and her coterie ignored economic policy as soon as Bernie was shoved out of the way and his followers all but told to join a third party. Her campaign speech tried to convince voters that they were better off than they were eight years ago. They knew better!

So the question now is whether Donald Trump will really a maverick and shake up the Republican Party. There seems to be a fight going on for Donald's soul – or at least the personnel he appoints to his cabinet. Thursday and Friday saw corporate lobbyists in the Republican leadership love-bombing him like the Moonies or Hari Krishna cults welcoming a new potential recruit. Will he simply surrender now and pass on the real work of government to the Republican apparatchiks?

The stock market thinks so! On Wednesday it soared almost by 300 points, and repeated this gain on Thursday, setting a DJIA record! Pharmaceuticals are way up, as higher drug prices loom for Medicaid and Medicare. Stocks of the pipelines and major environmental polluters are soaring, from oil and gas to coal, mining and forestry, expecting U.S. environmental leadership to be as dead under Trump as it was under Obama and his push for the TPP and TTIP (with its fines for any government daring to impose standards that cost these companies money). On the bright side, these "trade" agreements to enable corporations to block public laws protecting the environment, consumers and society at large are now presumably dead.

For now, personalities are policy. A problem with this is that anyone who runs for president is in it partly for applause. That was Carter's weak point, leading him to cave into Democratic apparatchiks in 1974. It looks like Trump may be a similar susceptibility. He wants to be loved, and the Republican lobbyists are offering plenty of applause if only he will turn to them and break his campaign promises in the way that Obama did in 2008. It would undo his hope to be a great president and champion of the working class that was his image leading up to November 8.

The fight for the Democratic Party's future (dare I say "soul"?)

In her Wednesday morning post mortem speech, Hillary made a bizarre request for young people (especially young women) to become politically active as Democrats after her own model. What made this so strange is that the Democratic National Committee has done everything it can to discourage millennials from running. There are few young candidates – except for corporate and Wall Street Republicans running as Blue Dog Democrats. The left has not been welcome in the party for a decade – unless it confines itself only to rhetoric and demagogy, not actual content. For Hillary's DNC coterie the problem with millennials is that they are not shills for Wall Street. The treatment of Bernie Sanders is exemplary. The DNC threw down the gauntlet.

Instead of a love fest within the Democratic Party's ranks, the blame game is burning. The Democrats raised a reported $182 million dollars running up to the election. But when democratic candidates from Russ Feingold in Wisconsin and other candidates in Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania asked for help. Hillary monopolized it all for TV ads, leaving these candidates in the lurch. The election seemed to be all about her, about personality and identity politics, not about the economic issues paramount in most voters' minds.

Six months ago the polls showed her $1 billion spent on data polling, TV ads and immense staff of sycophants to have been a vast exercise in GIGO. From May to June the Democratic National Committee (DNC) saw polls showing Bernie Sanders beating Trump, but Hillary losing. Did the Democratic leadership really prefer to lose with Hillary than win behind him and his social democratic reformers.

Hillary doesn't learn. Over the weekend she claimed that her analysis showed that FBI director Comey's reports "rais[ing] doubts that were groundless, baseless," stopped her momentum. This was on a par with the New York Times analysis that had showed her with an 84 percent probability of winning last Tuesday. She still hasn't admitted that here analysis was inaccurate.

What is the Democratic Party's former constituency of labor and progressive reformers to do? Are they to stand by and let the party be captured in Hillary's wake by Robert Rubin's Goldman Sachs-Citigroup gang that backed her and Obama?

If the party is to be recaptured, now is the moment to move. The 2016 election sounded the death knell for the identity politics. Its aim was to persuade voters not to think of their identity in economic terms, but to think of themselves as women or as racial and ethnic groups first and foremost, not as having common economic interests. This strategy to distract voters from economic policies has obviously failed.

It did not work with women. In Florida, only 51 percent of white women are estimated to have voted for Hillary. It didn't even work very well in ethnic Hispanic precincts. They too were more concerned about their own job opportunities.

The ethnic card did work with many black voters (although not so strongly; fewer blacks voted for Hillary than had showed up for Obama). Under the Obama administration for the past eight years, blacks have done worse in terms of income and net worth than any other grouping, according to the Federal Reserve Board's statistics. But black voters were distracted from their economic interests by the Democrats' ethnic-identity politics.

This election showed that voters have a sense of when they're being lied to. After eight years of Obama's demagogy, pretending to support the people but delivering his constituency to his financial backers on Wall Street. "Identity politics" has given way to the stronger force of economic distress. Mobilizing identity politics behind a Wall Street program will no longer work.

If we are indeed experiencing a revival of economic class consciousness, who should lead the fight to clean up the Democratic Party Wall Street leadership? Will it be the Wall Street wing, or can Bernie and perhaps Elizabeth Warren make their move?

There is only one way to rescue the Democrats from the Clintons and Rubin's gang. That is to save the Democratic Party from being tarred irreversibly as the party of Wall Street and neocon brinkmanship. It is necessary to tell the Clintons and the Rubin gang from Wall Street to leave now . And take Evan Bayh with them.

The danger of not taking this opportunity to clean out the party now

The Democratic Party can save itself only by focusing on economic issues – in a way that reverses its neoliberal stance under Obama, and indeed going back to Bill Clinton's pro-Wall Street administration. The Democrats need to do what Britain's Labour Party did by cleaning out Tony Blair's Thatcherites. As Paul Craig Roberts wrote over the weekend: "Change cannot occur if the displaced ruling class is left intact after a revolution against them. We have proof of this throughout South America. Every revolution by the indigenous people has left unmolested the Spanish ruling class, and every revolution has been overthrown by collusion between the ruling class and Washington." [1] Otherwise the Democrats will be left as an empty shell.

Now is the time for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and the few other progressives who have not been kept out of office by the DNC to make their move and appointing their own nominees to the DNC. If they fail, the Democratic Party is dead.

An indication of how hard the present Democratic Party leadership will fight against this change of allegiance is reflected in their long fight against Bernie Sanders and other progressives going back to Dennis Kucinich. The past five days of MoveOn demonstrations sponsored by Hillary's backer George Soros may be an attempt to preempt the expected push by Bernie's supporters, by backing Howard Dean for head of the DNC while organizing groups to be called on for what may be an American "Maidan Spring."

Perhaps some leading Democrats preferred to lose with their Wall Street candidate Hillary than win with a reformer who would have edged them out of their right-wing positions. But the main problem was hubris. Hillary's coterie thought they could make their own reality. They believed that hundreds of millions of dollars of TV and other advertising could sway voters. But eight years of Obama's rescue of Wall Street instead of the economy was enough for most voters to see how deceptive his promises had been. And they distrusted Hillary's pretended embrace of Bernie's opposition to TPP.

The Rust Belt swing states that shifted away from backing Obama for the last two terms are not racist states. They voted for Obama twice, after all. But seeing his support Wall Street, they had lost faith in her credibility – and were won by Bernie in his primaries against Hillary.

Donald Trump is thus Obama's legacy. Last week's vote was a backlash. Hillary thought that getting Barack and Michelle Obama to campaign as her surrogates would help, but it turned out to be the kiss of death. Obama egged her on by urging voters to "save his legacy" by supporting her as his Third Term. But voters did not want his legacy of giveaways to the banks, the pharmaceutical and health-insurance monopolies.

Most of all, it was Hillary's asking voters to ignore her economic loyalty to Wall Street simply to elect a woman, and her McCarthy-like accusations that Trump was "Putin's candidate" (duly echoed by Paul Krugman). On Wednesday, Obama's former Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul tweeted that "Putin intervened in our elections and succeeded." It was as if the Republicans and even the FBI were a kind of fifth column for the KGB. Her receptiveness to cutting back Social Security and steering wage withholding into the stock market did not help – especially her hedge fund campaign contributors. Compulsory health-insurance fees continue to rise for healthy young people rise as the main profit center that Obamacare has offered the health-insurance monopoly.

The anti-Trump rallies mobilized by George Soros and MoveOn look like a preemptive attempt to capture the potential socialist left for the old Clinton divide-and-conquer strategy. The group was defeated five years ago when it tried to capture Occupy Wall Street to make it part of the Democratic Party. It's attempt to make a comeback right now should be heard as an urgent call to Bernie's supporters and other "real" Democrats that they need to create an alternative pretty quickly so as not to let "socialism" be captured by the Soros and his apparatchiks carried over from the Clinton campaign.

Notes.

[1] Paul Craig Roberts, "The Anti-Trump Protesters Are Tools of the Oligarchy," November 11, 2016.

Michael Hudson's new book, Killing the Host is published in e-format by CounterPunch Books and in print by Islet . He can be reached via his website, [email protected]

[Nov 15, 2016] End of outsourcing of the USA elite illiberal tendencies to the areas of the imperial domination and subjugation of foreigners and hit of the USA population produced the current backlash and secured the election of Trump

Nov 15, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

likbez 11.15.16 at 6:09 pm 124

@115

Liberal democracy has always depended on its relationships with an illiberal Other of one sort or another, and all too often "liberal progressivism" merely means responding to such relationships in one's own society, the capitalist exploitation of a domestic proletariat, by "outsourcing" our illiberal tendencies to consist largely of the imperial domination and subjugation of foreigners.

(Which can even happen inside one's own borders, as long as it remains suitably "illegal"; notice how much less ideologically problematic it is to document the presence and labor of the most brutally exploited migrant workers in e.g. China or the Gulf Arab states than in more liberal societies like the US or EU.)

It's the height of either hypocrisy or obliviousness for those who consider themselves liberal progressives to then act surprised when the people charged with carrying out this domination and subjugation on our behalf - our Colonel Jessups, if you will - demand that we stop hiding our society's illiberal underbelly and acknowledge/celebrate it for what it is , a demand that may be the single most authentic marker of the transition from liberalism to fascism.

In Pareto "elite rotation" terms, the election of Trump definitely means rotation of the US neoliberal elite. "Status quo" faction of the elite was defeated due to backlash over globalization and disappearance of meaningful well-paid jobs, with mass replacement of them by McJobs and temps/contractors.

Whether openness about domination and subjugation is an "authentic marker of the transition from [neo]liberalism to fascism" remains to be seen, unless we assume that this transition (to the National Security State) already happened long ego.

In a way illegal immigrants in the USA already represented stable and growing "new slaves" class for decades. Their existence and contribution to the US economy was never denied or suppressed. And even Greenspan acknowledged that Iraq war was about oil. So Trump put nothing new on the table other then being slightly more blunt.

likbez 11.15.16 at 7:19 pm 125

@120

bob mcmanus 11.15.16 at 4:31 pm

Neoliberalism and neo-imperialism show pretty much the contradictions of the older globalist orders (late 19th c), they are just now distributed so as re-intensify the differences, the combined etc, and concentrate the accumulation.

And elites are fighting over the spoils.

Yes, neoliberalism and neo-imperialism are much better and more precise terms, then fuzzy notions like "liberal progressivism" . May be we should use Occam razor and discard the term "[neo]liberal progressivism". The term "soft neoliberals" is IMHO good enough description of the same.

As for contradictions of the "older globalist orders (late 19th c)" the key difference is that under neoliberalism armies play the role of "can opener" and after then the direct occupation were by-and-large replaced with financial institutions and with indirect "debt slavery". In many cases neoliberal subjugation is achieved via color revolution mechanism, without direct military force involved.

Neo-colonialism creates higher level of concentration of risks due to the greed of financial elite which was demonstrated in full glory in 2008. As such it looks less stable then old colonialism. And it generates stronger backlash, which typically has elements of anti-Americanism, as we see in Philippines now. Merkel days might also be numbered.

Also TBTF banks are now above the law as imposing judgments on them after the crisis can have disastrous economic externalities. At the same time the corruption of regulators via revolving door mechanisms blocks implementing meaningful preventive regulatory reforms.

In other words, like with Soviet nomenklatura, with the neoliberal elite we see the impossibility of basic change, either toward taming the TBTF or toward modification of an aggressive neocolonial foreign policy with its rampant militarism.

[Nov 14, 2016] Clintons electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation

Notable quotes:
"... The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by 11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent. ..."
"... Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation ..."
"... Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the working class, regardless of race or gender. ..."
Nov 14, 2016 | www.wsws.org
The elections saw a massive shift in party support among the poorest and wealthiest voters. The share of votes for the Republicans amongst the most impoverished section of workers, those with family incomes under $30,000, increased by 10 percentage points from 2012. In several key Midwestern states, the swing of the poorest voters toward Trump was even larger: Wisconsin (17-point swing), Iowa (20 points), Indiana (19 points) and Pennsylvania (18 points).

The swing to Republicans among the $30,000 to $50,000 family income range was 6 percentage points. Those with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 swung away from the Republicans compared to 2012 by 2 points.

The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by 11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent.

Clinton was unable to make up for the vote decline among women (2.1 million), African Americans (3.2 million), and youth (1.2 million), who came overwhelmingly from the poor and working class, with the increase among the rich (1.3 million).

Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation.

Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the working class, regardless of race or gender.

[Nov 14, 2016] Note on the signs of decline of the US neoliberal empire

crookedtimber.org

likbez 11.15.16 at 1:19 am 93

Salazar 11.14.16 at 12:11 am #18

> How is the American Empire in decline? And how do we measure its decline?
We can only speculate about signs of decline. From WaTimes ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/29/cal-thomas-america-shows-decline-signs-of-empires-/ )
British diplomat John Glubb wrote a book called "The Fate of Empires and Search For Survival." Glubb noted that the average age of empires since the time of ancient Assyria (859-612 B.C.) is 250 years. Only the Mameluke Empire in Egypt and the Levant (1250-1517) made it as far as 267 years. America is 238 years old and is exhibiting signs of decline. All empires begin, writes Glubb, with the age of pioneers, followed by ages of conquest, commerce, affluence, intellect and decadence. America appears to have reached the age of decadence, which Glubb defines as marked by "defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, the welfare state, [and] a weakening of religion."

The most important is probably the fact that the ideology of the current US empire -- neoliberalism (called here "liberal progressivism") -- became discredited after 2008. What happened after the collapse of the Marxist ideology with the USSR is well known. It took 46 years (if we assume that the collapse started in 1945 as the result of victory in WWII, when the Soviet army has a chance to see the standard of living in Western countries). Why the USA should be different ? Decline of empires is very slow and can well take a half a century. Let's say it might take 50 years from 9/11 or October 2008.

One telling sign is the end of "American hegemony" in the global political sphere. One telling sign is the end of "American hegemony" in the global political sphere. As Lupita hypothesized here Trump might be the last desperate attempt to reverse this process.

Another, the deterioration of the standard of living of the USA population and declining infrastructure, both typically are connected with the overextension of empire. In Fortune ( http://fortune.com/2015/07/20/united-states-decline-statistics-economic/ ) Jill Coplan lists 12 signs of the decline.

Trump election is another sign of turmoil. The key message of his election is "The institutions we once trusted deceived us" That includes the Democratic Party and all neoliberal MSM. Like was the case with the USSR, the loss of influence of neoliberal propaganda machine is a definite sign of the decline of empire.

Degeneration of the neoliberal political elite that is also clearly visible in the current set of presidential candidates might be another sign. Hillary Clinton dragged to the car on 9/11 commemorative event vividly reminds the state of health of a couple of members of Soviet Politburo .

See also:

[Nov 14, 2016] Three Myths About Clintons Defeat in Election 2016 Debunked

Notable quotes:
"... Because the following talking points prevent a (vulgar) identity politics -dominated Democrat Party from owning its loss, debunking them is then important beyond winning your Twitter wars. I'm trying to spike the Blame Cannons! ..."
"... Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin. ..."
"... These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump. Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump . ..."
"... The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total, but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.) ..."
"... And so, for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that counties who voted for the black man in 2012 were racist because they didn't vote for the white women in 2016. Bringing me, I suppose, to sexism. ..."
"... These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump's unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he'd be the greatest job producer who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill's. ..."
"... pink slips have hit entire neighbourhoods, and towns. The angry white working class men who voted in such strength for Trump do not live in an emotional vacuum. They are loved by white working class women – their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers, who participate in their remaindered pain. I t is everywhere in the interviews. "My dad lost his business", "My husband hasn't been the same since his job at the factory went away" . ..."
"... So, for this talking point to be true, you have to believe that sexism simultaneously increased the male vote for Trump, yet did not increase the female vote for Clinton. Shouldn't they move in opposite directions? ..."
"... First, even assuming that the author's happy but unconscious conflation of credentials with education is correct, it wasn't the "dunces" who lost two wars, butchered the health care system, caused the financial system to collapse through accounting control fraud, or invented the neoliberal ideology that was kept real wages flat for forty years and turned the industrial heartland into a wasteland. That is solely, solely down to - only some , to be fair - college-educated voters. It is totally and 100% not down to the "dunces"; they didn't have the political or financial power to achieve debacles on the grand scale. ..."
"... Second, the "dunces" were an important part of Obama's victories ..."
"... Not only has polling repeatedly underplayed the importance of white voters without college degrees, it's underplayed their importance to the Obama coalition: They were one-third of Obama votes in 2012. They filled the gap between upper-class whites and working-class nonwhites. Trump gained roughly 15 percentage points with them compared to Romney in 2012. ..."
"... "No, you are ignorant! You threw away the vote and put Trump in charge." Please, it will be important to know what derogatory camp you belong in when the blame game swings into full gear. *snark ..."
"... 'Stupid' was the word I got very tired of in my social net. Two variant targets: ..."
"... 1) Blacks for not voting their interests. The responses included 'we know who our enemies are' and 'don't tell me what to think.' ..."
"... Mostly it was vs rural, non-college educated. iirc, it was the Secretary of Agriculture, pleading for funds, who said the rural areas were where military recruits came from. A young fella I know, elite football player on elite non-urban HS team, said most of his teammates had enlisted. So they are the ones getting shot at, having relatives and friends come back missing pieces of body and self. ..."
"... My guy in the Reserves said the consensus was that if HRC got elected, they were going to war with Russia. Not enthused. Infantry IQ is supposedly average-80, but they know who Yossarian says the enemy is, e'en if they hant read the book. ..."
Nov 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether of Corrente .

This post is not an explainer about why and how Clinton lost (and Trump won). I think we're going to be sorting that out for awhile. Rather, it's a simple debunking of common talking points by Clinton loyalists and Democrat Establishment operatives; the sort of talking point you might hear on Twitter, entirely shorn of caveats and context. For each of the three talking points, I'll present an especially egregious version of the myth, followed by a rebuttals.

Realize that Trump's margin of victory was incredibly small. From the Washington Post :

How Trump won the presidency with razor-thin margins in swing states

Of the more than 120 million votes cast in the 2016 election, 107,000 votes in three states [Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania] effectively decided the election.

Of course, America's first-past-the-post system and the electoral college amplify small margins into decisive results. And it was the job of the Clinton campaign to find those 107,000 votes and win them; the Clinton operation turned out to be weaker than anyone would have imagined when it counted . However, because Trump has what might be called an institutional mandate - both the executive and legislative branches and soon, perhaps, the judicial - the narrowness of his margin means he doesn't have a popular mandate. Trump has captured the state, but by no means civil society; therefore, the opposition that seeks to delegitimize him is in a stronger position than it may realize.

Hence the necessity for reflection; seeking truth from facts, as the saying goes. Because the following talking points prevent a (vulgar) identity politics -dominated Democrat Party from owning its loss, debunking them is then important beyond winning your Twitter wars. I'm trying to spike the Blame Cannons!

Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Racism

Here's a headline showing the talking point from a Vox explainer :

Trump's win is a reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism

The subtext here is usually that if you don't chime in with vehement agreement, you're a racist yourself, and possibly a racist Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is false.

First, voter caring levels dropped from 2012 to 2016, especially among black Democrats . Carl Beijer :

From 2012 to 2016, both men and women went from caring about the outcome to not caring. Among Democratic men and women, as well as Republican women, care levels dropped about 3-4 points; Republican men cared a little less too, but only by one point. Across the board, in any case, the plurality of voters simply didn't care.

Beijer includes the following chart (based on Edison exit polling cross-referenced with total population numbers from the US Census):

Beijer interprets:

White voters cared even less in 2016 then in 2012, when they also didn't care; most of that apathy came from white Republicans compared to white Democrats, who dropped off a little less. Voters of color, in contrast, continued to care – but their care levels dropped even more, by 8 points (compared to the 6 point drop-off among white voters). Incredibly, that drop was driven entirely by a 9 point drop among Democratic voters of color which left Democrats with only slim majority 51% support; Republicans, meanwhile, actually gained support among people of color.

Beijer's data is born out by anecdote from Milwaukee, Wisconsin :

Urban areas, where black and Hispanic voters are concentrated along with college-educated voters, already leaned toward the Democrats, but Clinton did not get the turnout from these groups that she needed. For instance, black voters did not show up in the same numbers they did for Barack Obama, the first black president, in 2008 and 2012.

Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin.

Second, counties that voted for Obama in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016 . The Washington Post :

These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump. Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump .

The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total, but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.)

Here's the chart:

And so, for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that counties who voted for the black man in 2012 were racist because they didn't vote for the white women in 2016. Bringing me, I suppose, to sexism.

Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Sexism

Here's an article showing the talking point from Newsweek :

This often vitriolic campaign was a national referendum on women and power.

(The subtext here is usually that if you don't join the consensus cluster, you're a sexist yourself, and possibly a sexist Trump supporter). And if you only look at the averages this claim might seem true :

On Election Day, women responded accordingly, as Clinton beat Trump among women 54 percent to 42 percent. They were voting not so much for her as against him and what he brought to the surface during his campaign: quotidian misogyny.

There are two reasons this talking point is not true. First, averages conceal, and what they conceal is class . As you read further into the article, you can see it fall apart:

In fact, Trump beat Clinton among white women 53 percent to 43 percent, with white women without college degrees going for [Trump] two to one .

So, taking lack of a college degree as a proxy for being working class, for Newsweek's claim to be true, you have to believe that working class women don't get a vote in their referendum, and for the talking point to be true, you have to believe that working class women are sexist. Which leads me to ask: Who died and left the bourgeois feminists in Clinton's base in charge of the definition of sexism, or feminism? Class traitor Tina Brown is worth repeating:

Here's my own beef. Liberal feminists, young and old, need to question the role they played in Hillary's demise. The two weeks of media hyperventilation over grab-her-by-the-pussygate, when the airwaves were saturated with aghast liberal women equating Trump's gross comments with sexual assault, had the opposite effect on multiple women voters in the Heartland.

These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump's unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he'd be the greatest job producer who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill's.

Missing this pragmatic response by so many women was another mistake of Robbie Mook's campaign data nerds. They computed that America's women would all be as outraged as the ones they came home to at night. But pink slips have hit entire neighbourhoods, and towns. The angry white working class men who voted in such strength for Trump do not live in an emotional vacuum. They are loved by white working class women – their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers, who participate in their remaindered pain. I t is everywhere in the interviews. "My dad lost his business", "My husband hasn't been the same since his job at the factory went away" .

Second, Clinton in 2016 did no better than Obama in 2008 with women (although she did better than Obama in 2012). From the New York Times analysis of the exit polls, this chart...

So, for this talking point to be true, you have to believe that sexism simultaneously increased the male vote for Trump, yet did not increase the female vote for Clinton. Shouldn't they move in opposite directions?

Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Stupidity

Here's an example of this talking point from Foreign Policy , the heart of The Blob. The headline:

Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally

And the lead:

OK, so that just happened. Donald Trump always enjoyed massive support from uneducated, low-information white people. As Bloomberg Politics reported back in August, Hillary Clinton was enjoying a giant 25 percentage-point lead among college-educated voters going into the election. (Whether that trend held up remains to be seen.) In contrast, in the 2012 election, college-educated voters just barely favored Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Last night we saw something historic: the dance of the dunces. Never have educated voters so uniformly rejected a candidate. But never before have the lesser-educated so uniformly supported a candidate.

The subtext here is usually that if you don't accept nod your head vigorously, you're stupid, and possibly a stupid Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is not true.

First, even assuming that the author's happy but unconscious conflation of credentials with education is correct, it wasn't the "dunces" who lost two wars, butchered the health care system, caused the financial system to collapse through accounting control fraud, or invented the neoliberal ideology that was kept real wages flat for forty years and turned the industrial heartland into a wasteland. That is solely, solely down to - only some , to be fair - college-educated voters. It is totally and 100% not down to the "dunces"; they didn't have the political or financial power to achieve debacles on the grand scale.

Second, the "dunces" were an important part of Obama's victories . From The Week :

Not only has polling repeatedly underplayed the importance of white voters without college degrees, it's underplayed their importance to the Obama coalition: They were one-third of Obama votes in 2012. They filled the gap between upper-class whites and working-class nonwhites. Trump gained roughly 15 percentage points with them compared to Romney in 2012.

So, to believe this talking point, you have to believe that voters who were smart when they voted for Obama suddenly became stupid when it came time to vote for Clinton. You also have to believe that credentialed policy makers have an unblemished record of success, and that only they are worth paying attention to.

Conclusion

Of course, Clinton ran a miserable campaign, too, which didn't help. Carl Beijer has a bill of particulars :

By just about every metric imaginable, Hillary Clinton led one of the worst presidential campaigns in modern history. It was a profoundly reactionary campaign, built entirely on rolling back the horizons of the politically possible, fracturing left solidarity, undermining longstanding left priorities like universal healthcare, pandering to Wall Street oligarchs, fomenting nationalism against Denmark and Russia, and rehabilitating some of history's greatest monsters – from Bush I to Kissinger. It was a grossly unprincipled campaign that belligerently violated FEC Super PAC coordination rules and conspired with party officials on everything from political attacks to debate questions. It was an obscenely stupid campaign that all but ignored Wisconsin during the general election, that pitched Clinton to Latino voters as their abuela, that centered an entire high-profile speech over the national menace of a few thousand anime nazis on Twitter, and that repeatedly deployed Lena Dunham as a media surrogate.

Which is rather like running a David Letterman ad in a Pennsylvania steel town. It must have seemed like a good idea in Brooklyn. After all, they had so many celebrities to choose from.

* * *

All three talking points oversimplify. I'm not saying racism is not powerful; of course it is. I'm not saying that sexism is not powerful; of course it is. But monocausal explanations in an election this close - and in a country this vast - are foolish. And narratives that ignore economics and erase class are worse than foolish; buying into them will cause us to make the same mistakes over and over and over again.[1] The trick will be to integrate multiple causes, and that's down to the left; identity politics liberals don't merely not want to do this; they actively oppose it. Ditto their opposite numbers in America's neoliberal fun house mirror, the conservatives.

NOTES

[1] For some, that's not a bug. It's a feature.

NOTE

You will have noticed that I haven't covered economics (class), or election fraud at all. More myths are coming.

Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration 24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com

TK421 November 14, 2016 at 1:03 pm

Yes, I'm a sexist because I voted for Jill Stein instead of Hillary Clinton.

Knot Galt November 14, 2016 at 1:23 pm

"No, you are ignorant! You threw away the vote and put Trump in charge." Please, it will be important to know what derogatory camp you belong in when the blame game swings into full gear. *snark

IdahoSpud November 14, 2016 at 1:07 pm

Is it sexist, racist, and/or stupid to conclude that one awful candidate is less likely to betray you than a different awful candidate?

rwv November 14, 2016 at 1:21 pm

Didn't feel the Bern, and if you burn your ass you'll have to sit on the blisters

Steve H. November 14, 2016 at 1:26 pm

Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Stupidity

'Stupid' was the word I got very tired of in my social net. Two variant targets:

1) Blacks for not voting their interests. The responses included 'we know who our enemies are' and 'don't tell me what to think.'

2) Mostly it was vs rural, non-college educated. iirc, it was the Secretary of Agriculture, pleading for funds, who said the rural areas were where military recruits came from. A young fella I know, elite football player on elite non-urban HS team, said most of his teammates had enlisted. So they are the ones getting shot at, having relatives and friends come back missing pieces of body and self.

My guy in the Reserves said the consensus was that if HRC got elected, they were going to war with Russia. Not enthused. Infantry IQ is supposedly average-80, but they know who Yossarian says the enemy is, e'en if they hant read the book.

Maybe not so stupid after all.

Jason Boxman November 14, 2016 at 1:26 pm

Thanks so much for this!

[Nov 14, 2016] Bernie Sanders Indicting Hillary Would Be An Outrage Beyond Belief

Nov 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
by Submitted by Stefanie MacWilliams via PlanetFreeWill.com,

In his first post-election interview , Bernie Sanders has declared to should-be-disgraced Wolf Blitzer that Trump seeking to indict Hillary Clinton for her crimes would be "an outrage beyond belief".

When asked if President Obama should pardon Hillary Clinton, Sanders seems almost confused as to why a pardon would even be needed.

Blitzer notes that Ford pardoned Nixon before he could be charged, to which Bernie seemed again incredulous as to the comparison was even being made.

He goes on to state:

That a winning candidate would try to imprison the losing candidate – that's what dictatorships are about, that's what authoritarian countries are about. You do not imprison somebody you ran against because you have differences of opinion. The vast majority of the American people would find it unacceptable to even think about those things.

Either Senator Sanders is a drooling idiot, or he is being willfully obtuse.

No one wants to imprison Hillary Clinton because of her opinion. They want to imprison Hillary Clinton because she has committed criminal actions that any other person lacking millions of dollars and hundreds of upper-echelon contacts would be imprisoned for.

Apparently, according to progressive hero Bernie Sanders, holding the elites to the same level of justice as the peons is undemocratic, authoritarian, and perhaps even dictatorial!

Enough with the damn emails?

Enough with any hope that the Democrats have retained a minute shred of credibility.

You can watch the full interview below:

[Nov 14, 2016] Thomas Frank Clintons Led the Democratic Betrayal of the Average Working American For Big Money

jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
"There are two theories of prosperity and of well-being: The first theory is that if we make the rich richer, somehow they will let a part of their prosperity trickle down to the rest of us. The second theory - and I suppose this goes back to the days of Noah - I won't say Adam and Eve, because they had a less complicated situation - but, at least, back in the days of the flood, there was the theory that if we make the average of mankind comfortable and secure, their prosperity will rise upward, just as yeast rises up, through the ranks...

We so easily forget. Once the cry of so-called prosperity is heard in the land, we all become so stampeded by the spirit of the god Mammon, that we cannot serve the dictates of social conscience. . . . We are here to serve notice that the economic order is the invention of man; and that it cannot dominate certain eternal principles of justice and of God...

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

You can fool all of the people, some of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time- but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Here is Youtube video

watch-v=L4VxmAIzKCM

[Nov 14, 2016] Sanders Democrats Lost Elections Because They Focused On Liberal Elite, Not Working Class - Breitbart

Notable quotes:
"... "Democrats have focused too much with a liberal elite" while ignoring the working class. ..."
"... How does it happen that they win elections and Democrats lose? I think what the conclusion is, is that that is raising incredible sums of money from wealthy people … but has ignored to a very significant degree, working class, middle class, and low income people in this country. ..."
Nov 14, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
Sunday on CBS's "Face The Nation," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said President-elect Donald Trump won because "Democrats have focused too much with a liberal elite" while ignoring the working class.

Sanders said, " How does it happen that they win elections and Democrats lose? I think what the conclusion is, is that that is raising incredible sums of money from wealthy people … but has ignored to a very significant degree, working class, middle class, and low income people in this country. "

[Nov 14, 2016] Clinton betrayal and the future of Democratic Party

Nov 14, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
weejonnie Intheround 11h ago ...In the last 8 years the Democrat party.

Lost control of the Senate
Lost control of the House of Representatives
Lost control of dozens of state legislatures and Governorships.
The Republicans control 36 States of America - One more and they could in theory amend the Constitution.

In Wisconsin (notionally Democrat) the Legislature and Governor are both Republican controlled. And Clinton didn't even campaign there when it was pretty obvious the State was not trending towards her.

[Nov 14, 2016] No Soul-Searching by "Liberals" After Clinton's Defeat. Their Candidate Was the Embodiment of a Totally Corrupt Political System

Notable quotes:
"... So-called [neo]liberals and leftists in the US and around the world, are now wailing and gnashing their teeth in reaction to Hillary Clinton's crushing defeat. They are, however, the first to blame for the outcome of the US presidential elections. Their candidate, Hillary Clinton, was the embodiment of a totally corrupt political system. She is a hypocrite par excellence, talking to the bankiers of Wall Street behind closed doors differently than to the American people. Her rhetoric for the rights of women and blacks and other minorities sounded disingenuous. ..."
"... The Clinton Foundation received large donations from Saudi-Arabia and Qatar, countries rewarded in return by huge arms transfers overseen by her as Secretary of State. Her involvement in this corruption was no theme for the media. ..."
"... According to emails published by WikiLeaks, her campaign manager John Podesta was or is on the payroll of the Saudis. ..."
"... the Clinton team stole the primary elections to prevent the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, the media demonized Donald Trump. ..."
"... An American President is not a free and politically independent person. From day one, a President-elect can't anymore go around the corner and grab a hot dog or a hamburger. He is reigned in by a military and security establishment that holds the President fit for public consumption. Trump, as any other president, can be expected to follow their rule and political suggestions. ..."
"... I doubt very much that Trump will keep the promises of his election campaign, such as building a wall along the American-Mexican border, deport all illegal immigrants or ban Muslims from immigrating into the US. I even doubt that he will go after Hillary Clinton and her husband's dubious foundation. There exists a code of honor among thieves. ..."
"... Trump won precisely because of the shrill one-sided media propaganda and because of his rhetoric against the Washington establishment , including his own Republican Party. Now, this Republican establishment dominates both houses of Congress. Trump belongs also, however, to the US establishment but of another sort. Nobody should believe that the Washington establishment will follow Trump's lead. ..."
"... Whether Trump will stop American adventurism in the Middle East remains to be seen. His close ties with Netanyahu do not bode well for the Palestinians ..."
"... And while he has promised to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, I doubt that he will carry out this provocation against international law and the entire Muslim world. ..."
"... Chancellor Angela Merke l sent the President-Elect Trump a warning in the guise of a congratulation. Her political impudence was garbed within obsequious blabber about the allegedly honorable nature of German-American ties ..."
"... Germany's Foreign Minister Steinmeier called Trump a "preacher of hate" ..."
"... During the election campaign, Trump called Merkel's mass-immigration policy "insane" and "what Merkel did to Germany" a "sad shame". ..."
"... The media and the political class should at this point stop pontificating. Their double morals and unprofessional coverage of the US elections should prompt them to more humility. They should rather blame themselves for their biased reporting, which led directly to Clinton's defeat. ..."
Nov 11, 2016 | www.globalresearch.ca

So-called [neo]liberals and leftists in the US and around the world, are now wailing and gnashing their teeth in reaction to Hillary Clinton's crushing defeat. They are, however, the first to blame for the outcome of the US presidential elections. Their candidate, Hillary Clinton, was the embodiment of a totally corrupt political system. She is a hypocrite par excellence, talking to the bankiers of Wall Street behind closed doors differently than to the American people. Her rhetoric for the rights of women and blacks and other minorities sounded disingenuous.

The Clinton Foundation received large donations from Saudi-Arabia and Qatar, countries rewarded in return by huge arms transfers overseen by her as Secretary of State. Her involvement in this corruption was no theme for the media.

According to emails published by WikiLeaks, her campaign manager John Podesta was or is on the payroll of the Saudis. All of this was not considered worth reporting by the media. Virtually all national media in the United States supported Clinton's candidacy. Instead of reporting how the machinery of the Democratic Party and the Clinton team stole the primary elections to prevent the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, the media demonized Donald Trump.

I do not wish here to defend Donald Trump. He made numerous stupid, racist, sexist, and anti-Islamic statements that were rightly criticized. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was treated with kid gloves while her huge criminal political record was glossed over. Instead of coming to grips with their abject failures, the liberals and their media continue in slandering Donald Trump. Trump's first declarations show already that he has conquered new frontiers.

An American President is not a free and politically independent person. From day one, a President-elect can't anymore go around the corner and grab a hot dog or a hamburger. He is reigned in by a military and security establishment that holds the President fit for public consumption. Trump, as any other president, can be expected to follow their rule and political suggestions.

I doubt very much that Trump will keep the promises of his election campaign, such as building a wall along the American-Mexican border, deport all illegal immigrants or ban Muslims from immigrating into the US. I even doubt that he will go after Hillary Clinton and her husband's dubious foundation. There exists a code of honor among thieves.

Trump won precisely because of the shrill one-sided media propaganda and because of his rhetoric against the Washington establishment , including his own Republican Party. Now, this Republican establishment dominates both houses of Congress. Trump belongs also, however, to the US establishment but of another sort. Nobody should believe that the Washington establishment will follow Trump's lead. Even his positive statements about Vladimir Putin or his suggestion to discard NATO, will probably vanish. But what I do hope is that he stands to his rejection of TPP and TTIP and his pragmatic view of Vladimir Putin.

Whether Trump will stop American adventurism in the Middle East remains to be seen. His close ties with Netanyahu do not bode well for the Palestinians. He sees Zionist colonization of the rest of Palestine as no hindrance to peace. And while he has promised to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, I doubt that he will carry out this provocation against international law and the entire Muslim world.

The German political and media class was not only surprised by the results of the US elections, but did not even try to hide its revulsion against the choice of the American people. The entire political class in Germany perceived and presented the Trump campaign in the same one-sided manner as American media did. Chancellor Angela Merke l sent the President-Elect Trump a warning in the guise of a congratulation. Her political impudence was garbed within obsequious blabber about the allegedly honorable nature of German-American ties:

"Germany and America are bound by common values - democracy, freedom, as well as respect for the rule of law and the dignity of each and every person, regardless of their origin, skin color, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or political views. It is based on these values that I wish to offer close cooperation, both with me personally and between our countries' governments."

Other German politicians did not even attempt to hide their disdain for American voters by diplomatic language. Germany's Foreign Minister Steinmeier called Trump a "preacher of hate", and Deputy Chancellor Gabriel cartooned Trump as a

"trailblazer of a new authoritarian and chauvinist international movement… [who wants] a rollback to the bad old times in which women belonged by the stove or in bed, gays in jail and unions at best at the side table."

During the election campaign, Trump called Merkel's mass-immigration policy "insane" and "what Merkel did to Germany" a "sad shame".

The media and the political class should at this point stop pontificating. Their double morals and unprofessional coverage of the US elections should prompt them to more humility. They should rather blame themselves for their biased reporting, which led directly to Clinton's defeat. Ordinary Americans are not as stupid as the Establishment wants us to believe. Established parties and media would be well advised to give the new US President a chance to prove his worth. There will be, without doubt, many occasions in the future for fact-based criticism.

The original source of this article is Global Research Copyright © Dr. Ludwig Watzal , Global Research, 2016

[Nov 13, 2016] The Democratic Party establishment has beclowned itself and is finished MSM neoliberal pressitutes with thier unbearable smugness are shamed

Notable quotes:
"... Understand something, the caricature of Trump and his supporters is all fiction! It was the wallpaper inside the bubble of the elites that kept them from having to face the fact they are being rejected by the people of this country. ..."
"... It is not racist to want to control our borders and stem the influx – for a period – of people from other lands. It is not racist to note that Islam has a violent element willing to kill innocents at any time and any place. Just like one bad cop can give all cops a bad rap, so can a handful of bloody insane Muslims. It is not racist or nativist to deport immigrants who have committed serious felonies. ..."
Nov 13, 2016 | strata-sphere.com
First, this from Slate :

The Democratic Party establishment has beclowned itself and is finished.

The party establishment made a grievous mistake rallying around Hillary Clinton. It wasn't just a lack of recent political seasoning. She was a bad candidate, with no message beyond heckling the opposite sideline. She was a total misfit for both the politics of 2016 and the energy of the Democratic Party as currently constituted. She could not escape her baggage, and she must own that failure herself.

Theoretically smart people in the Democratic Party should have known that. And yet they worked giddily to clear the field for her. Every power-hungry young Democrat fresh out of law school, every rising lawmaker, every old friend of the Clintons wanted a piece of the action. This was their ride up the power chain. The whole edifice was hollow, built atop the same unearned sense of inevitability that surrounded Clinton in 2008, and it collapsed, just as it collapsed in 2008, only a little later in the calendar. The voters of the party got taken for a ride by the people who controlled it, the ones who promised they had everything figured out and sneeringly dismissed anyone who suggested otherwise. They promised that Hillary Clinton had a lock on the Electoral College. These people didn't know what they were talking about, and too many of us in the media thought they did.

This is a grueling but necessarily treatise on how the Political Elite played God and got burned. The essence here is wake up and fix the Democrat Party.

And here is another good assessment :

The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump's victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story , after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on.

This is all symptomatic of modern journalism's great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness . Had Hillary Clinton won, there's be a winking "we did it" feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.

So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it. Trump knew what he was doing when he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time.

And can you blame them? Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid.

Understand something, the caricature of Trump and his supporters is all fiction! It was the wallpaper inside the bubble of the elites that kept them from having to face the fact they are being rejected by the people of this country.

It is not racist to want to control our borders and stem the influx – for a period – of people from other lands. It is not racist to note that Islam has a violent element willing to kill innocents at any time and any place. Just like one bad cop can give all cops a bad rap, so can a handful of bloody insane Muslims. It is not racist or nativist to deport immigrants who have committed serious felonies.

The media over stated the drivers behind these views to propel their candidate to victory. They were not reporting facts.

The last good perspective was from the Morning Joe show:

[Nov 13, 2016] Why Polls Fail

Notable quotes:
"... he Clinton camp, the media and the pollsters missed what we had anticipated as "not Clinton". A basic setting in a part of the "left" electorate that remember who she is and what she has done and would under no circumstances vote for her. Clinton herself pushed the "bernie bros" and "deplorables" into that camp. This was a structural change that was solely based in the personality of the candidate. ..."
"... Even then polls and their interpretation will always only capture a part of the story. Often a sound grasp of human and cultural behavior will allow for better prediction as all polls. As my friend the statistician say: "The best prognostic instrument I have even today is my gut." ..."
"... NeverHillary turned out to be bigger than NeverTrump. Hillary got less than 6 million votes compared to Obama. Trump got nearly as much as Romney. ..."
"... A good indicator was the size of the crowds each candidate drew to their rallies. Clinton tended to show more "bought" TV-ready extras. Bernie blew the walls out at his rallies, as did Trump. You can't look at that and say the polls are even close to accurate. ..."
"... When the Democrats unleashed thugs on Trump supporters while the media studiously looked away, it was not sensible to openly identify with Trump. ..."
"... On Wednesday after the election, I heard an interview with a woman reporter who worked with the 538 polling group. She said that it was impossible for most reporters to really investigate how voters in certain areas of the country were feeling about the election bcz newspapers and other news organizations, including the Big Broadcasters, did not have the ability to pay for enough reporters to actually talk to people. ..."
"... the Los Angeles Times polls were correct (although the paper was pro-Clinton); can't get the link now, but they explained how they weighted their polls on the basis of the enthusiasm displayed for the preferred candidate, and Trump supporters were more "charged" ..."
"... I read many stories about how the polls were fixed for Clinton for months before the election. ..."
"... The pollsters took the % of voters from the Obama election but they also added more Democrats than were representative in the 2012 election, thereby skewing the polls for Clinton. Many believed that the reason they did this was to try to manipulate the voting machines in Clinton's favour and have the polls match the result. ..."
"... i go back to what my sociology of the media instructor said.. polls are for massaging people's brains.. unless one knows who pays for them and what goes into them, they are just another propaganda tool for use.. ..."
"... It has been known for a long time in the polling world that polling numbers are getting more and more unreliable because fewer and fewer people are willing to complete polls. ..."
"... theory would also explain the newspaper polls largely rigged to correspond to the planned vote theft, as well as the idiotic magnitude of overconfidence seen in the Pol-Est/MS Media/Wall Street complex. ..."
"... 1. IBD/TIPP (A collaboration of Investors Business Daily and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence). TechnoMetrica was consistent throughout – final poll for election day had Trump leading by 2%. Also predicted the last presidential elections back to 2004. ..."
"... This election candidates' crowd draw was a good indicator. It was very difficult to pre-program the Diebold machines. MSM polls were in the bag for Hillary, had her ahead. It backfired. ..."
"... A bit about polling methodology explains the bias we've seen this election cycle. Typically, the polling samples are not big enough to be representative, so the results are corrected (weighted) based on the participant responses. The polls assume certain turnout percentages for different groups (Democrats, Republicans, Independents, rural, urban, ethnicity, gender etc.). A lot of the polls were weighting the polls with turnouts similar to 2012, corrected for the expected demographic changes over the last 4 years. ..."
"... Poll weighing is a tricky business. This is why most polling has a 4% error margin, so it does not produce as accurate picture as is typically presented by the media. The error is not randomly distributed, it is closely related to the poll weighting. The weighting error was favouring Clinton in the polls as it assumed higher Democratic turnout, which ended up not being the case, she underperformed 2012 significantly and lost the election. ..."
"... Are the polls done to discover "what's up", or are they done to project the view that one side is winning? ..."
"... I go with the second view. That's what the 'corrections' are all about. The 'corrections' need to be dropped completely ..."
"... This. There was a Wikiliks Podesta email in whdich Clinton operatives discussed oversampling certain groups to inflate the poll in her favor. ..."
"... Hmm ... what can I say that no-one else has already said except to observe that the polling and the corporate media reporting the polling statistics were in another parallel universe and the people supposedly being polled (and not some over-sampled group in Peoria, Iowa, who could predict exactly what questions would be asked and knew what answers to give) live on planet Earth? ..."
"... I most certainly did not predict Trump would win. But I did question the polls. What I questioned a few weeks ago was the margin of victory for Hillary. ..."
"... This is because most of the polls were weighting more Democratic (based on the 2012 election), which overestimated Clinton's support. ..."
"... So the difference between the poll and the actual result is 1.2% in favour of Trump (1.7% lead to Clinton in poll vs. 0.5% in the election). All are well within the error of the poll, so 1.2% difference between the election and the poll is well within the stated 3% error margin of the poll. ..."
"... You assume public polls are conducted by impartial actors who wish to inform and illuminate..... your assumption is incorrect. ..."
"... The New York Times recent admission that it writes the narrative first, then builds the story to suit says about everything for me regarding polls. ..."
"... According to reports, the first leader Trump spoke to on the phone after his election victory was the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. Sisi congratulated him on the election victory, a spokesman for the Egyptian leader said. ..."
"... It may be unfortunate, but I can see Trump & Erdogan getting along very well. Although, if they bring Putin into that triumvirate that could actually be very beneficial for the Middle East. ..."
Nov 13, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

Today I discussed the U.S. election with a friend who studied and practices statistics. I asked about the failure of the polls in this years presidential election. Her explanation: The polls are looking at future events but are biased by the past. The various companies and institutions adjust the polls they do by looking at their past prognoses and the real results of the past event. They then develop correcting factors, measured from the past, and apply it to new polls. If that correcting factor is wrong, possibly because of structural changes in the electorate, then the new polls will be corrected with a wrong factor and thus miss the real results.

Polls predicting the last presidential election were probably off by 3 or 5 points towards the Republican side. The pollsters then corrected the new polls for the Clinton-Trump race in favor of the Democratic side by giving that side an additional 3-5 points. They thereby corrected the new polls by the bias that was poll inherent during the last race.

But structural changes, which we seem to have had during this election, messed up the result. Many people who usually vote for the Democratic ticket did not vote for Clinton. The "not Clinton" progressives, the "bernie bros" and "deplorables" who voted Obama in the last election stayed home, voted for a third party candidate or even for Trump. The pollsters did not anticipate such a deep change. Thus their correction factor was wrong. Thus the Clinton side turned out to be favored in polls but not in the relevant votes.

Real polling, which requires in depth-in person interviews with the participants, does not really happen anymore. It is simply to expensive. Polling today is largely done by telephone with participants selected by some database algorithm. It is skewed by many factors which require many corrections. All these corrections have some biases that do miss structural changes in the underlying population.

The Clinton camp, the media and the pollsters missed what we had anticipated as "not Clinton". A basic setting in a part of the "left" electorate that remember who she is and what she has done and would under no circumstances vote for her. Clinton herself pushed the "bernie bros" and "deplorables" into that camp. This was a structural change that was solely based in the personality of the candidate.

If Sanders would have been the candidate the now wrong poll correction factor in favor of Democrats would likely have been a correct one. The deep antipathy against Hillary Clinton in a decisive part of the electorate was a factor that the pseudo-science of cheap telephone polls could not catch. More expensive in depth interviews of the base population used by a pollster would probably have caught this factor and adjusted appropriately.

There were some twenty to thirty different entities doing polls during this election cycle. Five to ten polling entities, with better budgets and preparations, would probably have led to better prognoses. Some media companies could probably join their poll budgets, split over multiple companies today, to have a common one with a better analysis of its base population.One that would have anticipated "not Hillary".

Unless that happens all polls will have to be read with a lot of doubt. What past bias is captured in these predictions of the future? What are their structural assumptions and are these still correct? What structural change might have happened?

Even then polls and their interpretation will always only capture a part of the story. Often a sound grasp of human and cultural behavior will allow for better prediction as all polls. As my friend the statistician say: "The best prognostic instrument I have even today is my gut."

Oscar Romero | Nov 13, 2016 3:23:53 PM | 1

An equally interesting question about polls: what about the exit polls? If Greg Palast and others are right, exit polls indicate that the voting was rigged. What does your statistics friend think about that?
Andrea | Nov 13, 2016 3:28:21 PM | 2
After the 1948 election, statisticians started to get rid of the quota sampling for electoral polls. After this election, it's time to reassess Statistics.

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/wk4/lecture/case2.html

ab initio | Nov 13, 2016 3:30:01 PM | 3
NeverHillary turned out to be bigger than NeverTrump. Hillary got less than 6 million votes compared to Obama. Trump got nearly as much as Romney.
stumpy | Nov 13, 2016 3:45:38 PM | 4
A good indicator was the size of the crowds each candidate drew to their rallies. Clinton tended to show more "bought" TV-ready extras. Bernie blew the walls out at his rallies, as did Trump. You can't look at that and say the polls are even close to accurate.
Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 13, 2016 4:00:50 PM | 5
I suspect that the future of polling isn't as dire as you're painting it, b. There was huge anti-Trump bias in the Jew-controlled Christian-West Media from the beginning of the campaign. You drew attention to negative MSM bias yourself in the post which pointed out how consistently wrong the Punditocracy had been in predicting the imminent failure of the Trump campaign - thereby rubbing their noses in their own ineptitude and tomfoolery.

One factor which seemed important to me was occasionally hilighted at regular intervals by commenters here at MoA... The (apparent) fact that Trump addressed more, and bigger, crowds than Mrs Clinton. I accepted those claims as fact, and didn't bother to check their veracity. But nevertheless crowd size and frequency seems to have played a pivotal role in the outcome (as one would expect in a political campaign).

Mudduck | Nov 13, 2016 4:01:15 PM | 6
Exit polls have provided checks on the accuracy of the vote count -- but are liable to the same problem as the opinion pols, people who don't admit to their real position.
Steve | Nov 13, 2016 4:03:18 PM | 7
I'm not surprised that the polls fail badly in this presidential election. When the Democrats unleashed thugs on Trump supporters while the media studiously looked away, it was not sensible to openly identify with Trump. Even Trump was saying so through out the campaign.The Democrats together with their media partners truly believed that Donald Trump's alleged character flaws would be enough to win the election. Despite the fact that it was obvious to anyone without a blinker on that the momentum was on the side of Trump all along. Obama's phenomenon of 08 was nothing compared to Trump's phenomenon of this year, but because neither the MSM nor the Pollsters liked him they transferred their biases to their jobs. In any case I'm sure happy that the result of the election turned out different from the skewed prognosis.
jawbone | Nov 13, 2016 4:08:45 PM | 8
On Wednesday after the election, I heard an interview with a woman reporter who worked with the 538 polling group. She said that it was impossible for most reporters to really investigate how voters in certain areas of the country were feeling about the election bcz newspapers and other news organizations, including the Big Broadcasters, did not have the ability to pay for enough reporters to actually talk to people.

Since statistics had worked so well, and were cheaper to deal with, they won the day. And lost the battle.

Now, most people at this site seemed to base their decisions of whom to vote for based on stands on issues and known actions of the various candidates. But, even so, we probably paid attention to the polling results. I know I took into consideration that Hillary would win big in NJ, leaving me free to vote for Jill Stein. Based on known actions of Trump I could not vote for him, even tho' I hoped he would kill TPP and have better relations with Russia. I feared and still do fear his nominations to the Supreme Court. (I am not religious, but if I were I would pray daily, perhaps hourly, for the continued good health of the Justices Kennedy, GInsburg, and Breyer. I would hope the other Dem appointed justices would take care to avoid, oh, small airplanes....

Would Hillary have adjusted her campaign if she could have seen the rising disappointment of the working class Dems (even middle class to higher income Dems)? I don't know. I do know that her husband ran his first campaign on the famous "It's the economy, stupid" reminder.

Somehow, I don't think it would have registered enough.

And Obama ran on Hope and Change, but was always the Corporatist Dem Wall Street wanted. What a waste. And now we have four more years of doing essentially nothing aboug climate change. It was have been a strategy to put off even regulatory actions to lessen CO2 emissions until near the end of his second term, but, dang, it makes it easier for Trump to negate those efforts.

Again, what a waste. But I didn't vote for Obama for either term bcz I saw that his actions as IL state senator and as US senator were always looking out for the Big Money, Big Corporations, and seldom worked for anyone below the middle class, more the top of the middle class.

virgile | Nov 13, 2016 4:12:32 PM | 9
This Wasn't A Vote, It Was An Uprising
Paul Craig Roberts • November 12, 2016 >

Polls mean nothing when there is an uprising

virgile | Nov 13, 2016 4:15:15 PM | 10
No need of polls...say PBS

How to (accurately) predict a presidential election

joey | Nov 13, 2016 4:19:53 PM | 11
A long explanatory report which signifies nothing critical. "The polls were wrong??" No. The polls reported by MSM were wrong.

Big time, including from those from Clinton loving CBC here in Canada, which for an extended time was reporting Hillary with an 11% lead. That number was far beyond any minor adjustments, for sure.

There were polls, such as Rasmussen, itself suspected of fiddling, which were reporting ups and downs of 2%, and ended up tied election day.

So, please schemers, please do not try to cover up the MSM's deliberate attempt to influence results by using garbage numbers. Figures can lie, and liars can sure figure.

claudio | Nov 13, 2016 4:23:05 PM | 13
the Los Angeles Times polls were correct (although the paper was pro-Clinton); can't get the link now, but they explained how they weighted their polls on the basis of the enthusiasm displayed for the preferred candidate, and Trump supporters were more "charged"
mischi | Nov 13, 2016 4:25:01 PM | 14
I disagree with your friend, b. I read many stories about how the polls were fixed for Clinton for months before the election.

The pollsters took the % of voters from the Obama election but they also added more Democrats than were representative in the 2012 election, thereby skewing the polls for Clinton. Many believed that the reason they did this was to try to manipulate the voting machines in Clinton's favour and have the polls match the result. I think that Trump crying foul so early got them worried that they might be caught. Remember, voting machines in 14 states are run by companies affiliated with Soros.

james | Nov 13, 2016 4:26:58 PM | 15
i go back to what my sociology of the media instructor said.. polls are for massaging people's brains.. unless one knows who pays for them and what goes into them, they are just another propaganda tool for use..
Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 13, 2016 4:34:08 PM | 16
...
Polls mean nothing when there is an uprising
Posted by: virgile | Nov 13, 2016 4:12:32 PM | 9

Well, the Clinton-ista's and Soro-fuls certainly wasted no time when they switched from Anticipated Gloat to Full Spectrum Panic Mode, did they?

BraveNewWorld | Nov 13, 2016 4:35:07 PM | 17
It has been known for a long time in the polling world that polling numbers are getting more and more unreliable because fewer and fewer people are willing to complete polls.
Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 4:41:10 PM | 18
I have a weird conspiracy hypothesis that I mainly made up on my own;

The last FBI "reopening" and the quick subsequent "close-down" felt all too counter-intuitive and silly, when examined solely based on their face value.

However, what if there was more to this? What if this was a final threat from FBI to the Soros-Clinton mafia to "quickly unrig the voting machines" OR we will arrest the lot of you? Which, once the promises were made by "allow fair play", required FBI to pull back as their part of the deal?

Just an idea...

Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 4:43:54 PM | 19
This - admittedly conspiracy - theory would also explain the newspaper polls largely rigged to correspond to the planned vote theft, as well as the idiotic magnitude of overconfidence seen in the Pol-Est/MS Media/Wall Street complex.

Sorry on the split-think and double-post.

psychohistorian | Nov 13, 2016 5:02:02 PM | 20
I find it interesting b that you and your friend didn't seem to talk at all about the polling questions....at least that you shared with us. It is my experience and education that even with a "beauty contest" that we just had, that the structure of the polling questions make all the difference in how people being polled respond.

Polls are funded by parties with agendas and the questions, assumptions and biases are baked in to the result......IMO, they are all worthless or worse than that because folks see them, like the media as being something of an authority figure and therefore believable which we know is total BS.

Polls are just another propaganda tool of those rich enough to use them in their quiver of control.

Laguerre | Nov 13, 2016 5:15:19 PM | 21
Timid Trumpists is the major factor, I would think. A factor already well known in UK. People who are going to vote for a non-PC solution hesitate to admit it to poll questions.

somebody | Nov 13, 2016 5:15:50 PM | 22
All of the above is true, but - in addition - polls are used to manipulate campaigns.

People sympathize with someone who is considered a winner and when someone is considered likely to lose people lose interest.

To get the vote out polls have to be tight. In addition to that polls are used to motivate donors. In the end there has to be a reason pollsters get paid.

But even if polls would be done for purely scientific reasons, this election was impossible to poll. The correct question would have been "Do you hate/fear candidate x enough to motivate you to queue for voting for canditate y, or are you too disgusted to bother at all"

In the end, it was not the wrong polls that sank Clinton but the strategy to leave the anti-elitist populist stuff to Trump and - unsuccessfully concentrate on winning the elitist Republican anti Trump vote. That way she lost more of the Democrat Sanders vote than she could gain right wing.

The other factor was her reliance on television ads and media ties (they all backed her), a reluctance to talk to large audiences and an inability to communicate via social media.

It is possible though she never had a chance against a well established reality show brand.

The good news is that after this election campaigns will be done mainly low cost social media. The bad news is that these campaigns will be more fact free than ever and that the age of independent quality newspapers is over.

Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 5:29:03 PM | 23
#22 somebody

So, you're saying that the age of independent quality newspapers has just ended, like about now. Interesting pov...

Somehow, the last few years of the MSM coverage of the NATO-Salafist War on Syria have had me convinced that the "independent quality newspapers" have become a*rse-wipe material a long time ago. Instead, we get the Sorosoid ZioTakfirism.

But, yeah, maybe it's all Trump's fault. Hey I also blame Hezbollah for kicking Yisrael's arse north of Litani in 2006. If they didn't piss of the Yivrim this much, maybe they wouldn't have punitively collapsed the faith in the Western Society from the inside.

Ultimately, it's all Putin's fault. He started it all by beating the pro-Saudi Chechens into a pulp back in 1999, and started the NATOQAEDA self-destruction.

likklemore | Nov 13, 2016 5:35:21 PM | 24
In this election, Pollsters got it wrong.

Two Exceptions:

1. IBD/TIPP (A collaboration of Investors Business Daily and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence). TechnoMetrica was consistent throughout – final poll for election day had Trump leading by 2%. Also predicted the last presidential elections back to 2004.

Methodology

"Traditional Telephone method" includes cell –live interviews by Region; Age; Gender; Race; Income; Education; Party; Ideology; Investor; Area Type; Parental Status; White – men, women; Black/Hispanic; Women-single, married; Household description –Upper/Middle-Middle, Working, Lower; Religion; Union Household; Intensity of Support.

http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/

and
2. LATimes


This election candidates' crowd draw was a good indicator. It was very difficult to pre-program the Diebold machines. MSM polls were in the bag for Hillary, had her ahead. It backfired.

Is Newsweek embarrassed yet? They forgot some history. Truman-Dewey. Madam President! How appropriate.

Jackrabbit | Nov 13, 2016 5:44:28 PM | 25
Some of b's posts regarding US politics seems naive but I chalk that up to his not being American. But this technocratic excuse for the polling is just wrong. b, what happened to your skeptical view of Western media????

ben | Nov 13, 2016 5:46:27 PM | 26
virgile @ 9: An excerpt: " It was about the union men who refused to sell out their futures and vote for a Democrat who is an agent of the One Percent."

And now, I fear, they still have no future.

James @ 15 said.." polls are for massaging people's brains.. unless one knows who pays for them and what goes into them, they are just another propaganda tool for use..

How true..

Trumps choices for his cabinet don't leave much room for positive change, for the millions of disaffected voters who put him in office. We'll see!

voislav | Nov 13, 2016 6:13:07 PM | 27
A bit about polling methodology explains the bias we've seen this election cycle. Typically, the polling samples are not big enough to be representative, so the results are corrected (weighted) based on the participant responses. The polls assume certain turnout percentages for different groups (Democrats, Republicans, Independents, rural, urban, ethnicity, gender etc.). A lot of the polls were weighting the polls with turnouts similar to 2012, corrected for the expected demographic changes over the last 4 years.

Poll weighing is a tricky business. This is why most polling has a 4% error margin, so it does not produce as accurate picture as is typically presented by the media. The error is not randomly distributed, it is closely related to the poll weighting. The weighting error was favouring Clinton in the polls as it assumed higher Democratic turnout, which ended up not being the case, she underperformed 2012 significantly and lost the election.

It is important to stress that the election results ended up within the margin of error (+-4%). The polls were not wrong, it is the media and the analyst who over-interpreted the data and gave Clinton the win where she did not have a statistically significant (<4%) lead. This is why if Nate Silver at 538 was consistently writing that the polls in many of the swing states were within the error margin, although favouring Clinton, and their election prediction still gave Trump a ~30% chance of victory. Other analysts were more careless (hello Huffington Post) and even made fun of 538 for giving Trump any chance of victory.

There is no way to make more accurate polling for the future elections as the accuracy of the poll is tied in to poll weighing, which is guesswork (although somewhat educated by the historical data). Short of forcing everyone to vote, election-to-election turnout will change and affect the accuracy of the polls.

jo6pac | Nov 13, 2016 6:18:04 PM | 28
Some fun but sadly true.

#8 this for you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-5Y74FrDCc&index=25&list=WL

#25 Yep

Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 6:18:19 PM | 29
#27 voio

Instead of interpreting every single of those Polls as plausibly biased on one side, why don't you take the entire population of Western MSM Polls, and see if their median predicted outcome vs actual final outcome difference is statistically significant?

I'd say you'd find their entire population to be likely biased at least to six-sigma level.

(I have no time to show this myself, just proposing someone's hypothesis, as a research idea for someone's M Sci thesis for example)

lysias | Nov 13, 2016 6:18:32 PM | 30
I have lived in the D.C. area for the past 22 years with a land line phone and am listed in the White Pages. I have never been called by a pollster, although I am often called by political campaigns. I do not know anyone who has been called by a pollster.
jdmckay | Nov 13, 2016 6:35:22 PM | 32
Palast puts up good information that difference was good 'ole GOP voter purges.
jfl | Nov 13, 2016 6:40:08 PM | 33
Are the polls done to discover "what's up", or are they done to project the view that one side is winning?

I go with the second view. That's what the 'corrections' are all about. The 'corrections' need to be dropped completely.


Unless that happens all polls will have to be read with a lot of doubt.

Mike Whitney posted a link to a guy who got it right ... Patrick Caddell; The Pollster Who 'Got it Right' . His methods were not those of the captive pollsters.


More expensive in depth interviews of the base population used by a pollster would probably have caught this factor and adjusted appropriately.

No more 'adjustments' allowed. A desire to actually discover the lay of the land and to publish it is what's required. Good luck on getting that from the political class and/or their captive msm. Everything they do is a lie, calculated to keep themselves in power.

chipnik | Nov 13, 2016 6:42:19 PM | 34

The polls were obviously blatantly skewed towards urban Blue zones, and did not include working adults in Red zones, then were 'massaged' by reporting media in clearly a Rodham-paid PAC marketing campaign to brand the sheeples 'Wear Rodham!'

Only Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight even came close, but he had to rely on those same skewed polls. After all, since 1990, you can buy a CD set of American voting records by street address, it's not rocket science to be able to 'algo' that into a 'poll' that skews whichever way the highest bidder's (Rodham) quants tell you to.
https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/

ben | Nov 13, 2016 6:42:20 PM | 35
jo6pak @28: Thanks for the videos.

On Tuesday a democratic site was taken down. This video was put up in it's place.

Strange and troubling. Seig heil anyone?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIgsHZSqy_g

Adalbrand | Nov 13, 2016 6:53:27 PM | 36
@likklemore #24:

Glad you said that, and much better than I would have.

@somebody #22:

polls are used to manipulate campaigns.

This. There was a Wikiliks Podesta email in whdich Clinton operatives discussed oversampling certain groups to inflate the poll in her favor.

Demian is now known as Adalbrand .

Adalbrand | Nov 13, 2016 7:08:31 PM | 37
Oh Lookie – "Media Polls" Show Trump Back On Top, Go Figure…
As if on cue, or something. All of a sudden, S.U.R.P.R.I.S.E,… a litany of polls released today show Donald Trump ahead in key battleground states (Ohio and Florida), and tied –or closer than the margin of error– in new national polls…. […]

Remember what we stated on October 20th: […]

The real battle is the battle for your mind. The peak U.S. media false polling cycle is thankfully in the rear-view mirror.

It was because I followed that right-wing blog that I ignored all polls other than the LA Times tracking poll. (I didn't know about the IBD/TIPP poll until after the election.)
Jen | Nov 13, 2016 7:12:20 PM | 38
Hmm ... what can I say that no-one else has already said except to observe that the polling and the corporate media reporting the polling statistics were in another parallel universe and the people supposedly being polled (and not some over-sampled group in Peoria, Iowa, who could predict exactly what questions would be asked and knew what answers to give) live on planet Earth?
ToivoS | Nov 13, 2016 7:18:03 PM | 39
I most certainly did not predict Trump would win. But I did question the polls. What I questioned a few weeks ago was the margin of victory for Hillary.

There were two big variables that the pollsters had to guess at. One was the voter turnout numbers for those precincts that had many working class people with a high school or less education level. As it turns out those people came out in higher numbers than they have in elections over the past two decades. The other was voter turnout for many precincts that supported Obama in 2008 and 2012. What happened here was many of those voters who did turn out voted for Trump, instead of the Democrat. There was a third uncertainty here that no on has yet figured out. That was those people who would never admit to a stranger that they were going to vote for Trump and simply lied to the pollster.

In any case those three uncertainties worked in directions that none of the pollsters really picked up on.

voislav | Nov 13, 2016 7:23:32 PM | 40
#29 Quadriad

This is because most of the polls were weighting more Democratic (based on the 2012 election), which overestimated Clinton's support. For example, the Rasmussen poll, which traditionally weights more Republican, gave Clinton 1.7% lead, 44.8% to 43.1% (3% margin of error), so fairly close to the election results (47.3% to 47.8%).

So the difference between the poll and the actual result is 1.2% in favour of Trump (1.7% lead to Clinton in poll vs. 0.5% in the election). All are well within the error of the poll, so 1.2% difference between the election and the poll is well within the stated 3% error margin of the poll.

When you mention 6 sigma, you really don't really know what you are talking about. Typical polling error is 3 - 4% and the election result was within this error for most polls in all of the states. Standard deviation (sigma) that you mention is a random uncertainty associated with a measurement and it does not apply here. As I tried to convey, the errors in polling tend to be systematic, not random, because they are tied to weighting of the polls, not to the sample of the population as this is mostly corrected by the weighting. So because most of the MSM polls use similar weighting methodology based on the same historical data, they will all be off, there will be no random distribution of some for Trump, some for Clinton. Weighing based on different historical data skews the whole picture one way, it's not a random error. This is why pollster slap a relatively large 3 - 4% error on their polls, it is meant to cover any systematic bias of the weighting as well as random errors.

bigmango | Nov 13, 2016 7:23:48 PM | 41
You assume public polls are conducted by impartial actors who wish to inform and illuminate..... your assumption is incorrect.
Adalbrand | Nov 13, 2016 7:31:27 PM | 42
@ToivoS #39:

those three uncertainties worked in directions that none of the pollsters really picked up on.

Have a loook at the LA Times tracking poll . It had Trump ahead by 3.2% on election day, which is close to the margin of error. The graph there is interesting, because dates of various events, such as the debates are marked. The poll figures moved in response to those events as one would expect.

Before the election, the people who do that poll said that they did best at predicting the 2012 election. Oh, in a post about the election's outcome, Alexander Dugin singled out that poll for praise.

Bill Hicks | Nov 13, 2016 7:44:37 PM | 43
I have a better idea--how about we stop the stupid polling altogether since there is only one poll that really matters? Then the media would have to focus on the issues rather than the horserace. Oh, the humanity!

Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 8:08:16 PM | 44
I know exactly what I am talking about.

Hypothesis A - that it's all explainable by random distribution of their samples.

If you use Hypotethesis A, and then disprove it in it's own game (be it 3, or 6 sigma), then you have to suggest an alternative.

I don't know what the alternative is. I don't even claim I do. But you can more easily disprove the veracity that the polls could have mostly been non-biased by showing that hypothesis is unlikely to be RIGHT. That's where sigmas make absolute sense.

Nice try though, Voislave.

Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 8:12:56 PM | 45
Furthermore, what you are proving here is that the POPULATION of ALL COMBINED polls has a mean that must be different from the POPULATION of all actual voters, not of disproving the polls one by one.

I think you've totally ignored my point, you keep looking at individual polls as trees, I am looking at the poll forest and saying the entire forest is buggered if almost all polls erred on one side, regardless of their individual margins of error.

MadMax2 | Nov 13, 2016 8:14:16 PM | 46
The New York Times recent admission that it writes the narrative first, then builds the story to suit says about everything for me regarding polls. 'Hey, my editor needs someone to come out and say something, can you say this...?' <-- Now, if that is standard practice in journalism at 'the paper of record', then skewing polls to suit a common agenda is a given, again in my opinion. This of course is great news for sites like MofA.

Also impossible to capture The Don's campaign playing the electoral college system like an old mandolin, as it turns out. 306 Trump bts 232 Hillary it looks like in the wash up. That's old school work rate doing the job. Fair play. Great to see all the student debt laden brainwashed libtards out there doing there nut. They don't even know what a bullet they dodged + shite like the TPP is now dead. Some gratitude.

Hopefully in 2020 there are some more scientific polls like the USC Dornslife/LA Times poll, each having their own differing methodologies preferably. This should give the punters a better 'feel' for the electorate.

In other news...

Assange is being interviewed tomorrow by Swedush police (for the 2nd time I should add). There are and were no charges laid. I suspect their will be no charges brought tomorrow.

...so what happened...? Did The Rule of Law just...magically appear...?

Penelope | Nov 13, 2016 8:16:37 PM | 47
The most extraordinary thing I learned about polls is that exit polls are altered as soon as the official election or primary vote is in-- to match it.

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/tag/mathematical-proof-of-election-fraud/

Penelope | Nov 13, 2016 8:42:14 PM | 49
2 heartstopping items:
-- http://phibetaiota.net/2016/11/robert-steele-the-accidental-president-will-he-resign-the-closed-system-is-still-rigged-and-likely-to-remain-so/ Challenging Trumps legitimacy.
-- http://usdefensewatch.com/2016/11/putin-issues-international-arrest-warrant-for-george-soros-dead-or-alive/ This last-- like most overly dramatic news-- appears to be a scm but is widely dispersed across the web. Kind of curious. Of course I guess everybody knows that he's behind the protests in the US.

Julian | Nov 13, 2016 8:54:34 PM | 50
Who is Trump speaking to?
According to reports, the first leader Trump spoke to on the phone after his election victory was the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. Sisi congratulated him on the election victory, a spokesman for the Egyptian leader said.

Ireland's government said the taoiseach, Enda Kenny, had a 10-minute call with Trump, and was invited to visit the White House on St Patrick's Day.

Mexico's president, Enrique Peńa Nieto, has said he and Trump agreed in their call to meet before Trump takes office, while Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was invited to the White House.

Other leaders to have a chat with Trump so far include the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe – they reportedly talked for 20 minutes and agreed to meet soon in New York – and South Korea's president, Park Geun-hye.

Australia's prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, was reported to have chatted with Trump about security and trade in their call.

No surprises there.

It may be unfortunate, but I can see Trump & Erdogan getting along very well. Although, if they bring Putin into that triumvirate that could actually be very beneficial for the Middle East.

Notably absent

Adalbrand | Nov 13, 2016 8:55:25 PM | 51
@MadMax2 #46:

Concur with all your points. And yes, the timing of the Swedes finally deciding to interview Assange is funny.

I never thought that Hillary would become president, btw., from the moment she declared for 2016. Which is not to say that I was not concerned that the demonization of Trump might throw the election. We'll never know, but it is possible that Trump wouldn't have won without Wikileaks. And the two sets of leaks were very well timed.

To return to polls. It's not just most media polls that were off. The Clinton campaign's internal polls were off, too. They didn't have much doubt that they would win. (The same thing happened with Romney of course, but in their case, their internal polls differed from the media polls.) Apparently, they really did believe they have a firewall, with redundancies no less.

Clinton staffers: Arrogance from the DNC leadership cost Clinton the election

[Nov 13, 2016] Comey did it hypothesys

Nov 13, 2016 | nypost.com

But Democrats had a simpler answer for why Clinton lost. As one Democratic strategist close to Clinton told The Post, it all came down to "one word: Comey." Too bad for Democrats there are zero electoral votes in the State of Denial. FBI Director James Comey didn't use a private e-mail server to conduct official State Department business and put 110 classified e-mails on that unsecured server. Comey didn't fail to turn over some 14,900 e-mails to the FBI after assuring Americans that "I turned over everything I was obligated to turn over."

Comey didn't lie to the American people about Benghazi, publicly blaming the attacks on "inflammatory material posted on the Internet." Comey didn't tell Democratic voters he was against free-trade deals, but then tell Brazilian bankers that his dream was for "hemispheric . . . open trade and open borders."

Comey didn't have a foundation that accepted millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments during his tenure as secretary of state. He didn't give, as I wrote last month, "special treatment to Clinton Foundation donors after the Haiti quake, asking for them to be identified as 'FOBs' (friends of Bill Clinton) or 'WJC VIPs' (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs)."

Why did Hillary Clinton lose? Not because of Comey. She lost because exit polls showed that 54 percent of voters believe she is "corrupt."

To the elites in Washington, her corruption was apparently no big deal, at least not compared with their horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency. But Americans correctly saw her corruption as corrosive to our democracy.

This election was a popular repudiation of Clinton's corruption and deceit - and she owns that. But there is one person besides herself whom she can blame: President Obama. Because while Clinton may have lost to Donald Trump, it was Obama who created him.

[Nov 13, 2016] Martin Armstrong Exposes The Real Clinton Conspiracy Which Backfired Dramatically

Notable quotes:
"... Hillary lost not merely because she misread the "real" people, she decided to run a very divisive and nasty negative campaign, which has fueled the violence ever since. According to WikiLeaks emails from campaign John Podesta, Clinton colluded with the DNC and the media to raise what they thought would be the extreme right among Republicans to then make her the middle of the road to hide her agenda. ..."
"... Clinton called this her "pied piper" strategy, that intentionally cultivated extreme right-wing presidential candidates and that would turn the Republicans away from their more moderate candidates. ..."
"... The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee along with mainstream media all called for using far-right candidates "as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right." Clinton's camp insisted that Trump should be "elevated" to "leaders of the pack" and media outlets should be told to "take them seriously." ..."
"... The Clinton strategy was all about manipulating the Republicans to nominate the worst candidate Clinton called for forcing "all Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election." ..."
"... It was not Putin trying to rig the elections, it was Hillary. Clinton saw the Republican field as crowded and she viewed as "positive" for her. "Many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right." Clinton then took the strategic position saying "we don't want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more 'Pied Piper' candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party." ..."
"... "We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously." ..."
"... This is by far the WORST campaign in history and it was all orchestrated by Hillary to be intentionally divisive for the nation all to win the presidency at all costs. She has torched the constitution and the country. ..."
"... Any Democrat who is not angry at this is clearly just a biased fool. Wake up and smell the roses. You just got what you deserve. ..."
"... It's one thing to be ruthless & evil. It's another to be ruthless, evil and stupid. Brexit should have been a huge eye-opener for the elites that they should seek to field two establishment candidates as usual at any cost rather than risk elevating an outsider. ..."
"... It's incredibly fortunate they were too dumb to realise that the former middle class and independents cognisant of NWO would create huge momentum for exactly those type of candidates & that this was absolutely the worst time in history to attempt that strategy. Lack of competition at the top of the food chain has made her ilk slow and out of touch. Evolution is a bitch. ..."
"... Personally, I find this hilarious. She schemes and connives to push forward the most "unelectable" republican, and that republican wins mostly because she vastly underestimates the dislike of Americans for her. ..."
"... Excellent article. Truly, the definition of "hubris" was Hillary during this election. ..."
"... What she underestimated was the ability for most to see thru her true contempt of people. That's the bottom line of Hillary- she just sees herself as royalty, and we just got tired of seeing it again and again. ..."
"... from the tone of the leaked emails it is clear they realized she was the worst candidate ever. ..."
"... This mirrors her naive approach to foreign policy of "create a controlled burn (Arab spring) and get rid of your enemy". Without realizing someone would move in to the void left afterwards. (I need to drink more - In whiskey, veritas). Or as in this case, the wind changes direction. ..."
"... It is interesting that there is no mention of any strategy to promote her ideas or positive qualities. In fact the "muddy the waters" statement shows they knew scandals would come up and they'd have to play defense. ..."
"... Remember how Hitlery called US working white men just a deplorable POS. Furthermore, her allies could easily falsify the voter counting process but again they were so arrogant and self confident that they fucked up themselves. ..."
"... People, stop be so naive and stupid. The life is not fair to losers since only winners always write the history! ..."
"... Finally, if Trump will follow an advice to be good to everybody being a unifier then he will be destroyed. This is why he must continue the strategy that brought his the victory. One never can win follow a defensive strategy! ..."
"... unfortunately, the MSM is continuing without a break in cadence their lock-step call for bipartisan! compromise! and let's be "REASONABLE" . DAMMIT. The time for reasonable is past. ..."
"... If Trump puts in a lot of NEOCON insiders in his cabinet I say we need to hammer it again home that this is our last chance. If trump doesn't deliver the JOBS and Economic turnaround then the conservatives are GONE. We won't get another chance. ..."
www.zerohedge.com

Meanwhile, Hillary lost not merely because she misread the "real" people, she decided to run a very divisive and nasty negative campaign, which has fueled the violence ever since. According to WikiLeaks emails from campaign John Podesta, Clinton colluded with the DNC and the media to raise what they thought would be the extreme right among Republicans to then make her the middle of the road to hide her agenda.

... ... ...

Clinton called this her "pied piper" strategy, that intentionally cultivated extreme right-wing presidential candidates and that would turn the Republicans away from their more moderate candidates. This enlisted mainstream media who then focused to Trump and raise him above all others assuming that would help Hillary for who would vote for Trump. This was a deliberate strategy all designed to propel Hillary to the White House.

The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee along with mainstream media all called for using far-right candidates "as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right." Clinton's camp insisted that Trump should be "elevated" to "leaders of the pack" and media outlets should be told to "take them seriously."

If we look back on April 23, 2015, just two weeks after Hillary Clinton officially declared her presidential campaign, her staff sent out a message on straregy to manipulate the Republicans into selecting the worse candidate. They included this attachment a "memo for the DNC discussion."

The memo was addressed to the Democratic National Committee and stated bluntly, "the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field." Here we find that the real conspiracy was Clinton manipulating the Republicans. "Clearly most of what is contained in this memo is work the DNC is already doing. This exercise is intended to put those ideas to paper."

"Our hope is that the goal of a potential HRC campaign and the DNC would be one-in-the-same: to make whomever the Republicans nominate unpalatable to a majority of the electorate."

The Clinton strategy was all about manipulating the Republicans to nominate the worst candidate Clinton called for forcing "all Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election."

It was not Putin trying to rig the elections, it was Hillary. Clinton saw the Republican field as crowded and she viewed as "positive" for her. "Many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right." Clinton then took the strategic position saying "we don't want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more 'Pied Piper' candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party."

Her manipulative strategy was to have the press build up Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson. "We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously."

This conspiracy has emerged from the Podesta emails. It was Clinton conspiring with mainstream media to elevate Trump and then tear him down. We have to now look at all the media who endorsed Hillary as simply corrupt. Simultaneously, Hillary said that Bernie had to be ground down to the pulp. Further leaked emails showed how the Democratic National Committee sabotaged Sanders' presidential campaign. It was Hillary manipulating the entire media for her personal gain. She obviously did not want a fair election because she was too corrupt.

What is very clear putting all the emails together, the rise of Donald Trump was orchestrated by Hillary herself conspiring with mainstream media, and they they sought to burn him to the ground. Their strategy backfired and now this is why she has not come out to to speak against the violence she has manipulated and inspired.

This is by far the WORST campaign in history and it was all orchestrated by Hillary to be intentionally divisive for the nation all to win the presidency at all costs. She has torched the constitution and the country. No wonder Hillary could not go to the stage to thank her supporters. She never counted on them and saw the people as fools. The entire strategy was to take the White House with a manipulation of the entire election process. Just unbelievable. Any Democrat who is not angry at this is clearly just a biased fool. Wake up and smell the roses. You just got what you deserve.

Notveryamused -> Charles Wilson •Nov 12, 2016 9:12 PM

It's one thing to be ruthless & evil. It's another to be ruthless, evil and stupid. Brexit should have been a huge eye-opener for the elites that they should seek to field two establishment candidates as usual at any cost rather than risk elevating an outsider.

It's incredibly fortunate they were too dumb to realise that the former middle class and independents cognisant of NWO would create huge momentum for exactly those type of candidates & that this was absolutely the worst time in history to attempt that strategy. Lack of competition at the top of the food chain has made her ilk slow and out of touch. Evolution is a bitch.

847328_3527 -> nmewn •Nov 12, 2016 9:33 PM

That yootoob video of "When people laughed at the idea..." is excellent...a Must watch for all! Here is the yootoob link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT0Rjc6jKCg

Automatic Choke -> 847328_3527 •Nov 12, 2016 9:34 PM

Personally, I find this hilarious. She schemes and connives to push forward the most "unelectable" republican, and that republican wins mostly because she vastly underestimates the dislike of Americans for her.

Could there be a more fitting slap in the face to someone of such enormous hubris and arrogance?

jcaz -> Automatic Choke •Nov 12, 2016 9:47 PM

Excellent article. Truly, the definition of "hubris" was Hillary during this election.

What she underestimated was the ability for most to see thru her true contempt of people. That's the bottom line of Hillary- she just sees herself as royalty, and we just got tired of seeing it again and again.

MalteseFalcon -> espirit •Nov 12, 2016 10:47 PM

Hillary Rodent fashions herself as some kind of leader who is a Christian (Methodist) and loves America ("Need to unify!!"). So let the Rodent get on TV and tell these bought and paid for rioters to stop. "Not in my name" should be the Rodent's plea.

<crickets>

She's a fraud.

Joe Davola -> MalteseFalcon •Nov 12, 2016 11:44 PM

It truly was the worst campaign in history (topping Mondale 84). If only they'd put half the effort into their campaign that they put into dirty tricks. Then again, from the tone of the leaked emails it is clear they realized she was the worst candidate ever.

They were so busy playing it like a parlor game, they forgot to actually provide real reasons to vote for her - beyond it was her turn.

This mirrors her naive approach to foreign policy of "create a controlled burn (Arab spring) and get rid of your enemy". Without realizing someone would move in to the void left afterwards. (I need to drink more - In whiskey, veritas). Or as in this case, the wind changes direction.

FreedomGuy -> Joe Davola •Nov 13, 2016 12:44 AM

It is interesting that there is no mention of any strategy to promote her ideas or positive qualities. In fact the "muddy the waters" statement shows they knew scandals would come up and they'd have to play defense.

It is never about how good they are. It is about how bad you/the other side is.

caconhma -> jcaz •Nov 12, 2016 10:31 PM

War is war. The goal is to win by destroying an opponent. Therefore, any actions and any strategy leading to a victory are totally justified!

Consequently, one cannot blame Hitlery for her actions. Hitlery has done the right things but Jewish arrogance that guided and executed her election campaign negated and destroyed all advantages she had. Remember how Hitlery called US working white men just a deplorable POS. Furthermore, her allies could easily falsify the voter counting process but again they were so arrogant and self confident that they fucked up themselves.

People, stop be so naive and stupid. The life is not fair to losers since only winners always write the history!

Finally, if Trump will follow an advice to be good to everybody being a unifier then he will be destroyed. This is why he must continue the strategy that brought his the victory. One never can win follow a defensive strategy!

hardmedicine -> caconhma •Nov 13, 2016 3:46 AM

unfortunately, the MSM is continuing without a break in cadence their lock-step call for bipartisan! compromise! and let's be "REASONABLE" . DAMMIT. The time for reasonable is past.

If Trump puts in a lot of NEOCON insiders in his cabinet I say we need to hammer it again home that this is our last chance. If trump doesn't deliver the JOBS and Economic turnaround then the conservatives are GONE. We won't get another chance.

Grosvenor Pkwy -> Chris Dakota •Nov 13, 2016 6:29 AM

Long-term drug and alcohol abuse slowly destroys the brain. She was definitely smarter 20 years ago. "first we have to bring them to heel..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FnjXkHvYSY

VinceFostersGhost -> Chris Dakota •Nov 13, 2016 8:23 AM

for years the talk is that Hillary is a drunk.

Heard the same thing.......Benghazi......she was knocked out.


[Nov 13, 2016] Liberal Media Turns On Itself As NYT Promises To Rededicate Itself To Honest Reporting

Notable quotes:
"... Take over the Democratic Party and return it to the people. They have failed us miserably. ..."
"... Fire all pundits, predictors, pollsters and anyone else in the media who had a narrative they wouldn't let go of and refused to listen to or acknowledge what was really going on. Those same bloviators will now tell us we must "heal the divide" and "come together." ..."
"... let those of us who know the score lead the way in stopping the meanness and the madness that's about to begin. ..."
"... Everyone must stop saying they are "stunned" and "shocked". What you mean to say is that you were in a bubble and weren't paying attention to your fellow Americans and their despair. ..."
"... You live in a country where a majority of its citizens have said they believe there's climate change, they believe women should be paid the same as men, they want a debt-free college education, they don't want us invading countries, they want a raise in the minimum wage and they want a single-payer true universal health care system. None of that has changed. ..."
"... Finally, speaking of Saturday Night Live sketches, we can't wait to see how the liberal "comedy" show - which just like the NYT existed in a world of its own throughout the presidential campaign - spins the election results tonight. ..."
Nov 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
* * *

Then there was ultraliberal Michael Moore, who in a facebook post urged to "Fire all pundits, predictors, pollsters and anyone else in the media who had a narrative they wouldn't let go of and refused to listen to or acknowledge what was really going on. Those same bloviators will now tell us we must "heal the divide" and "come together." They will pull more hooey like that out of their ass in the days to come. Turn them off."

Morning After To-Do List:

1. Take over the Democratic Party and return it to the people. They have failed us miserably.

2. Fire all pundits, predictors, pollsters and anyone else in the media who had a narrative they wouldn't let go of and refused to listen to or acknowledge what was really going on. Those same bloviators will now tell us we must "heal the divide" and "come together." They will pull more hooey like that out of their ass in the days to come. Turn them off.

3. Any Democratic member of Congress who didn't wake up this morning ready to fight, resist and obstruct in the way Republicans did against President Obama every day for eight full years must step out of the way and let those of us who know the score lead the way in stopping the meanness and the madness that's about to begin.

4. Everyone must stop saying they are "stunned" and "shocked". What you mean to say is that you were in a bubble and weren't paying attention to your fellow Americans and their despair. YEARS of being neglected by both parties, the anger and the need for revenge against the system only grew. Along came a TV star they liked whose plan was to destroy both parties and tell them all "You're fired!" Trump's victory is no surprise. He was never a joke. Treating him as one only strengthened him. He is both a creature and a creation of the media and the media will never own that.

5. You must say this sentence to everyone you meet today: "HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE!" The MAJORITY of our fellow Americans preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Period. Fact. If you woke up this morning thinking you live in an effed-up country, you don't. The majority of your fellow Americans wanted Hillary, not Trump. The only reason he's president is because of an arcane, insane 18th-century idea called the Electoral College. Until we change that, we'll continue to have presidents we didn't elect and didn't want. You live in a country where a majority of its citizens have said they believe there's climate change, they believe women should be paid the same as men, they want a debt-free college education, they don't want us invading countries, they want a raise in the minimum wage and they want a single-payer true universal health care system. None of that has changed. We live in a country where the majority agree with the "liberal" position. We just lack the liberal leadership to make that happen (see: #1 above).

* * *

There were countless more such examples of prominent liberals accusing the press of bias and propaganda long after the fact, even as the press itself refuses to admit any guilt, while itself blaming others, and so the circle continues to turn, and nothing changes in a world in which nobody knows what happens next now that the status quo has been crushed by the people.

Finally, speaking of Saturday Night Live sketches, we can't wait to see how the liberal "comedy" show - which just like the NYT existed in a world of its own throughout the presidential campaign - spins the election results tonight.

[Nov 12, 2016] Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there

Notable quotes:
"... The party elites--the superdelegates--committed to Clinton from the beginning. They decided it was her turn. And despite all the evidence showing they were supporting a weak, vulnerable, and heavily disliked candidate, they stuck with it anyway. This Trump presidency, and the Republican sweep in the House and Senate, is entirely on the shoulders of 300 insider Democrats. ..."
"... Clinton's supporters among the media didn't help much, either. It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation's papers, but it was the quality of the media's enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. ..."
"... But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine. ..."
www.theguardian.com

thetowncrier -> NathAldridge 4d ago

No shit, Sherlock. Sanders would have beaten Trump. We are living in extreme times, and in extreme times centrism and political 'triangulation' doesn't work.

This result will be repeated next year in France with the National Front. Mark my words. And when it does, France will vote to leave the EU and the house of cards will come crashing down.

You can thank the Democrats, a party that used to represent working people, for at least part of that. Their billionaire backers picked Clinton because she'd ensure their wealth would remain untouched. I wonder what they're feeling now?

Aaron Jackson -> NathAldridge 4d ago

How do you figure? Clinton won the Democratic primary by less than the margin of superdelegates. She had a MASSIVE lead in funding, institutional support, and (at the least) insider bias--though it was likely more than that, given that nearly every single election anomaly in that primary bounced her way.

The DNC intentionally limited the debates and scheduled those they did have for off times to try to limit the damage Sanders could do to Clinton, and big media refused to cover Bernie Sanders except in the context of Clinton.

And even with all of that, Sanders pulled within 300 delegates of winning the Democratic Nomination by working through a grassroots, positive campaign. The momentum was entirely on his side, too! And national polls showed him performing MUCH better against Trump than Clinton. And, of course, he had no scandals (real or imagined) to leverage.

The party elites--the superdelegates--committed to Clinton from the beginning. They decided it was her turn. And despite all the evidence showing they were supporting a weak, vulnerable, and heavily disliked candidate, they stuck with it anyway. This Trump presidency, and the Republican sweep in the House and Senate, is entirely on the shoulders of 300 insider Democrats.


NathAldridge 4d ago

The Guardian in a nutshell!

Clinton's supporters among the media didn't help much, either. It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation's papers, but it was the quality of the media's enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. Here's what it consisted of:

  • Hillary was virtually without flaws. She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white, a super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women and children, a warrior for social justice.
  • Her scandals weren't real.
  • The economy was doing well / America was already great.
  • Working-class people weren't supporting Trump. And if they were, it was only because they were botched humans. Racism was the only conceivable reason for lining up with the Republican candidate.

dynamic22 4d ago

"But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine."

You said everything really.

Watchman80 -> dynamic22 4d ago

Yup.

Also, see this. Note the date (and the imagined Trump speech)

http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency


Choller21 4d ago

Maybe it's time to consider whether there's something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.

I couldn't have put it better. I could have put it with more swear words in though.

BigBlue80 4d ago

Maybe there is a bright side to a Trump victory. After all, there was a reason that tens of millions of good people voted for him yesterday, and maybe he will live up to their high regard for him.

If you assume that election victory (not even a majority as apparently Clinton will win the popular vote) legitmises everything, you are right. But if you believe that there are western values that should not be sacrificed than you are wrong. Eventually, this will be the end of democracy - it will kill itself by electing a fascist. I happened before and it looks ever more likely. The you US with ist overbearing nationalism, its leader-orientation and glorification of the military was always close to fascism, but now it might have taken the final leap into the abyss.

atuocool 4d ago

"[Neo]Liberals" are a type of conservative who never convince me of the sincerity of their "progressive" values. What was progressive about Hillary? What would she have actually done for the poor? How would she have moved America away from being a corporate plutocracy? We all know the answer is nothing. Trump is a nightmare, but he represents a bizarre, retrograde change while Clinton represented a vacuous status quo.

John Hunter 4d ago

with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station


Correct, it is censorship and suppression of contrary opinion and enormously biased towards "The Chosen One"

Once again it proves that the Guardian is against the tide of History.

It is not bad to be contrarian or representing an alternative opinion or "voice" however provided you still maintain some sense of integrity and journalistic professionalism, providing content, news and information that is fair, balanced without indulging in gratuitous character assassination, presenting controversial issues of public importance in a manner that is honest, equitable, and balanced.

The Guardian during the American election as with Brexit and many other controversial issues has consistently aligned itself with policies and opinion that many would consider left-wing or liberal yet is neither as the viewpoints they support betrays the liberty and freedom of the ordinary citizen.

As I said before the election regardless who win or lose the media has already lost by showing its hand and exposed itself as not a true independent source of news and information, but pursuing definite agendas and siding with corporate news media's opinions and politics.

According to the Guardian's own view liberalism will have to be remade in a post-liberal age. It is their own peculiar set of values they believe that is important and not the very principles the left originally defended. Pursuing a certain "metropolitan liberal creed".

An metropolitan liberal elite who believe they are more educated, more intelligent and talented, more enlightened, more able to comprehend what society needs than the slow, slobs, the wasters and good for nothings with their prejudices, that do not know what is good for them.

Their brand of Liberalism has been the complete antithesis of allowing people to take control of their lives. It has been a dictatorial imposition of the beliefs of the least liberal nature.

Equating the tendencies of so-called "social justice warriors" and so-called "identity politics" and equating them somehow with liberalism you're a long way from the truth have little to do with liberalism and no, that's not "left" either.

The establishment in the mainstream media believe they are economically liberals - though privately they look more kindly on monopolies than old school liberals would have. Yet these "liberals" want to happily embrace Brussels' legalistic regime of rules that range from the petty and impractical to a punitive and autocratic dictatorship.

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.

It is no secret what the problem is, lack of jobs, lack of opportunities, people who feel they have no future or rights in their own country anymore.

Ask yourself is what you identify with or support contributing towards a more peaceful, harmonious society where all have a sense of having a place and a future in their own country where they feel they fit in and contribute towards a more safe, secure and prosperous society?

Jerome Fryer John Hunter 4d ago 14 15

An metropolitan liberal elite who believe they are more educated, more intelligent and talented, more enlightened, more able to comprehend what society needs than the slow, slobs, the wasters and good for nothings with their prejudices, that do not know what is good for them.

This is not a new problem. The social elites (self-appointed) of all political persuasions are always bemoaning the stupidity of the plebs in not bowing to their superior understanding of all things. That this unfounded hubris is an amazing exemplar of denial of reality (who just won this election, for example) doesn't seem able to take root in the bubble of acceptable thought in their minds. How could they possibly be talking out of their bottom when it comes to damn near everything? (All evidence aside.)

We need the voice of the 'common people' to be heard, without being filtered by the elites. Fake democracy is not going to work -- we'll end up with a bigger fiasco, such as Jamie Dimon vs Kim Kardashian in the next US Presidential contest. Way past time for those in power to wake up to the fact that they're not in control, and real change that involves the great unwashed in the process is necessary. Trump is one dumb guy, but he has managed to figure out how to use this frustration to get his misogynist, racist, backside into the chair in the Oval Office.

Wise up, 'smart people'. Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report _jhfta_ Jerome Fryer 4d ago 10 11

We need the voice of the 'common people' to be heard, without being filtered by the elites.

I give you: Boaty McBoatface. trp981 , 9 Nov 2016 11:2>
Concluding Unscientific Postscripts (*)

- Election of Trump is not just another routine changing of the guards in the US two-party system (although it is that too). This is a significant deviation in the business-as-usual model of politics, and there will be substantial repercussions that will explicitly manifest themselves somewhere down the line.

- The Founding Dudes and the Framers of the US Constitution had set up the system so as to preclude the possibility of ascendance of someone like Trump.

- The Founding Dudes and the Framers of the US Constitution had set up the system so as to eventually make possible the ascendance of someone like Trump.

- Sanders was right. That having had had been said, he would have still lost to Drumpf if he were the D's nominee instead of HRC.

- That is because RealAmerica_a spoke more vocally this time around, overwhelming the voice of RealAmerica_b.

- Judging by geographical size alone, RealAmerica_a is Real America.

- It is simply unimaginable that the enlightened citizenry will elect someone as destructive and unqualified as Reagan in 1980. Such a possibility is not conceivable in any logical space, and even fiction writers are wary to contemplate such an impossibility.

- Election of Reagan is not just another routine changing of the guards in the US two-party system (although it is that too). This is a significant deviation in the business-as-usual model of politics, and there will be substantial repercussions that will explicitly manifest themselves somewhere down the line.

- Trump's victory is a repeat of the interplay of the socioeconomic forces that made Dubya's presidency possible in 2000. Eight more years of this worldview and we will have another Obama-type candidacy afterwards to clean up the mess and make the world safe again for the staggering-but-still-dominant neoliberal order.

- People will be just too exhausted after eight years of Trump's presidency, and they will be so relieved after the election of the next Obama-type president as to retreat to their homes and let the new savior continue cuddling the big economic players and attempting to reach a Grand Bargain with the Republicans to further erode the threadbare social safety net holding up the people, of course for the good of the people themselves and in the name of Serious Politics.

-The dominant position in our society will continue to be the generalization of Alan Grayson's observation: Don't fall down, if you do disappear quickly.

- Setting aside the status quo status of Clinton's policy prescriptions (she a competent steward of the Washington Consensus), Trump's victory also signals the provisional victory of the manly men of RealAmerica_a (and the women who love them) over women (and minorities, and the LGBT, and immigrants, and etc).

- The same way that most people don't know or care about the wavelengths associated with colors, they don't know or care about the underlying forces affecting their lives as long as the politicians put on a good Reality TV show and pull effectively at their heartstrings.

- In other words, F science, F reality.

- In other words, long live Realty TV, the rule of Kardashians, the Apprentice, WWE/WWF , etc. Constant exposure to these things matter.


- Constant exposure to these things don't matter.

- Tomorrow the Sun will come up as before, and the Earth will go around it at a steady pace as before, and the already enfeebled welfare state will continue to fray as before, and millions of US citizens will continue their steady fall into precariousness as before (especially Trump supporters in RealAmerica_a), and millions will continue to lose steady jobs and be pushed into the the gig economy, and the 1% will continue raking in the loot as before under the benevolent gaze of their new leader.

- If HRC had won, all above would still occur, but probably at a lower rate (except for the Sun and Earth thing).

- Drumpf was the Smoker to HRC's Atoller .

(*) Yesyes, I know.

rasnip , 9 Nov 2016 11:2>
I feel lots of parallels can be drawn with brexit, particularly the points made at the end. amazingly people dont like being insulted and talked down to by party elites, the gop base has been totally transformed by trumps campaign.

that said has anyone else noticed that trump supporters only ever say 'hes going to do so much for us' and trump says we are going to reopen the mines/factories/get a better deal but never said how. he has promised unicorns and rainbows to people dealt a shit hand by the economic changes of the last 30 years.

spotthelemon usini , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
The political class amongst US liberals are neo-liberals

Neoliberalism from Reagan to [Bill] Clinton .
written in 1998 the review of this book ends with
" Michael Meeropol's damning indictment of the economic direction of the Clinton presidency demonstrates that nowhere is the need for a new movement more pressing than in the United States".

Well Bush & Obama & Hillary, had she been elected, were continuations of that economic direction. If America has needed a new movement to win since 1999 then I guess they got really desperate which is why they voted for something as bad as Trump. Yes , the liberals or more specifically neo-liberals an be held responsible

Musicismath usini , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
Frank has been making exactly this point since 1997. Others worth reading on this issue include Walter Benn Michaels and Adolph L. Reed, Jr.

Unfortunately, in a lot of fora where this message sorely needs to be heard right now, this article would be summarily dismissed on the basis that Frank used the word "shrill," which is out of bounds in liberal discourse. Which of course just illustrates Frank's point.

Aboutface , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>
The DNC put President Trump into the White House. The DNC, fixated on the anointed, untouchable HRC, lost its moral compass and the good work of Bernie and Warren, now amounts to a big fat ZERO.
Laughable, how out of touch - meaningless motherhood cliches cannot pay the bills.
Pinback71 , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>
It is a case in point that the MSM have completely lost touch with a population that often relies on the internet for its news. In the old days, the newspaper that was closest to your political viewpoint was delivered to your door as your primary source of information, now every news outlet, blog and forum in the world is delivered directly to your tablet.
The media, like the Government has considerably less influence than a decade or two ago.
Ummmmm , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>
Good article and, as one poster put it, encapsulates the Guardian's editorial line in a nutshell.

The FT seems to be to the left of this paper these days, forced to be more hard nosed about the world. This from its columnist Wolfgang Munchenau some days ago:

"What led the centre-left on to such a self-destructive path? The answer is a combination of the following: a false belief that elections are won from the centre; the lure of ministerial limousines; an inferiority complex about not being able to run "responsible fiscal policies"; and a belief that voters of the left have nowhere else to go. .. The main issue is not whether a Keynesian policy response would be economically correct. The more important point is that if the centre-left does not offer it, the populists will. Unless the centre-left returns to its Keynesian roots, I think there is a good chance that the politics of insurrection will succeed."


https://www.ft.com/content/dba252f8-a29c-11e6-82c3-4351ce86813f

Same trends at play in UK, US and Europe. Any lessons to learn?

Omoikani , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>
Excellent article. Perhaps the Guardian needs to do a whole lot of soul-searching.

The one thing left out of the article is what Michael Moore said, which is really worth reading in full , but the nub of which is the following:

You live here in Ohio, you know what I'm talking about. Whether Trump means it or not, is kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump. He is the human molotov cocktail that they've been waiting for. The human hand grande that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them.

Persianwar , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>

the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station.

That's a very accurate summary. The first step to winning next time is to understand why you lost this time. The establishment view was that people were going to get Hillary Clinton whether they liked it or not. Next time try listening to people who are angry that their pay has fallen in real terms for 10 years. Try listening to people whose views you disagree with rather than 'no platform' them lest your delicate sensibilities be offended.

MacWolf , 9 Nov 2016 11:3>
The list of celebrities and pundits and surrogates taking his side on the campaign trail was extremely short.

I often wonder is having a celebrity endourse you counter productive. I saw many celebs appear on TV and social media telling people they shouldn't vote for Trump. Some went as far as to call people who might vote for Trump idiots. How many people got fed up with rich, famous people telling them how they should vote? If you're someone sitting in America's rust belt, no job or low paid crap job, being told by someone you think probably owns a Hollywood mansion and does very little work, would you not feel a little resentful being told by them how to vote? Wouldn't you take a dislike to a candidate who appears on stage with these celebs and yet you feel ignores you? Just a thought.

dizzyalien MacWolf , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
Rights come with responsibilities.

If you have the right to vote, the responsibility is to think through the implications of using that vote for X or Y candidate, to work out for yourself what will happen to you, your family, your community and your country if you vote for X or Y.

If you vote for Y because you feel "resentful" that someone is using their freedom of speech to urge voting for X rather than Y - perhaps you shouldn't really be voting at all. Just a thought.

SqueakEMouse MacWolf , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
More than just an odd thought my friend. The sight of a procession of wealthy, smug and self entitled celebs, often utter hypocrites, expecting to deliver their Facebook followers to a politician is nauseating and angers more than a few. Few of these celebs are famous for their brains so being called an idiot by a halfwit with money hardly endears them. But still society is in thrall to the concept of celebrity following. It begs the question of what all these followers are actually following. Perhaps Lady Gaga et al have confused the pathological need for an entertainment fix with an adoration of their thoughts and outlook.
MatthewRendall 4d ago

Killing off the neo-liberal virus in the Democratic Party would be a start, but won't be enough, if the Democrats simply put the American equivalents of Jeremy Corbyn in its place. What's desperately needed here are fresh ideas--something analogous to the Keynesian ideas that gave intellectual underpinning to the New Deal.

eken92 , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>

The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn't all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn't accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it's time to consider whether there's something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.

I think this is a very succinct assessment and goes most of the way to explaining this result, and the Brexit result too. People don't want to be lectured, they want to be listened to (yes, even if you think they're wrong).

MaoriSideStep , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
'Liberals' created the grounds for Brexit too.

You see, their sneering attitude to the British working class, their name-calling, their bogus judgements about the working class for not wanting any more of their rights and opportunities taken away from them.

The 'liberals' are hated as much as the toffs. Brexit was a great example of the bile and hatred the 'liberals' spew out at the disadvantaged working class.

It wasn't the 'liberals' housing and schools, communities and healthcare, employment rights and opportunities that was being eroded though was it? No. But that didn't stop the 'liberals' branding the working class as 'racists' and 'stupid' and 'blind' did it.

Maybe you now can see yourself, on this poxy 'liberal' website and see how YOU have created a situation where the working class want ANYTHING other than more of your poison.

Look at the people bleating about Brexit: the 'liberals', the politicians, the bankers, big business, the judges...my goodness, doesn't that tell a story of the haves and have nots. All the bleaters are the scum that have never had the working class' best interests in mind and yet you think we, the working class, should take heed of their fatuous, aquisitive, vile, whimpers? Really?

It's only just beginning. Toodle pip.

BayOfGiggs MaoriSideStep , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>

The 'liberals' are hated as much as the toffs.

Why you think you'll get a great deal from....

Multi-Billionaire Media Barons controlling the news on both sides of the Atlantic (the same Baron in the case of Murdoch) and they in turn backed by the Trillionaire old and true establishment who are the exact same families as a hundred years ago and hundreds of years before that in many cases.

....baffles me however.

Designcycle MaoriSideStep , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
Very well written and I agree to a large extent - the problem is.. are people like Trump and blood Boris Johnson going to be any more cognisant of the lives and problems of the working class than the liberals? And are they likely to do anything about those problems unless they simultaneously line their own pockets? If, and it's a very big if, the interests of the working class and the interests of Trump et al align somehow then there is a silver lining. If not, then the best we can hope for is that liberals start to reconnect with the people they purport to represent.
westcoaster Designcycle , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>

the problem is.. are people like Trump and blood Boris Johnson going to be any more cognisant of the lives and problems of the working class than the liberals?


No. But maybe, just maybe, the 'left-wing' parties will wake and remember what they are supposed to be for.
Omoikani , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
Here's the other thing. Clinton and her mates at the New York Times and the Guardian are always lecturing us on the need to be compassionate and welcoming towards refugees from faraway places who would like to come and live among us, but there's never a moment of compassion for the people who are already here and suffering miserably on the margins of our already unequal societies - the unemployed and badly employed, the badly housed and homeless, those working sixty hours a week on the minimum wage for some crappy agency. So, guess what. That's why people are voting for stuff like Brexit and Trump.

If you lot in the metropolitan elite can't see this then you are doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes.

Voltaire21 , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
Just like Silvio Berlusconi, Trumps opponents were incapable to escape the trap of trying to sling shit at a candidate made out of teflon.

The Clinton camp tried to fight a war in the trenches...but Trump feeds of negativity, they should have learnt early that nothing was too outrageous or controversial to tarnish him.

The closest they got was the misogyny accusations and even they didn't stick. Just like Berlusconi, Trump the lover of pageantry and beautiful women was being portrayed as a woman hater but he cleverly made it sound like he was hater of feminists instead of women.

The problem with Clinton is that she tried to play the integrity card but that was easily debunked by Trump with email gate.

hashtagthat Voltaire21 , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
"The Clinton camp tried to fight a war in the trenches.."

Very apt, considering she's a warmonger.

finnja , 9 Nov 2016 11:4>
The voice of sanity. Thank you, Mr. Frank.
The Democratic Establishment didn't give a hoot about what Bernie had to say, because his presidency would not have served their ambitions. They're more interested in getting nice jobs at Goldman Sachs than controlling the finance industry. And their sons and daughters will not fight in all the wars Clinton&Co see as great business opportunity.
The Dem establishment has failed the people, and now we all reep the whirlwind.
Geoff Conway , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
I agree with Frank's analysis though not his use of the word 'liberal' which has confusingly different meanings. I think the same analysis could be used to explain Brexit.

The problem is a political class which wishes to maintain the status quo of a neo-liberal, globalised economy. For 35 years this economy has redistributed wealth from the poor to the rich and massively damaged the environment. It has thus disadvantaged the great majority of the people in the USA, the UK and indeed people across the world. People are quite reasonably fed up with the lies behind this 'trickle-down' economics. They are angry and want something different. The vacuum created by the failure of the left to recognise this, and come up with a new solution, has resulted in Trump, UKIP, Marine LePen etc.

shooglebunny forkintheroad , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
No. I really think liberals have been their own worst enemies during this election.

They have treated ordinary white Americans as if they are shit, spoken about them in ways that should make them hang their heads in shame and behaved as if they are living in a oligarchy where they can call the shots instead of a democracy and now they are paying the price.

You can only kick a dog so many times before it turns around and bites you.

I would also question the term"liberals" to describe people who are happy seeing jobs moved offshore, causing unemployment at home and slave labour conditions abroad; encouraging mass immigration to bring wages down and create a powerless and easily exploitable servant class and globalisation that provides them with a luxury lifestyle on the cheap while making it harder for just about everyone else.

The only "liberal" thing about these people is their attitudes towards trivial personal issues like sexuality and lifestyle choices.

NathAldridge , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
Wise words from Frank - I hope the Guardian opinionators are made to read it

Clinton's supporters among the media didn't help much, either. It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation's papers, but it was the quality of the media's enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. Here's what it consisted of:

Hillary was virtually without flaws. She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white, a super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women and children, a warrior for social justice.
Her scandals weren't real.
The economy was doing well / America was already great.
Working-class people weren't supporting Trump.
And if they were, it was only because they were botched humans. Racism was the only conceivable reason for lining up with the Republican candidate.

Craig Ross , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
I hope all the Democratic Party insiders who rigged the primary elections are happy now.
SixHeads 4d ago

Absolutely right. And I'm willing to wager the liberal response to this will be to double down on the identity politics, double down on the victimhood narratives, double down on the march toward globalism, and double down on the cries for open borders and ever-increasing levels of immigration. They simply never learn.

It's very clear what happened this morning. Trump won because he picked up the white working class vote in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio, all of which had previously voted for Obama in both 2008 and 2012. The people in these states didn't magically become racist over the past four years. They saw a candidate (Clinton) who represented "business as usual", and they rejected her.

mrsmiow , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>

Excellent article. Summarises both Brexit as well as Trump's victory.

The stats are showing that Trump polled higher amongst African and Hispanic Americans. I am not surprised. The Democrats, like the UK Labour party, like to think they OWN ethnic voters and they are merely another 'special interest' group alongside women, gays, etc. They don't and us ethnic voters have the same concerns as any other working or middle class voters. And NO ONE appreciates being told they are wrong, racist and unintelligent.

This shows Social liberialism is dead and rotten. Well past its used by date, time to chuck it out. It went off when supposed social justice warriors got into business with big business and fickle finance.

The elites may be well educated but that they couldn't even bare to bring themselves to understand the perspectives of another reveals how broadminded they really are - the journalists, academics etc. They believed in democracy where only one way of thinking and the status quo could be permitted to flourish. This is the most intelligent article to capture the social change that far too many liberals are denying. How are they going deal with reality, ie. Are the majority of Americans and British really racists? The greatest irony is this article is published within the vanguard of what ordinary people are democratically retaliating against.

Dustbowler , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
When you reach rock bottom the only way is to look up. The problem for the Liberalism of the Democratic Party of the last three decades is that it has become a social scientific morality of the well connected and completely unable to deal with the naked populism of Trump let alone the half baked morass of crony capitalism of George Bush.
Lets be opportunistic. This gives it a chance to wipe the slate clean and at the very least rid themselves of the influence of the Clintons who from the removal of Glass-Steagal Act demonstrated their only concerns were with the needs of the Super Rich rather than the majority of the population. Unfortunately you have that feeling that they are not even capable of doing that.
George Pratt , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
"Trump... a folly so bewildering, an incompetence so profound ..."

Har, har, har, the foolish and incompetent Trump is now president elect and you are a wise and competent journalist who foresaw the future clearly.

Maybe you're the foolish incompetent, not Trump. Maybe you should examine the foolish certainty which made you write your Guardian article headlined "With Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton" and many others based on foolish and incompetent assumptions, reasoning and conclusions

Maybe you and all the rest of the useful idiots on the left should examine all of your convictions about the world. You might discover how often you have been hoodwinked by your own folly into believing trash like Trump will lose to Hillary, AGW is a real problem which can be corrected by funneling trillions to crony capitalist alternative energy companies, fracking is dangerous and the unlimited immigration of millions of young, able bodied, violent, low IQ men is a good thing.

babyboomer1957 , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
Hillary can console herself with a new job at Goldman Sachs, rather like Barosso, Global ambassador sounds nice.
notacarboncopy babyboomer1957 , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
And that is precisely a big part of why she lost.

People are sick of that merry-go-round, proof of the cabal that rules over us.

jennyjl90 , 9 Nov 2016 11:5>
Trump will achieve nothing of what he's said he wants to do. Reversing the 'reverse colonisation' of the white western world will fail, especially in the USA where, after all, the Afro-black population didn't ask to move to in the first place (though I'll bet tend dollars dollars not a single Afro-black American would opt for emigrating back to Africa, however much they complain about racial prejudice in the USA - the financial advantages of living in the developed world are FAR too valuable for that!).

As for the Hispanics, I doubt even a wall would stop them. The mass population of Central and South America is far, far greater than that of 'white western America' and their third world economics keep the USA and the developed world a desperate magnet for them (and I can't blame them - I'd fight tooth and nail to get in to the rich west as well!)

Nope, the Trump victory is a sad, hopeless rearguard action against the triumph of twenty-first century 'reverse colonisation' and that is that. The white western world is finished - the only question is, can it 'westernise' the immigrant population in time to save the developed world, or are we doomed to another Dark Ages of Global Third Worldism? (Maybe China will take over as Islam did post Roman Empire, while Europe went savage...)

White Western World - it's game over. Accept it.

queequeg7 , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
When you separate identity politics - race and gender - from inequality and class, which is what Obama and Clinton both did, you end up with Donald Trump moving into the White House ......
queequeg7 Joelee73 , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
The liberal argument has always been about the equality to exploit not an end to exploitation. It was at the heart of New Labour as well as Obama/Clinton Democrats ...
tedthetopcat queequeg7 , 9 Nov 2016 12:2>
For the last 30 odd years the liberal left have claimed class no longer mattered. Now the "white" working class have twice given them a kicking in 2016. When you're at the bottom class really matters!
MereMortal , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>

And so Democratic leaders made Hillary their candidate even though they knew about her closeness to the banks, her fondness for war, and her unique vulnerability on the trade issue – each of which Trump exploited to the fullest.

I really like Thomas Frank, but I wish in this diatribe that he wouldn't cheapen the countless (because the Americans don't count them) who have paid the price for Hillary's 'fondness for war' by referring to it like that, in passing, as if it was a fondness for muffins.
I wish that he had a bit more righteous fury about how the crazed neocon warmongers who effectively rule America and for whom Hillary was the latest acceptable face, with her almost total sense of entitlement, based on the fact that she was a woman, acted like she was heading for a coronation.
Yes it would be great if a woman had been elected president, I can think of at least two others one running, and one not, but doesn't even the most basic tenet of critical thinking require us to ask searching questions, about the specific woman ?

callaspodeaspode , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
He has run one of the lousiest presidential campaigns ever. In saying so I am not referring to his much-criticized business practices or his vulgar remarks about women. I mean this in a purely technical sense: this man fractured his own party.

But did he really 'fracture' his own party? From the superficial point of view, one might have thought so. Many Democrats hope so.
But I'll suggest this. Anybody who is holding out the faint hope that he will work badly with the GOP in Congress is going to be very disappointed. He's going to put his signature to virtually everything they want. They're going to have a lot of fun together.
Even stuff which directly contradicts what he ran on and which upset many in the Republican establishment. I'm thinking foreign policy and trade agreements.

And those in movement conservatism who didn't like him, like Glenn Beck and Erick Erickson? Watch them do a 180 over the next six months.

I'll bet on it.

Designcycle , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
Excellent article, about six months late, but hopefully not too late for liberals everywhere to wake up to the idea that if you claim to want to help improve the lives of the working class you better listen to them first, and connect with them second. I always thought laughing and sneering at Trump and particularly his supporters was never going to work. And sure enough it didn't. Nobody likes being patronised.
fragglerokk , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
Sanders would have breezed it.

The Democrats ultimatey feared change

The Republicans didn't.

Sometimes you've got to have the courage to move beyond a rotting status quo and into a brave new world. If you don't you leave the door open for something potentially much much worse to take that opportunity.

How about doing a piece on how the press keep getting it wrong all the time, how you keep misjudging the mood of the people, the zeitgeist, how afraid you are of change and how as a result you keep siding with the establishment when the vast majority of people are fed up with its incessant inaction and bullshit?
Youre letting the fascists in through the open door because youre too afraid to give up your priviledges and go towards healthy change. You deserve what youre going to get because you spent too much time on here waffling bullshit and not enough time on the streets listening to what people want. Total cognitive dissonance. Social media is no good for assessing the mood of the people, its for pussy cat photos and selfies.

Franz Habsburg fragglerokk , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
Would have? He could not even beat Clinton in the primaries! Americans overthrow democratic socialist governments, they don't elect them.
edhemingway fragglerokk , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
The republicans feared change, but winning was more important to them. As incongruous as it may seem, a billionaire businessman reached out to voters disenfranchised by some 30 years of partisan parlour games. Maybe it'll dawn on the Democrats who they should be reaching out to and maybe it'll dawn on the Republicans that there's more to being a politician than banging on about God and being against abortion.

I don't like the guy and find some of his views abhorrent and would even have preferred HC, but... but... this may be a wake up call for politics in America. Not sure it will be because after Brexit, the finger was pointed at the London middle classes and older voters whereas the strength of the vote came from the post-industrial heartland destroyed by Thatcher and virtually ignored by both parties ever since. Still, we'll see.

Steve Giess , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
"With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. "

Spot on analysis.
Let the soul-searching amongst the mainstream journalistic elites begin.

People have rspecially started to notice the "with nuance and all contrary views deleted" part. That is part of the problem and part of the reason Trump got elected as a sort of collective middle finger to the establishment by ordinary people who are sick of being told what to think and how to think by unelected elites whose job it is supposed to be to report the FACTS, and not to dictate what people are allowed to say or think. Because as a great person once said "Facts are sacred." And as JS Mill said in his famous essay 'On Liberty' - we should not censor unpopular views because even though the unpopular view may be incorrect we may come to a better understanding of why our own view is correct by seeing its collision with error. (Quite apart from the fact that the unpopular view is not always correct and by suppressing it we may never know the truth.)

I hope the mainstream media learn from this disaster and start living up to the ideals of the intellectual founders of our liberal democracies such as JS Mill who would no doubt be appalled at the lerhaps well intentioned but counterproductive censorsgip of views which run counter to that of the prevailing orthodoxy.

MustaphaMondeo Steve Giess , 9 Nov 2016 12:2>
It's because they believe we are stupid. The intellectual snobbery of the oxbridge set, think they are better than us. Little suspecting that most of us can't be arsed with that shite.

I blame education. It's turned their heads.

AlpineJoe 4d ago

The thing that keeps coming back to me with this election, as with Brexit, was the established candidates ignoring what people were saying. In Brexit, the remain side utterly ignored immigration, whilst the leave side focused on it. I don't think the remain side realised that immigration wasn't just conjured up by Daily Mail headlines but was a genuine issue for many people.

In the US, Trump spoke openly about jobs; bringing them back and preventing outsourcing. Looking again at trade deals to make sure American jobs were protected. Clinton's team ignored this.

Take heed for the future, politicians. Listen to what people actually say, not just the bits they say that you agree with.

Stillgrizzly AlpineJoe , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>

Indeed, that's the problem, a narrow political elite expecting the population to vote as they think, rather than as the population think. The disconnect between the consensus and the politicians is wide, the left in particular withdraws to the safety of it's narrow agenda when threatened leaving the centre wide open.
Louis Raine , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
"Cold War propaganda station. Here's what it consisted of:

- Hillary was virtually without flaws.
- She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white, a super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women and children, a warrior for social justice.
- Her scandals weren't real.
- The economy was doing well / America was already great.
- Working-class people weren't supporting Trump.
- If they were, it was only because they were botched humans. Racism was the only
conceivable reason for lining up with the Republican candidate."

Funny how all of these points were constantly touted in the Guardian... oh the ironny

SlumVictim , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
The neoliberals weren't listening and probably still aren't listening. They will be blaming the white working class rednecks but there isn't enough of white working class rednecks to cause this upset. Professional neoliberal policians have neither the insight nor the intelligence to figure out they are the problem, they alienated the people they ignored while looking after the rich.

We see the same problem in the Labour Party here. The neoliberal Blairites spent 13 years using identity politics as a way to pretend to be radical while showing utter contempt for the white (and black) working class. When they lost two elections and Scotland, they blamed the left, as though no one could reject neoliberalism. Sorry professional neoliberal politicians, your days of your front trotters in the trough are almost up, you are being rejected and anyone but you seems to be the preference.

Inversnaid SlumVictim , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
You, Sir or Madam, are a genius. Your analysis - like the analysis of the article - is spot on and your prose is punchy, concise and grammatically correct. You should be pick of the day.
SlumVictim , 9 Nov 2016 12:0>
The neoliberals weren't listening and probably still aren't listening. They will be blaming the white working class rednecks but there isn't enough of white working class rednecks to cause this upset. Professional neoliberal policians have neither the insight nor the intelligence to figure out they are the problem, they alienated the people they ignored while looking after the rich.

We see the same problem in the Labour Party here. The neoliberal Blairites spent 13 years using identity politics as a way to pretend to be radical while showing utter contempt for the white (and black) working class. When they lost two elections and Scotland, they blamed the left, as though no one could reject neoliberalism. Sorry professional neoliberal politicians, your days of your front trotters in the trough are almost up, you are being rejected and anyone but you seems to be the preference.

Inversnaid SlumVictim , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
You, Sir or Madam, are a genius. Your analysis - like the analysis of the article - is spot on and your prose is punchy, concise and grammatically correct. You should be pick of the day.
Spacebanj0 , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
Very interesting, and striking, parallels with Brexit. A disaffected majority, who don't believe they are listened to, rally round people who speak their language, engage with their fears and concerns and give them easy solutions to difficult problems.

Both decisions are tragically wrong, in my view, but its clear there is a huge disconnect between those on the left (notional or otherwise) and their usual target voters.

catherine Spacebanj0 , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
The description of the Democrats is reminding me of New Labour...
iruka , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
Absolutely spot on. And broadly applicable right across the western world. It wasn't Hillary the personality, or Hillary the crook, or Hillary the incompetent who lost the election.

It was the Hillary the archetypal representative of the smug 'n' shabby liberal stitch-up that's done us all over, basking in its meritocratic delusions, and raising all the ladders (and greasing the sides) to the lifeboats in which those delusions were acted out to delusional acclaim...

...even as it was busy handing the world over first (greedily) to transnational capitalism and now (stupidly) to the marauding squads of pinhead fascists that'll be everywhere in the US within weeks, maybe days. A couple of million George fucking pinhead Zimmermans.

"Socialism or Barbarism" (rings truer and truer!) is a choice that excludes liberalism only because liberalism is too morally and aesthetically insubstantial to make the cut. Imagine the choice in the form of a movie, and liberalism would be the twitching little grass who betrays the hero for the price of a bottle of White Lighting.

(In real life it's not a bottle of cider, of course: it's more likely a nice old house in a gentrified area that still holds on to the charming character of the people it displaced, some of whom spend 5 hours a day on the bus to come back and work in the charming shops and eateries, or as nannies and cleaners....).

Musicismath , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
This is a very good piece (as you'd expect from a cultural critic as smart as Frank is), but it really needs to be read alongside Adolph L. Reed's excoriating article in Harper's from 2014, "Nothing Left: The Slow Surrender of American Liberals":

The left has no particular place it wants to go. And, to rehash an old quip, if you have no destination, any direction can seem as good as any other. The left careens from this oppressed group or crisis moment to that one, from one magical or morally pristine constituency or source of political agency (youth/students; undocumented immigrants; the Iraqi labor movement; the Zapatistas; the urban "precariat"; green whatever; the black/Latino/LGBT "community"; the grassroots, the netroots, and the blogosphere; this season's worthless Democrat; Occupy; a "Trotskyist" software engineer elected to the Seattle City Council) to another. It lacks focus and stability; its métier is bearing witness, demonstrating solidarity, and the event or the gesture. Its reflex is to "send messages" to those in power, to make statements, and to stand with or for the oppressed.


We are in a very bad place right now, in terms of ideas and arguments. The opposition, in pretty much every western hemisphere country, has been colonised by the same people: professional politicians, upper-middle-class in social background, educated at the same small group of elite universities, reflexively committed to meritocratic ideology. They're very good at expressing sympathy for the marginalised, at saying the right words, at, as Reed says, "sending messages" and engaging in representational politics. But all those gestures do nothing for the constituencies they supposedly represent. They're ultimately selfish -- focussed on their own career advancement and the narrow class interests of the meritocratic-professional elite itself. The opposition, as Frank himself once said, "has ceased to oppose" in any economically meaningful sense. (Although they're very good at symbolic forms of opposition on cultural and historical issues.)

And now their constituencies have noticed and have withdrawn their votes.

sarahsmith232 , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
according to exit polls every section of white America, old, young, affluent, low-income, educated/not voted Trump, all bar 'young college educated white females', older college educated white females also voted Trump.
Same here with Brexit, voting patterns show the all white groups voted out, nothing to do with education levels, income or age.
The pundits write about 'the crisis of liberalism',, hhmmm, I think it should more be 'the rejection of illiberal openess'. When we say 'immigration needs to be reduced' the 'elites' reach for the favourite fall back 'you're a white that's racist/fascist/backward/uneducated' etc etc etc response. Well, turns out, the white part is right, the rest is just class based ignorance. Clinton was the absolute embodiment of this type of ignorance and arrogance. That basket of deplorables thing was disgusting, I felt personally insulted by it myself (i'm in the UK). Absolute standard 'elite' arrogance and hatred of those that don't agree with you. She's just paid for that hate by alienating absolutely EVERY SINGLE section of white America.
Trump's politics is a rejection of a globalism that has damaged the interests of so many, we're all far far too open to the forces of the world coming in at us from all directions, Catholics in Eastern Europe are not allowed their Christian values, are smeared as backward and ordered by foreign 'elites' in Brussels to drop all that they hold dear or face fines. We've all watched as the Remoaners showed to the world just exactly how 'tolerant' and 'accepting' they are of those they don't agree with, erupting into a torrent of class based ignorance and venomous hatred.
Well, they've all been at all this for far too long, and we're all pushing back against it. Spew race based hate at those that don't agree with you, BBC journalists shouting 'Nazi, fascist, racist' at any slight tightening up of immigration, Hilary Clinton labelling most white working-class a basket of fascist deployarables and hey presto, you lose to a repulsive cartoon like Trump.
They need to start thinking on about just exactly who it is in reality that's the race haters. Most are on the Left.
alanredangel , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>

A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine.

Good writing.

Mr Baker , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
hflashman , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
Given that Republicans have been opposed to intervention by Big Government at least since the Great Depression if Trump gets the go ahead for some of his ideas it will be a case of 4 legs good 2 legs better.
Omoikani , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>

With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station.

Quite so. And now the elitist corporate media which got everything wrong, including their highly confident predictions about the result, will now tell you in a highly confident manner all the things that are going to happen as a result of the thing they said wouldn't happen. First to dash off a thousand words of hyperventilating predictions? Jonathan Freedland , so top marks to him for speed, if nothing else.

gipsymermaid , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
Interesting article, and in a way I sensed it coming unfortunately, at least in the meaning that I have always felt that certain liberal and "progressive" thoughts are just too alien from basic human nature, and are being forced to enter the mainstream a bit too fast, and that this is a huge risk in the sense that when people decide they are not ready for these and it's time to reject them properly, then all the valuable, truly liberating and forward-thinking ideas will be drained along with them and that means dark times ahead indeed.

I am from Eastern-Europe, and, while I don't have a lot of personal memories of the communist times myself, most of the liberal bits of my cultural heritage comes from the counter-culture, a lot of the things we value today in my country were, albeit not necessarily all illegal as such, certainly more of the taboo sort, than they would have been in the West. Now it looks like that with all this Brexit and America, the West will have to learn to use the liberal thinking to serve as meaningful criticism of the system that will be built in the future by these new people. It's the Westerner's turn now, to learn to read between the lines and produce culture with purpose other than entertainment (if there is any positive side to this, then it should be the rise of new, creative movies and the end of the high-budget superhero era, and the birth of music with lyrics worth listening to lol, that's what I keep telling myself as my silver lining for now at least.)

It's obviously difficult to compare, nothing, in the entire world at the time was this commercialised and business and technology and life and everything was obviously very different. And, crucially, whilst the commies declared themselves to be ruling in the name of the common working people, they had their own breed of intellectuals, at least in my country, there was an approved bunch of scientists, artists etc, who could stretch it and provide some sense. So, worryingly enough, from this point of view I wouldn't say they were comparable to the type of anti-intellectualist mob rule seemingly putting these people into power, and that is my real fear, that these new rulers will not even have their own bunch of approved scientists who might not approve the views of atheists or feminists or whatever, but would at least be ready to provide these new governments with sound advice on the environment, education, health, etc.

I'm not sure how avoidable this could have been in reality, but it should have been, because we have no time for such ideological bullsh*t games (excuse my words), the damage we are doing to our own, living planet is becoming irreparable, and we really, absolutely, from all backgrounds and cultures must work together to basically stay alive.

bobkolker , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
The arrogance and snotty mindedness of the progressive liberal establishment has be dealt a righteous slap in the face which they have been asking for, for decades. The Revolt of the Deplorables. This was the winter of our discontent. Now it is our turn.

Time will tell whether this upset is the beginning of a much better era in the U.S.

I voted for Trump not because I like him (personally I find him repulsive) but because he was a wrecking ball and a sledge hammer to be used against the liberal progressives that have been running the U.S. into the ground for decades.

This the Moment of the Ticked Off Deplorables.

This is also a surprise. This is the most exciting time since Truman defeated Dewey.

Jamozki , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
Except it was the Republicans (not the "white collar liberals") who deregulated the Wall Street banks. It was the Republicans who gave tax breaks to the wealthy 1% and it was the Republicans who got rid of welfare. The biggest con of all? That the majority of uneducated Americans who just voted Republican, think that the GOP represent thier interests and it's all the fault of the "liberals". We are without doubt witnessing the beginning of the end of the American empire...
Down2dirt Jamozki , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>
Clinton kept all Bush Senior's 'experts' , loonies like Greenspan. Obama's candidate?

Wake up! They are two cheeks of the same arse.

grauniadreader101 Jamozki , 9 Nov 2016 12:2>

We are without doubt witnessing the beginning of the end of the American empire...

And about time, too! That said, you are right about the GOP being the party of deregulation, tax-breaks for the rich etc. but since in the 35 years since Reagan, when bank deregulation began in earnest (I know, Nixon repealed the Gold Standard), we have had 16 years of Democratic rule, and NOTHING has been done to reverse it; in fact, quite the opposite. Most of the damage was done between Clinton (who repealed Glass-Steigel) and his chairman of the Fed, Alan Greenspan.

Thomas Fr

grauniadreader101 Jamozki , 9 Nov 2016 12:2>

We are without doubt witnessing the beginning of the end of the American empire...

And about time, too! That said, you are right about the GOP being the party of deregulation, tax-breaks for the rich etc. but since in the 35 years since Reagan, when bank deregulation began in earnest (I know, Nixon repealed the Gold Standard), we have had 16 years of Democratic rule, and NOTHING has been done to reverse it; in fact, quite the opposite. Most of the damage was done between Clinton (who repealed Glass-Steigel) and his chairman of the Fed, Alan Greenspan.

Thomas Frank is right on the money. People voted for Trump precisely because both parties represent business as usual and people are sick of it. Same with Brexit.

ank is right on the money. People voted for Trump precisely because both parties represent business as usual and people are sick of it. Same with Brexit.

ProperEnglishman 4d ago

The silent majority,the ones who go to work pay their taxes and quietly get on with life have spoken. Don't underestimate us. We're intelligent, humble and caring. We're entitled to a view. We've had enough, we don't have to bully scream and shout to get our way, we go down to the polling station and we put a cross in the box we feel passionately about and we go home back to our quiet lives-job done.Well done the people of America,you have had the equivalent to our Brexit and now let's get the world back to how it should be. One of the most satisfying parts is listening to the Lefties,Luvvies and BBC crying their eyes out. The times they are a changing.

mouchefisher , 9 Nov 2016 12:1>

It is a liberalism of the rich, it has failed the middle class, and now it has failed on its own terms of electability. Enough with these comfortable Democrats and their cozy Washington system. Enough with Clintonism and its prideful air of professional-class virtue. Enough!

Amen to that. Thank you, Thomas Frank, for articles such as this one. A lone voice of progressive reason at the Guardian (neo)liberal circus.

We need to overhaul the DNC, as well as the Guardian and NYT editorial boards.

HenryGeorgeFan , 9 Nov 2016 12:2>

She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch.

Spot on. And this is exactly the misery that infects both wings of the Labour Party.

People in politics jostling for power and status, like it's a hobby for them, a kind of shoot-em up where the consequences of policy affect only other people.

Cameron and Johnson and all the slime of the Tory party suffer from the same disease.

Why do you want to be prime minister, you spam faced Tefal foreheaded dilettante?

"Well, I think I'd be rather good at it."

Well, you weren't. You were awful at it, because you had no basic guiding principles, just like all the other dilettantes from Eton and all the other posh boy Petri dishes where hubris is cultivated.

Buggin's turn.

Well, bug off.

[Nov 12, 2016] It was establishment versus the rest...... It did not help the establishment that their candidate was crooked. 5 states turned red overnight!

Nov 11, 2016 | /economistsview.typepad.com
ilsm -> John San Vant... November 09, 2016 at 01:51 PM
It was establishment versus the rest...... It did not help the establishment that their candidate was crooked. 5 states turned red overnight!

mhd28 -> ilsm... November 10, 2016 at 09:34 AM

It's hard to state that MI and WI turned Republican. Trump reviled R's as much as D's. They went for Trump, which is separate from Republicans.

JF -> JF... November 08, 2016 at 10:54 PM

Trump took what should have been democrats' issues. Clinton should simply have tried to take all of Sanders positions, working with Sanders, and then position Trump as the faker who was taking the dems positions. Alas, she did not.

Many saw this possibility. Brexit.

sglover -> JF... November 08, 2016 at 11:11 PM

Clinton made her usual lame, transparent attempts to co-opt Sanders' positions, but being Clinton, few people **believe** her.

Sanders backers always said that Clinton was almost uniquely capable of losing to a fraud like Trump, and here, apparently -- tragically -- we are.

And believing Dems will learn not one goddam thing. Expect the special pleading and blame-shifting to amp up to jet engine levels. Already Saint Krugman has smeared the Greens for Clinton's loss in Florida, which seems to mathematically impossible by an order of magnitude.

Clinton lost **Pennsylvania**, for Christ's sake! She seems to have lost Philly!! How does an even semi-competent candidate pull that off?!?!?

Adamski -> mulp... November 09, 2016 at 02:24 AM

...And Clintonians spent decades claiming neoliberalism was necessary to get moderate voters who went for Reagan, and that liberalism is too unpopular to win an election. They stuck to that script in post-Great Recession America, which is not post-Reagan America.

And they stuck with a candidate who has zero ability to get independent voters. Her leftward moves in response to Sanders on college tuition and more funding for health clinics (which Sanders said would achieve free primary care in the US) would have got out the vote, but she preferred to talk in infuriating platitudes and smear Trump as a Russian puppet to get the patriotic vote.

srbarbour -> Adamski... November 09, 2016 at 04:45 AM

"... but she preferred to talk in infuriating platitudes and smear Trump as a Russian puppet to get the patriotic vote."

This, I think, is a valid criticism. Hillary and the older Dems were truly out of touch on this issue and failed to understand how poorly it played with the electorate (which is sad, because there are some real serious issues with Russia right now). Likewise, they failed to grasp how desperate Millennials / Rural whites have gotten and thus how important fixing the economy was for them.

ilsm -> Mathew... November 09, 2016 at 04:04 PM

Clinton morals....

Fix that on "we came, we saw, he died......" with a post up his you know where! Or the no fly zone thing to give another country to the foundation donors' terrorists. You all missed the point!

All the people don't see what you want us to! You could fool enough of the people when you needed to!

sglover -> Billy Joe... November 09, 2016 at 12:11 AM

The Russia nonsense was always overblown, typical Dem tactical ineptitude. I wouldn't be surprised if it backfired to Trump's advantage.

Dems never stopped to consider that

  1. Any mention of foreign data leakage had to remind people of Clinton's FOIA-avoiding server escapades, and
  2. You can find lots of Dem "consultants" and "strategists" who themselves have lucrative histories with sleazy overseas characters (Podesta, Biden's son, etc.).

srbarbour -> sglover... November 09, 2016 at 05:22 AM

"The Russia nonsense was always overblown, typical Dem tactical ineptitude. I wouldn't be surprised if it backfired to Trump's advantage."

From a campaign prospective, right conclusion. Wrong reason. Pushing the Russia connection damaged Hillary because it played up her "War Hawk" and "Military Industrial complex" ties for the public, which in turn strengthened the corporocrat accusation.

Worse, to the informed it smelled like W's push for war, and thus reminded everyone of Hillary's vote on Iraq. And those things hurt.

ilsm -> srbarbour... November 09, 2016 at 01:57 PM

Clinton is with Bill unmitigated war mongering neoliberalNeocon/ The Clinton Iraq vote was purely animus! Stepping away is prevarication. What went into Qaddafi was pure evil sent by Obama and his SecState.

ilsm -> Billy Joe... November 09, 2016 at 01:54 PM

Clinton was more into Sunni/GCC money and influence peddling. The Russian/Putin thing was fantasy! The main stream media [Stalinist] propaganda did not sell in the 5 key states that went red from blue.

ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... November 09, 2016 at 02:30 PM

No, the point is the dems are crooked, Clinton was selected by the DNC (calling it crooked is repeating myself). I am convinced the US dodged a very severe mistake by electing Trump!

[Nov 12, 2016] Obama blew it in his first hundred days, when he refused to take on Wall Street, and instead played idiotic bipartisanship games with Republicans.

Nov 12, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
George H. Blackford : November 09, 2016 at 12:05 AM , 2016 at 12:05 AM
I said what I had to say back in 2009, http://www.rweconomics.com/blame.htm , and tried to explain it again during the primaries: http://www.rweconomics.com/Sanders1.htm . Now we will just have to wait and see, but I'm not hopeful.
sglover -> George H. Blackford ... , November 09, 2016 at 12:52 AM
Good essays. Sadly prescient.

I thought Obama blew it in his first hundred days, when he refused to take on Wall Street, and instead played idiotic bipartisanship games with totally (and obviously) intransigent Republicans. But more recently I figured that at least he got the Iran deal going, and that looked like a significant gain for sanity. Now, if I understand Trump's ramblings on every other Tuesday, the deal is vulnerable.

mulp -> sglover... , November 09, 2016 at 01:56 AM
You mean declare martial law and send the Marines into capture Wall Street, and ship them to Gitmo? Or didn't you notice the Republicans legalizing financial fraud over the past 40 years?

If you like I can detail the dozen major steps beginning circa 1970 like the camel nose unto the tent. Step one: retail money market funds as an alternative to bank savings accounts. They were a big fraud: "safer than FDIC bank savings accounts".

George H. Blackford -> mulp... , November 09, 2016 at 01:20 PM
Re: "If you like I can detail the dozen major steps beginning circa 1970 like the camel nose unto the tent." I'll do it for you:

http://www.rweconomics.com/htm/Ch_1.htm
http://www.rweconomics.com/htm/Ch_7.htm
http://www.rweconomics.com/Deficit.htm

JF -> sglover... , November 09, 2016 at 04:14 AM

Yes, totally agree with the point that Obama did not understand the strategic moment and instead aligned himself in a way that legitimized the opposition's points.

Simpson Bowles was benighted. TPP was senseless. How could a party that stood for working people give away social security and then try to give away jobs some more. Strategists should have been screaming that this was positioning the party in a way that was opposite to what the party had stood for in opposition to the republican elite.

Of course, Clinton was the wrong candidate as she is a archetype, tied to Trade deals, Glass Steagel and even the Iraq war.

I would like to see the democratic party stand fir work in the US.

Alas.

srbarbour -> JF... , November 09, 2016 at 05:31 AM
"Simpson Bowles was benighted. TPP was senseless. How could a party that stood for working people give away social security and then try to give away jobs some more...."

Just wanted to say, good tactical analysis there.

srbarbour -> sglover... , -1
"I thought Obama blew it in his first hundred days, when he refused to take on Wall Street, and instead played idiotic bipartisanship games with totally (and obviously) intransigent Republicans."

Hard to say, 2009 had a very different atmosphere and there was a very real desire in the electorate to return to bipartisanship. Plus, bipartisanship was kind of a major Obama campaign promise.

That said, the only gain Dems got from that was a general fuzzy, awareness the Republican partisanship is one-sided. A boon that is now tactically useless because the Republicans will control every branch of the government. So in hindsight, pure fail. However, forgiveable in context.

[Nov 12, 2016] Chris Matthews stuns the neoliberal crowd with a takedown of HRCs campaign.

Nov 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
Oliver Klozoff -> Oliver Klozoff Nov 12, 2016 9:26 AM ,
I forgot to add a development, Chris Matthews stuns the liberal crowd with a takedown of hrc's campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXxGPDBRUzs

Anybody but the brain dead could see HRC ran a lazy campaign focused on a non-issue. It's clear she expected certain quarters of the population's loyalty in voting but offered them nothing. One hopes these libs begin to wake up.

[Nov 12, 2016] Battle brewing for DNC leadership

DemoRats lost working class votes. may be forever (or as long as they stay neoliberal DemoRats). This is an important defeats of Bill Clinton, who sold the party to wall Street.
Notable quotes:
"... On Thursday night, People for Bernie, a tech-savvy progressive group with ties to Sanders, told CNN it was backing Ellison as a first step in displacing Clinton loyalists with "a leadership untainted by cozy relationships to Wall St. moneymen, corporate behemoths, dictators, or monarchs." ..."
"... In a jab at Dean, People for Bernie co-founder Charles Lenchner added, "Any 50-state strategy must begin with a 50-state accountability project; we reject any effort to unite the party behind the agents of a failed leadership." ..."
www.cnn.com

As Democrats reel in the wake of Donald Trump's stunning victory, a new storm is brewing inside the party as competing factions begin to grapple for its leadership.

Howard Dean, who ran the Democratic National Committee from 2005 to 2009, announced on Thursday he would again seek its top role. Soon after he announced, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and his top allies began pushing Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison for the role.

But other politicos expressed interest in the job Friday. Former presidential candidate Martin O'Malley announced that he is throwing his hat in the ring.

"Since the election, I have been approached by many Democrats who believe our party needs new leadership," said the former Maryland Governor. "I'm taking a hard look at DNC Chair because I know how badly we need to reform our nominating process, articulate a bold progressive vision, recommit ourselves to higher wages and a stronger middle class, and return to our roots as a nationwide, grassroots party."

New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman and DNC Vice Chair Ray Buckley is exploring a run, according to the Boston Globe.

... ... ...

Sanders -- a registered independent who caucuses with Democrats and fought a lengthy primary battle for the party's nomination this year -- and top allies are touting Ellison for the job. The Muslim-American congressman currently co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

... ... ...

On Thursday night, People for Bernie, a tech-savvy progressive group with ties to Sanders, told CNN it was backing Ellison as a first step in displacing Clinton loyalists with "a leadership untainted by cozy relationships to Wall St. moneymen, corporate behemoths, dictators, or monarchs."

In a jab at Dean, People for Bernie co-founder Charles Lenchner added, "Any 50-state strategy must begin with a 50-state accountability project; we reject any effort to unite the party behind the agents of a failed leadership."

The current head of the DNC is Donna Brazile, a longtime Democratic operative and former CNN contributor, who is leading in an interim capacity after Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned on the eve of the convention. Hacked emails appeared to show Wasserman Schultz and other since-departed DNC officials discussing ways to undermine Sanders' effort to oust Clinton in the primary.

[Nov 12, 2016] Inside the Clinton loss Whos to blame

DemoRats lost working class votes. may be forever (or as long as they stay neoliberal DemoRats). This is an important defeats of Bill Clinton, who sold the party to wall Street.
Notable quotes:
"... But aides said the Clinton campaign's top strategists largely ignored the former president, instead focusing on consolidating the base of voters that helped elect President Barack Obama to the White House. In the closing days of the campaign, Clinton targeted young people, Hispanics and African-Americans with laser like focus, casting Trump as a racist who only sought the presidency to benefit himself. ..."
www.cnn.com

The campaign communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, said in a statement Friday that "no one anticipated" losing. She said many factors were at work, but she listed Comey as chief among them.

"We didn't blame everyone but ourselves," Palmieri said. "We acknowledged a lot of challenges we faced, plenty of mistakes made along the way, some challenges we weren't able to overcome."

She added: "What changed in the last week that made his turn out go up and our's go down? The only thing apparent was Comey. It was one thing too many. Could not overcome it."

Democrats close to Bill Clinton said Thursday that one mistake Clinton's top aides made was not listening to the former president more when he urged the campaign to spend more time focusing on disaffected white, working class voters.

Many in Clinton's campaign viewed these voters as Trump's base, people so committed to the Republican nominee that no amount of visits or messaging could sway them. Clinton made no visits to Wisconsin as the Democratic nominee, and only pushed a late charge in Michigan once internal polling showed the race tightening.

Bill Clinton, advisers said, pushed the campaign early on to focus on these voters, many of whom helped elected him twice to the White House. The former president, a Clinton aide said, would regularly call Robby Mook to talk about strategy and offer advice.

But aides said the Clinton campaign's top strategists largely ignored the former president, instead focusing on consolidating the base of voters that helped elect President Barack Obama to the White House. In the closing days of the campaign, Clinton targeted young people, Hispanics and African-Americans with laser like focus, casting Trump as a racist who only sought the presidency to benefit himself.

[Nov 12, 2016] Neocon bottomfeeders now are having the second thoughts

Notable quotes:
"... Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. ..."
"... Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience" to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history." ..."
"... Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done. ..."
www.cnn.com

The extraordinary repudiation -- partly based on Trump's rejection of basic US foreign policy tenets, including support for close allies -- helped spark the hashtag #NeverTrump. Now, a source familiar with transition planning says that hard wall of resistance is crumbling fast.

There are "boxes" of applications, the source said. "There are many more than people realize."

Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. "Mea culpas" are being considered -- and in some cases being granted, the source said -- for people who did not go a step further in attacking Trump personally.

... ... ...

Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience" to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history."

Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done.

It remains to be seen what kind of team Trump will pull together, how many "NeverTrumpers" will apply for positions and to what degree the President-elect will be willing to accept them.

There's a fight underway within the Trump transition team about whether to consider "never Trumpers" for jobs, one official tells CNN. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is leading the transition team, has been working to persuade Trump and other top officials to consider Republicans who openly opposed his campaign. That has caused some friction with those who see no place for people who didn't support their candidate.

[Nov 11, 2016] Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more by Robert Reich

Notable quotes:
"... At the start of the 2016 election cycle, this power structure proclaimed Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoo-ins for the nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties. After all, both of these individuals had deep bases of funders, well-established networks of political insiders, experienced political advisers and all the political name recognition any candidate could possibly want. ..."
"... Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don't reflect the insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money. ..."
"... Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. ..."
"... Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it. ..."
"... Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump's authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency. ..."
"... The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn't wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump. ..."
Nov 11, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

What has happened in America should not be seen as a victory for hatefulness over decency. It is more accurately understood as a repudiation of the American power structure.

At the core of that structure are the political leaders of both parties, their political operatives, and fundraisers; the major media, centered in New York and Washington DC; the country's biggest corporations, their top executives, and Washington lobbyists and trade associations; the biggest Wall Street banks, their top officers, traders, hedge-fund and private-equity managers, and their lackeys in Washington; and the wealthy individuals who invest directly in politics.

At the start of the 2016 election cycle, this power structure proclaimed Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoo-ins for the nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties. After all, both of these individuals had deep bases of funders, well-established networks of political insiders, experienced political advisers and all the political name recognition any candidate could possibly want.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House. The presidency was won by Donald Trump, who made his fortune marketing office towers and casinos, and, more recently, starring in a popular reality-television program, and who has never held elective office or had anything to do with the Republican party. Hillary Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, but not enough of the states and their electors secure a victory.

Hillary Clinton's defeat is all the more remarkable in that her campaign vastly outspent the Trump campaign on television and radio advertisements, and get-out-the-vote efforts. Moreover, her campaign had the support in the general election not of only the kingpins of the Democratic party but also many leading Republicans, including most of the politically active denizens of Wall Street and the top executives of America's largest corporations, and even former Republican president George HW Bush. Her campaign team was run by seasoned professionals who knew the ropes. She had the visible and forceful backing of Barack Obama, whose popularity has soared in recent months, and his popular wife. And, of course, she had her husband.

Trump, by contrast, was shunned by the power structure. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate in 2012, actively worked against Trump's nomination. Many senior Republicans refused to endorse him, or even give him their support. The Republican National Committee did not raise money for Trump to the extent it had for other Republican candidates for president.

What happened?

There had been hints of the political earthquake to come. Trump had won the Republican primaries, after all. More tellingly, Clinton had been challenged in the Democratic primaries by the unlikeliest of candidates – a 74-year-old Jewish senator from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist and who was not even a Democrat. Bernie Sanders went on to win 22 states and 47% of the vote in those primaries. Sanders' major theme was that the country's political and economic system was rigged in favor of big corporations, Wall Street and the very wealthy.

... ... ...

The power structure of America wrote off Sanders as an aberration, and, until recently, didn't take Trump seriously. A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo. "The economy is in good shape," he said. "Most Americans are better off than they've been in years."

Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don't reflect the insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money.

Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Workers without college degrees – the old working class – have fallen furthest. Most economic gains, meanwhile, have gone to top. These gains have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing market power without interference by anti-monopoly enforcement – all of which have further reduced wages and pulled up profits.

Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it.

The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.

Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class – failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violate them, or help workers form unions with simple up-or-down votes. Partly as a result, union membership sank from 22% of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less than 12% today, and the working class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy's gains.

Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump's authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency.

Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump's isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn't care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.

The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn't wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump.

gloriousrevolution , 11 Nov 2016 15:5

I'm in agreement with RR, as far as he goes. He could have gone further, but it's probably not the time or place for that, anyway, that road is depressing.

Trump's an opportunist, certainly, but a very, very, successful one indeed. He has, after all, made an awful lot of money that way, so he's not that lacking in intelligence and ruthlessness. If only Sanders had been more ruthless and willing to stick the knife into the Democratic Party when he had the chance.

Trump, essentially ran as an independent. First he needed to defeat the Republican Party's establishment, which he did, take over the party and only then was he ready to challenge the Democrats and beat them down. He succeeded in his strategy, beating both of them, which is an astonishing feat, historic in character.

It actually gets worse for liberals. Trump also took on the liberal media and despite their best efforts to destroy him, brazenly supporting Clinton and ridiculing Trump and his supporters... Trump didn't just survive the onslaught, but crushed the media as well. Vast swathes of the population hate and despise the media as much as they loathe the political elite. People simply don't believe the media anymore, so most of their attacks on Trump were useless and ineffective when they came.

And it really isn't Trump that's important here. It's the character of the wave he surfed on and lifted him into the White House. But the media ignored the wave and have done for years and years. Now, the fascist chickens have really come home to roost and much of the responsibility lies with the incredible ignorance, arrogance and mind-numbing stupidity that characterizes so much of the media.

zootsuitbeatnick , 11 Nov 2016 15:5
"Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more."
And they haven't since Bill Clinton had his way with the party in the 90s.
As much as the right enjoys calling the Clintons liberals, they're not.
They're neo-liberals, which is a whole different philosophy.
The Dems abandoned those who supported them for generations and we are all living in the ever-worsening result of that betrayal.
judyblue , 11 Nov 2016 14:2
So Robert Reich spent the past year enthusiastically encouraging us to vote for a candidate who embodied every last bit of the formula that he now tells us was a sure loser. Should he perhaps have warned his long-time good friend Hillary that she was on the wrong road? That being the servant of Wall Street and promising the status quo with incremental progress was a recipe for failure?
Dave Hobbs judyblue , 11 Nov 2016 15:4
Except Reich was a Sanders supporter...
twitty , 11 Nov 2016 14:1
As you say, sir:
"The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn't wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump."
This includes Obama's role as enabler.
Ironic, that Obama was a charismatic campaigner who failed entirely to become a charismatic president. And he lost to a candidate who had another sort of charisma: That of a lying, sneering, insulting, self-important clown.
Shows how bad things have become for a once hard-working & productive middle class now set adrift.
newsfrommars twitty , 11 Nov 2016 15:0
The same power structure that has for decades ignored the plight of millions in favour of it's own elitist wealth building, little wonder this election result. The neo liberals by their arrogance and lack of empathy have brought us to this setting us back decades. Clinton was definately does not hold any sympathy for the downtrodden, she cannot, she's in another class, the billionaire type. That is why we must never trust them or ever look again to people with this background to help us. They are responsible for the descent towards fascism and the people are responsible for their utter gullability in believing them in the first place.
morphy smith twitty , 11 Nov 2016 15:3
Obama is the worst president and most divisive. he is the master race baiter as well.

Nov 11, 2016 | Pinterest

How the 2016 US election night unfolded

The power structure of America wrote off Sanders as an aberration, and, until recently, didn't take Trump seriously. A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo. "The economy is in good shape," he said. "Most Americans are better off than they've been in years."

Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don't reflect the insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money.

Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Workers without college degrees – the old working class – have fallen furthest. Most economic gains, meanwhile, have gone to top. These gains have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing market power without interference by anti-monopoly enforcement – all of which have further reduced wages and pulled up profits.

Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it.

The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.

Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class – failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violate them, or help workers form unions with simple up-or-down votes. Partly as a result, union membership sank from 22% of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less than 12% today, and the working class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy's gains.

Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump's authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency.

Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump's isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn't care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.

The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn't wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump.

ga gamba , 11 Nov 2016 13:0
I give Mr Reich his due. He recognised the the issue and foresaw this outcome when he wrote about it on 25 Jan 2016 .

I've known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she's the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have.

But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he's leading a political movement for change.

The upcoming election isn't about detailed policy proposals. It's about power – whether those who have it will keep it, or whether average Americans will get some as well. [...]

Which explains a paradox I found a few months ago when I was on book tour in the nation's heartland: I kept bumping into people who told me they were trying to make up their minds in the upcoming election between Sanders and Trump.

At first I was dumbfounded. The two are at opposite ends of the political divide. But as I talked with these people, I kept hearing the same refrains. They wanted to end "crony capitalism." They detested "corporate welfare," such as the Wall Street bailout.

They wanted to prevent the big banks from extorting us ever again. Close tax loopholes for hedge-fund partners. Stop the drug companies and health insurers from ripping off American consumers. End trade treaties that sell out American workers. Get big money out of politics. [...]

You don't care about the details of proposed policies and programs.

You just want a system that works for you.

If you click his name at the byline you'll see how many articles published in 2016. Now think about the number of pieces published that pushed the pro-Clinton argument of more of the same.

Paul Eichhorn , 11 Nov 2016 12:4
"Third-Way" Democrats made an art form of triangulating a position between the old-line liberal Democrats the positions made by the mainstream corporate Republican party. By tacking as far right as possible, these corporate Democrats could scrape off enough of the business friendly, socially progressive Independents and Republicans to stymie any sort of Republican Presidential bid. Corporate America gave to both parties, but loves first and foremost to be on the side of the winner, where its influence can manifest itself in business friendly legislation, politically friendly appointments, no prosecutions for criminal behavior. no enforcement of labor or business legislation and no break-ups of monopolies using the still existent anti-trust legislation.
One of the things that made Republicans furious during Bill Clinton's term was that he was skilled in the extreme at taking issues the Republicans were pushing and getting out in front of them and making the issue his own, making the result at least somewhat palpable to the old liberals of the world.
The Democrats became the other war party, the other big business party, the other big banking party, the other big agriculture party, the other big oil party, the other big communications party, the other international exploitation party, the other anti-union party the other big medical party, the other big pharmaceutical party, the other international trade deal party.
Bill Clinton sat down with Alan Greenspan and agreed to be the other austerity party. He supported low tax rates on the billionaires and corporations and low tariffs. That led to lower services for the public and small businesses and the tax burden being borne by the long suffering middle class and working poor. The non-working poor suffered as well with no welfare, more stringent unemployment benefits, and a stagnant job market for meaningful jobs. At the same time, law enforcement was focusing on them, putting them in prison for extreme amounts of time for often trivial matters.
But Bill had an overall good economy because of the Computer Generation, so the economy grew and he was able to deliver to George W. Bush a budget surplus, which, if maintained, would have entirely paid off the national debt by now.
Unfortunately all those economic gains were being funneled to the top. Overall wages of working people actually declined since Ronald Reagan came in to begin the austerity measures while the wealth of the top 1% quadrupled. Working people were losing good paying jobs and having to have both wage earners in a family work lesser jobs to make up for hemorrhaging income. These lesser jobs not only had less wages, they had less benefits. Against an out of control health care industry, banking industry, communications industry and investment industry they were being sucked dry well before retirement. No amount of savings could stand up to catastrophic illness. People's 401K plans were repeatedly slaughtered while the big guys who precipitated the mess ended up owning more and more of the means of generating wealth in our country. Remember the absolutely sinful Republican law that made student debt unforgivable at the same time that school costs were skyrocketing? It was so unpopular, Republicans needed help from Joe Biden and other corporate Democrats to get it passed.
Never mind the corporate media and Republican lies about Barack Obama being a "Liberal", he was, in fact, another version of corporate Democrat. Since he was black, the racist Republicans could do the unprecedented in America politics: they decided to block everything. For no good reason. Other than he was black and no one would hold them accountable. He went along with the austerity plan because he had no other option. Able enough manager, he was able to drastically reduce the national deficit virtually on his own. But he kept up the wars. Hell, he and Hillary Clinton started wars for oil and natural gas. Just like the Republicans. Along with the very expensive war and secret intelligence budget and police state budget. He has restarted the nuclear weapons program, never mind that we already have enough nukes to destroy the world 100 times over. He also longed for hanging his hat on another record-breaking Trans Pacific Partnership international trade deal encompassing 40% of the world's Gross Domestic Product. Like Bill Clinton/George HW Bush's NAFTA on steroids. Jobs would be flowing out to low wage countries and waves of filthy international profits would come flowing back in to: the top 1%, where presumably the fraud of trickle down economics would waged on the American worker once again.
Iron Mike , 11 Nov 2016 11:1
Yup the elites got hammered Tuesday. Even though they say they are for democracy, they aren't. The elites want open borders and the people at the bottom of the wage scale are having to compete against these low wage border jumpers.

How can the elites say they are for open borders and for raising wages. It isn't possible. It is the law of supply and demand. Sure the government could pass minimum wage increases but that will drive businesses to automate as much as possible. That ain't going to help these people either!

Rick LaBonte , 11 Nov 2016 09:3
Wikileaks proved that the Democrat party is the party of the ruling class elites, no question. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders? Give me a break, These two phonies are owned lock stock and barrel by Wall Street and the Big Banks. Warren's Consumer Protection racket is like Dodd-Frank - a Potemkin village of fake reforms designed to kill off any competition to the ruling class oligarchs.
molemen , 11 Nov 2016 08:2
A better analysis than the hysterical white/kkk/racist/woman hater etc pieces that have been flooding the pages lately.

Its "dont piss on my back and tell me its raining" stuff, Obamacare has stung those in work, in some cases badly, and those out of work see no hope or change either.
No-one went to jail for screwing the world economy.
Even the government agencies who had oversight, and failed to see one single indicator of trouble saw no-one demoted, just a call for more power.

And lastly importing more people to compete for low skilled jobs from overseas does keep downward pressure on wages, and make jobs harder to find for the native born. Pretending otherwise in some misguided sense of international "solidarity" is punishing your own people for outsiders advantage.

maryB_USA , 11 Nov 2016 08:0
The roles of the two parties have been interchanged over the years, but they both ended up the same way -- serving the Davos community.

Some have suggested the formation of a third party as a possible remedy. I don't think that is the solution. As long as campaigns are financed through private contributions, the politicians elected would be beholden to the rich, regardless of the number of parties involved. The voice of the less privileged voters will not be heard. To have a truly representative body of elected officials, private (including corporate) campaign contributions should be eliminated from politics. Candidates should disseminate their message and platform in publicly funded campaigns. So I would say don't worry about the number of parties. Just get rid of Citizens United and limit spending for political campaigns to public funding.

The present Republican-controlled government will not do that. HRC had promised to get rid of Citizens United. The only remedy now is to organize and try to give the House in 2 years to whoever will do so.

Matt Dillon , 11 Nov 2016 08:0
If was the duffus you worked for Mr. Reich who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act ushering in the tech bubble, the housing bubble and now the 'everything' bubble. A financialization of our economy that has benefited only the top 10 to 15 percent of the population.
valwayne , 11 Nov 2016 08:0
I don't usually agree w Sex Reich but he mostly right here. The Democratic Party has been corrupted & a tool of Goldman Sachs, Wall Street, Big Banks, & Corrupt Democrat billionaires ...

Wall Street does care if the kill growth & jobs as long as they keep interest rates at Zero & Print trillions to fuel the market & fill their pockets. Same w the banks.
The Democrats have Total comtempt for working Americans out here in what they call flyover land. You know... IW WI MI OH. So Reich is right there but more Gov, more socialism is not the answers. Economic growth & free Enterprise w sound monetary policy to crest jobs & raise incomes is what we need & what Trump will provide.

Maurith , 11 Nov 2016 06:3
There's definitely a failure of government to do its job: to ensure that the market economy works to improve the lives of all people (they instead ensure that they get a job at a Goldman Sachs or a Morgan Stanley once they leave government). Robert Reich points out in the article that the government never steps in to prevent anti-monopoly practices. To his point, one has only to look at the over-valued market capitalizations of the financial and pharmaceutical sectors to see that these guys are getting a free ride. Since not everyone can be a Paul Volcker, one may have to raise the pay grade of civil servants to attract the best talents.

Whether he's a Democrat or a Republican, the white voter is a bit lost, unable to find his way in a world where the white man no longer dominates. This doesn't apply to the working or middle class.

This said, it's not because we want change that we're going to cast our vote for a monster like Trump. We know what happened in 1933 in Germany, in 1917 in Russia. Whether it's gas chambers or the Goulag, these psychopaths (Hitler, Stalin) can go very far. The worst ones are the toned-down versions: a Hitler Light. I sure won't vote for Marine Le Pen.

frankelee , 11 Nov 2016 05:5
It's truly a worrying time for the intelligent citizen. Democrats fail the middle class, yet for all my life there's only been one party who would throw their own mother on hot coals and walk over her body to give a rich man a tax cut: the Republican Party. I hope it's true that Trump represents their defeat just as much as the Democrats. They've sold out their base for decades now, peddling condescending lies and culture war excuses for their greed and cronyism. Not a single Republican used to be an expert scientist until reducing pollution was going to cost their donors a few dollars, then all of sudden they all knew better than a PhD how the climate worked. Their last President started a war and gave no-bid government contracts to his friends, and even tried to privatize Social Security so business associates could skim off the top of that too, consequences be damned. When neither side is either willing or able to save you, what can you do?
Joe Daigle , 11 Nov 2016 05:5
Mr. Reich, you can't see the forest for the trees. Hillary promised that AFTER you lost your job to bad trade deals, she'd help you to retrain to become a 7-11 night clerk. In essence, she was offering to bury your job in a fine casket. Donald offered to fight for your job and shake up America's trade deals if he had to in order to level the playing field and keep our manufacturing here. And oh yea, bring some jobs back home too. He also said he would protect them from cheap labor pouring across the border legally and illegally. Illegal Latinos don't all work picking lettuce - some drive trucks, do construction, are plumbers, carpenters, electricians, shipyard workers, you know - jobs our own citizens want. It's not about whether you can strangle another company with union demands, it's about the lack of jobs period. So in essence, Hillary wanted open borders and all of our jobs going to Latinos. Donald wants the opposite.
BizaaroLand , 11 Nov 2016 04:4
Wonder what makes you Einsteins think the republicans are now suddenly for the working man? Republicans have always been on the side of big money interests, and nothing has changed. Trump is just there to placate the mid western rubes. 'Mericuns are so naive. (no tolerance for propaganda like the Euros or Russians seem to have.) Trump is just a head fake. Its business as usual. He's just gonna pick up where Obama and Shrub left off. Seen this trick before.
ceclas , 11 Nov 2016 03:5
The Guardian needs to publish an editorial apologizing for being part of this problem. During the Sanders-Clinton race, the Guardian was nothing but derisive towards Sanders, and elevated Clinton as the responsible and adult choice to stop Donald Trump. They even compared Sanders to Nader as a spoiler from 2000, not realizing that all the warning signs were there that Clinton would play the role of John Kerry in 2004.

There were comments in the comment section with people saying "I still don't fully understand the difference between Clinton and Sanders, can someone please explain it to me?" That was the Guardian's job. For the record, here is the correct explanation.

For decades the Democratic Party has abandoned working people and embraced globalization at their expense. Clinton was the candidate of continuity with that policy, Sanders was the candidate of "Hey, that was actually a bad idea, our mistake, we'll start caring about your issues as well." It was obvious that Clinton would be vulnerable in a general election against anyone who ran a populist platform, which Trump was doing.

This train wreck was obvious from a mile away. The DNC and the media need to own this blunder.

DoyleSaylor ceclas , 11 Nov 2016 04:3
You are correct. I would add that electing trump has ended the dlc Democratic party. Of course my conjecture remains to be proved by events going forward. Still this rightwing shift has a real chance now to remain in power like the collapsed dlc Clinton Obama clique for a considerable period ahead. And besides that a restive U.S. working class is in motion with little obvious direction to the left right now. I would expect though a left opposition is coming rather soon.
PATROKLUS00 , 11 Nov 2016 03:1
The US is a country with a lot of very angry and unhappy people. The nation is in decline and the people are fearful; they know something is terribly wrong but they do not have the political acumen to deal with the situation. The two political parties, co-opted if not largely owned by the plutocracy-, offer no respite from the oppression of which, in fact, they are the instruments being vassals of their plutocratic masters.

Unfortunately, the plutocracy and their subservient mass media have convinced about half of the population to vote, to their own destruction, for continual transfer of wealth and power to the corporations and plutocrats-. The Trumpers, arguably less educated, politically ignorant and naive, easily manipulated, and riddled with fear fueled with bigotry, are the leading edge of the discontent and fright. However, their blindness to reality is a severe obstacle to any possibility of getting that nation back on the track. The plutocrats-, like all parasites, will drain the nation of its lifeblood and then move on to another country to exploit.

As long as the Trumpeters and those of their ilk can be so easily duped and manipulated, it is unlikely that there will be any common ground. In fact, common ground is not what is needed. Rather, what is needed is an aggressively progressive agenda to restore democracy, economic recovery and re-establishment of a rapidly disappearing middle class.

ViewFromTheUSA , 11 Nov 2016 03:0
Politicians like Clinton and Obama give paid speeches behind closed doors on Wall St, whom they bailed out at the expense of the people. They throw $10k-a-plate fundraisers with celebrities, and cozy up to the profit-over-people industries like big pharmaceutical and big oil. They are for hedge fund managers, payday lenders, defense contractors, and credit card companies. Then they have the gall to send out "tweets" saying we must overturn Citizens United.

I realize the Republicans are no better, in fact, they're even worse, but everyone knows who and what they are. They make no bones about it, they don't dress up in wolf's clothing and pretend they are for the working man.

Democrats do. Democrats are like the Republicans from 30 years ago. Over the last 3 decades, the left has moved to the right and the right has moved into an insane asylum. So now it's the Democrats who do the red-baiting (see their treatment of Sanders) and the RNC are accusing neoliberal centre-right politicians like Obama of being a socialist. Socialist? He's not even a liberal.

Julie Mendelsohn ViewFromTheUSA , 11 Nov 2016 05:4
You are forgetting to add in the "for profit' colleges. How much did Debbie Dearest get from *that* lobby? How many millions did Bill get to sit on their boards? These political grifters got paid big money by the very entities which were foreclosing on homes, suffocating kids with student loan debt, and tanking the economy via Wall Street schemes. The Dems thought we weren't paying attention?
mike1798 , 11 Nov 2016 02:0
Trump is offering a solution, that's all. Can he implement it, probably not, but no one else is even talking about re negotiating NAFTA, penalizing China or anything else to bring back millions of good paying factory jobs.
Our politicians are out of touch, and corrupted by the oceans of money thrown at them. The 58 million people who voted for Trump want anyone to talk to them about what has happened to their lives and opportunities and address their problems.
Hillary may in fact be the most competent politician, but that is the problem. She never came across as a leader who would lead us out of our problems. So we elected a lying misogynist who is, at least, not a politician!
rauch47 , 11 Nov 2016 02:0
Reich debated Chris Hedges on democracynow before the election, Hedges pointed out
to him that under Ronald Ray-Gun the levers of power were given over to all the
corp's of the world, there isn't a DNC or a RNC, it's a less than one percent secure hold
on all power, Trump is just another puppet --
BehindBlurredLines , 11 Nov 2016 01:4
The last two paragraphs are absolutely dead on with what happened. You can't cater to minorities and expect the majority to stick with you forever as they suffer. The Democrats are so blind they didn't understand why Bernie surged or why Trump won but this writer has real clarity and speaks the truth absolutely on it. If you ignore the majority, which is mostly working class or rural citizens, you lose election after election with never ever holding total power for long. Trump truly needs to be a Teddy Roosevelt up there and set the barn on fire to chase all of the rats out and rebuild it.

That's what we need and at least there is the tiniest sliver of hope he will, whereas with Hillary we would have received more establishment politics which always include purposeful half-truths and omissions at the working class's expense. Seriously, Schumer and Pelosi need to be investigated with Hillary Clinton because the way they act up there is exactly what made America a stagnant decaying landscape.

I think it's time we get to the real issues the majority and minority citizens face together and stop beating to death your four issues that are inconsequential to the other 90 % of us in one way or another. That goes for both parties too. It makes me wonder if they ever talk to anyone but the people who have money. It would seem so and it needs to change now because them people live in a bubble and bubbles always burst. Drag the swamp Donald on both sides of the isle and you will be my hero forever. Fail and you will be my most hated president yet.

And on a final note, thank god the Guardian has pulled back from the left some now and is being a good news source again. Thank you for this article and a big thank you to this writer for telling it like it

Imperialist , 11 Nov 2016 00:5
The parties are realigning.

Once the Democratic Party was the party of the working man. The union member. Blue collar. Trying to get higher wages for the working man.

The Republican Party was the party of capital. Bankers. Corporate types. Millionaires.

The Democrats abandoned the working man for the underclass.

Now it seems to becoming that the Republicans are the party of people who work for a living at a private job, along with the business owners.

The Democrats represent those who either don't work, or those who work for the State: welfare recipients, students, public union members, most every staffer in DC. Hollywood types. Millionaires, especially dot com ones.

Despite calling it racist over and over, unfettered immigration holds wages down. Free trade with China and Mexico guts unions and makes the proposed $15/hr minimum wage a joke when factories have all moved to Mexico or China. It's a fine thing with Britain, Germany or Canada, but a big loser with low wage countries. Especially with China who puts barriers in place for OUR exports.

It also didn't help when Katy Perry, Madonna and J.Lo endorsed Hillary. It sent more people towards the Republicans looking for people who looked like them. Who got up in the morning to go to work.

Bill Gorrell Imperialist , 11 Nov 2016 03:4
They are both the party of capital. The unleashed Repubs while destroy the working class.
SomethingU8 Imperialist , 11 Nov 2016 04:0
If U.S. Democrats have any sense, they'll kick the DNC leadership losers out and let Bernie and Elizabeth Warren lead the Party. Then we'll have at least one party that represents the interests of Workers.

Trump has two years to make the lives of his supporters substantially better. Looking at the people around him, that's not likely to happen. I can't wait to see him make the case that more tax cuts for Huuge corporations will somehow help Working People! If they try more of the same, then the market crash will happen on their watch.

Good luck in 2018 then. Dems re-take House & Senate, with Bernie & Elizabeth Warren leading the way...

djsunset , 11 Nov 2016 00:5
Robert Reich, the author of this article, fronted an excellent documentary in 2013 called "Inequality for All". It's well worth a watch.

There's a ropey/poor quality copy on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-MmIV_JBRg , but it's definitely worth getting hold of a good copy.

shazza618 , 11 Nov 2016 00:2
OFFS Robert.. STFU... after Bernie bowed out you shilled for Hill all the way to the election singing her "imaginary" praises. Fecking hypocrite.
sandyssanders , 11 Nov 2016 00:1
We are living through the death of "growth", the death of capitalism. The 1% are using the 99% as human shields to buffer themselves from the collapse of their religion and their Gawd, horded wealth. Trump will sellout his Chumps worse than Obama... And the idea that the TwoParty will ever move to meet the social needs of humanity is a pipe dream. The only way we will get this is by Direct Democracy. The 99% votes policy. The government are employees who implement those policies... or they are fired.
netizenk , 11 Nov 2016 00:0
Nearly every single elected politician currently in office on both sides is bought and paid for and works in the best interest of large corporations, not in the best interest of we the people. A complete purge, a system flush is required if we are to take our country back.

It seams like a monumental task, it looks like an impossible mission when you look at the sheer amount of money and power in play but it is actually simple and it's all on us, all we need to do is stop voting for Repocrats and start voting for people of integrity outside of these two establishment parties.

That is the only way to quickly affect real change and if everyone did that we'd have our country back in no time. So stop bashing the people who are voting third party and independent, stop telling them that their vote is wasted or a vote for the "other side", realize that there are no two sides really and join them in voting the Repocrats out of everything and voting in the people who will overturn Citizens United, outlaw lobbying and pass a new campaign finance law that will take the money complete out of politics and allow us to elect the congress and the president that will work for us, not the Wall Street or MIC.

Will Morgan , 10 Nov 2016 23:2
Is Trump's election really a rejection of the "power structure"? How could that be since that power structure, whether Democrat or Republican, remains intact decade after decade? I don't think Trump's victory is a rejection of the power structure. The rejection of the power structure was embodied, if anywhere, by the Sanders campaign, but it was defied by the Clinton's and by actors like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and by the fraud employed by those actors during the primaries. In a system of only two parties voting for one or the other can simply be a vote based in anger about an excluded middle, or a non-existent "left". These frustrating complaints tell you more about the result than does "the power structure" who could care less which party wins, so long as their interests are served.
ram Posthumus , 10 Nov 2016 23:1
Some sanity at last amidst the demented ragings of the identity politics crowd that STILL does not understand that it was them who put Trump in the White House. Not white male rage. Not the shy white female vote. Not any other race/gender/sexuaity category that you wish to dream up.

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
And no.

What put Trump in the White House was a deeply dysfunctional political system. The fact that the symbol of this deeply dysfunctional political system happened to be female is neither here nor there. Understand this. Understand this and learn.

Ditch the identity politics. Become a real progressive, not a fake progressive deriving fatally deluded ideas from exclusio

raskolnikov88 , 10 Nov 2016 23:1
Robert Reich is also no friend of the working class so why bother listen to him point his finger
Gary Reber , 10 Nov 2016 23:1
Robert Reich actually gets this right. Well stated.

"Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it."

Mikael Carpelan , 10 Nov 2016 22:2
Reich has some points, but is ignoring several key circumstances, such as the 72K$ median income among Trump supporters, but mainly hostile legislators blocking anything more than incremental changes as to wealth redistribution such as the ACA. Neither Obama nor Clinton have supernatural powers to get progressive measures passed through republican congress.
TheMediaSux , 10 Nov 2016 22:1
The Guardian once represented the working class. Not any more.

The next president had been decided. The elites, the lobbyists, the corporate bosses, and the media all decided the next president. Only one thing missing. The voters. They weren't playing ball! Those pesky working class voters! Now the media get to pretend they were with us all along!

ImaHack , 10 Nov 2016 22:0
Could Bernie Sanders have beaten Trump?

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/138665/bernie-sanders-beaten-trump

"In an article out today at The Washington Post, Freddie DeBoer makes this case. He points out that Sanders during the Democratic primary won in key states, like Michigan and Wisconsin, that Clinton lost in the general, and that Sanders was able to attract independent voters. He also notes Sanders's higher favorability and popularity ratings. Of course, such arguments are entirely speculative. We don't know how Sanders would have fared under Republican attacks. And we can't forget that Sanders lost the primary, by a not insignificant amount.

"But one of the biggest arguments made by Clinton and her supporters was that she was pragmatic and electable-the safe candidate. Sanders's campaign, with its proposals for a $15 minimum wage and universal health care, was derided as pie-in-the-sky, and the candidate himself painted his platform as an electoral disaster. I suspect that more than a few Democrats went with their heads instead of their hearts when casting their votes for Clinton. But we found out that playing a safe and moderate campaign (i.e., picking Tim Kaine, the most forgettable man in existence) doesn't necessarily translate into a winning one. Clinton failed to pick up moderate Republicans and white women. And many of her supporters skated over her extreme unfavorability ratings and her inability to generate excitement.

"There is no concrete evidence that Sanders would have won. But we were sold a candidate who we were told was electable, when most of the signs pointed to the fact that she wasn't."

freeandfair , 10 Nov 2016 22:0
Democratic party turned into a party of identity politics painting by the numbers. Here is how they assemble their base by pandering to each group specifically:
*women - check
*blacks - check
*latino - check
*lgbt -check
*millenials - check
*educated white collar progressives - check

But then it turns out these groups are not one-dimensional and their voting is not based on just a single identity. They are complex people. And this is how the Democratic voting base splintered. There was no message unifying them.

ID8584281 , 10 Nov 2016 21:5
First Brexit, now Trump ... world politics are not going the way that Guardianistas envisaged!
So where has it all gone wrong for the left?
What Rubin says about the democrats abandoning the working class in the US could equally apply to Labour in the UK.
Serves the Washington and London elites f***ing well right, you might say.
But whereas the Washington/New York democrats will just have to lump it, the London elites don't want to accept Brexit because they didn't get the result they wanted, and they will try to do anything to stop it.
If they do, and they might because they will stop at nothing, it will destroy any fleeting idea of democracy in Britain.
And for what?
To remain a member of a corrupt and bankrupt euro project that is running off the rails?
The euro elite is as bent as they come. What they did and are doing to the greeks is unforgivable.
Yanis Varoufakis was against Brexit not because he supports the Brussels autocrats, but because he thinks that the best way to combat the world's biggest threats - i.e., climate change - is through combined efforts (not much point in one country trying to combat climate change on its own if no one else bothers).
The euro project is doomed. The 28 or 30 countries can agree on nothing (response to refugee crisis?), except to punish those that dissent
ID8493055 , 10 Nov 2016 21:5
Trump & the GOP don't represent the working class [either]. All the misguided "uneducated, poor white folk" will find that out soon enough when the new regime is allowed to ride roughshod over all the gov't support programs they've relied on.
yelzohy gomarj , 10 Nov 2016 21:2
Think he served one year and resigned. He was too much of an idealist as came from educational system and could not enough accomplished to justify himself being in that position as per what I saw him say many years ago.
Theodore Svedberg gomarj , 10 Nov 2016 21:5
Yes Reich was a Clinton appointee. He wrote a book about his four years as Secretary of Labor. It is an interesting read. My take from that book was how Bill gutted labor influence inside his admin.
EsKiusmi , 10 Nov 2016 20:3
The Clintos and Obama watched as their fellow blue-class and middle class workers were gobbled up by larger and larger corporations, and now they are surprised that they refuse to vote for them? Trumps message to African Americans was simple and so painfully true: "Vote for me, what do you have to lose?". In the end, most voters decided "what do I have to lose?"
Beatsong EsKiusmi , 10 Nov 2016 20:3
And now they're about to find out . . .
Gorgon Mashovic ID8493055 , 10 Nov 2016 22:2
Because four million people voted for someone even more right wing then trump. If you think Gary Johnson is a supporter of expanded government services, then you're entirely unfamiliar with his career as new mexico's governor.
Bogdanich , 10 Nov 2016 20:2
Thomas Ferguson granted an interview this morning. In it he said,

(in a paper from 2014 he predicted that) "Hillary Clinton would have a lot of trouble putting together the old coalition of effectively Wall Street and if you'll allow me to speak quickly and directly for the sake of communication, identity politics. They're really interesting to study. You can see for example in the white college age women that Hillary only got 6% more of those than Trump did which is sort of unbelievable. But let me come to what I think is probably the heart of the matter. I think we really are at the end of the classical democratic formula of the Clinton period which was Wall Street plus identity politics. I think this is it. You're never going to be able to put that humpty dumpty back together again. If the democrats want to win they're going to actually have to make a strong appeal to working class Americans. Now you know the problem this is going to create. There's a ton of money in the democratic party. It is not going to sit there and tolerate candidates like Sanders. They just really despised and hated Sanders. So we're now going to have a very interesting situation where you've got a top heavy party with cash at the top and no mass at the base at all, or very little."

The interesting thing about Ferguson is he doesn't speak or write that often as he dislikes arguing, but when he does come to a conclusion he is willing to share he is seldom wrong.

Theodore Svedberg Bogdanich , 10 Nov 2016 20:5
I think you, Reich and Ferguson are spot on. It is very hard to argue against "identity" politics since it is basically arguing that minorities (racial, sexual, religious, whatever) have rights. Unfortunately these "identity" groupings somehow left out the working class. So the Democratic Party ended up representing a coalition that involved Wall Street (at its center) and many other small minority groups. What was left out of this coalition was any voice for the working class. Now that is a classical example of divide and conquer. And yes this is a case of the big money of capitalism dividing America's workers.

Fifty years ago organized labor unions had a seat at the table who could speak for American workers (whatever small group the individual worker may have belonged to). Today that is gone. Hopefully in the coming years the Democratic Party can restore its roots and begin to represent that class of Americans who actually work for a living. These workers can be divided into hundreds of different groups -- white, black, male, female, straight,gay, wonks, blue collar, hispanic, many others. But together they can have a voice in the national dialogue. If electing Trump is the way to educate the Democratic Party honchos on what is required then perhaps Trump's win will serve a useful purpose.

macmarco , 10 Nov 2016 19:5
Bill Clinton moved the Democratic Party to the right. Although rejected by the GOP (racism) Obama continued that move. Hillary could have easily won the election by reaching out to the millions disenfranchised for more than 30 years, but failed to do so. What and who made her stick to a campaign of 'Not Trump' and elitism is puzzling but not an enigma.

My guess is Bill and Wall Street created the plan, and it went down in a blaze.

murnau , 10 Nov 2016 19:4
"Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more".

A good article which explains the route the Democrats have taken over the years. Faced with the Republican victories of Ronald Reagan from 1981-1989 the democrats chose to move to the right, the party having a previous lineage with ordinary workers back to FDR and further. Bill Clinton in 1992 took onboard the third way calling itself the New Democrats. In the UK Tony Blair copied this following on after the tories Margaret Thatcher and John Major with his New Labour transformation of the party into a virtual copy of the tories.

Just like the 2010 election in the UK with Labour, many people who would have voted Democrat simply did not turn out for Hilary Clinton and did not vote at all. With complete establishment backing including Wall Street and the MSM she lost to Donald Trump. Many would have voted for him anyway but a sizeable percentage must have used him as an anti Clinton vote. Jill Stein called Hilary Clinton corrupt. Clinton is a war hawk she supported the Iraq war and doesn't appear to have learnt from the disaster as she was mainly responsible for the catastrophy in Libya. She loves to boast, we came, we saw, he died, meaning Col. Gaddafi she is more reserved about the later deaths of the ambassador Christopher Stevens and some of his colleagues in the Libyan embassy as a direct result of supporting the jihadis. While still secretary of state she said that she would arm anyone fighting against President Assad thats turned out well. She supported the coup in Honduras and was instrumental in laying the ground out for the coup in Ukraine. The recent wikileaks indicated she knew the Saudis were financing ISIS but she said nothing as they were contributing to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton Lies About Attending Bilderberg While In Denver

http://wearechange.org/hillary-clinton-lies-attending-bilderberg-denver /

Trigz , 10 Nov 2016 19:1
An excellent analysis. Clinton was an awful candidate. She represents the establishment in every possible way; the same establishment that has stood shamelessly by while the US working and middle classes have been abandoned.

She offered precisely nothing other than not being Donald Trump. Her campaign resembled a coronation. This sheer hubris and arrogance cost the Democrats the presidency. Forget the tiresome shrieks of racism and fascism for a minute: Trump won because Clinton failed to get support among the masses of underemployed and unemployed industrial working class in the Rust Belt; because she offered nothing new, no answers other than more of the same.

They failed to address the very real concerns and fears of everyday Americans. They have no one to blame but themselves for this disaster.

Mohammed Wong durable13 , 10 Nov 2016 18:3
Nonsense.The article nails it. A failure to address the Economic Vampirism that Clinton champions.Sure, there are plenty of racists and misogynists in the GOP, but willfull ignorance couched in identity rhetoric is how the party lost so much.until establishment dems realize that, things will continue to get bleaker for them.
Stefan Mochnacki , 10 Nov 2016 18:2
This is a very good article, but it doesn't pay enough attention to the human, emotional aspect of political leadership. The really sad thing is that the Democrats had somebody in Bernie Sanders who could have beaten Trump, as all polls earlier this year indicated, but the determination of Hillary to be President combined with the vast web of Clinton connections led to the result we have. Everybody knew about her problems going into the primary campaign, but the attraction of electing a female President combined with unease with Sanders' roots and radicalism (actually, not such big difficulties) led to her rock-solid "super-delegate" support and sufficient voter support in the primaries. I doubt the DNC "dirty tricks" were quite enough to cause Sanders' defeat, but the Party establishment support no doubt swayed some voters, too. Unfortunately, Sanders will be too old to carry the torch, as is Elizabeth Warren; they should now lead the battle in the Senate and write the books so needed to shape American progressive thought in the coming years. The Democrats need to completely rebuild, so that in eight years they can be ready again for executive power, with the essential support of Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress. It's not worth their while winning the Presidency without control of Congress. It means building a real party, a social movement and organization, not just a label, with leaders who can connect emotionally with citizens.
voxusa , 10 Nov 2016 18:1
"Bill Clinton and Barack Obama helped shift power away from the people towards corporations..."?

What about the landslide shift of power to corporations, lobbyists, and the rich under the Bush and Reagan regimes?

I always agree with you, Mr Reich, and gain insight from your writings/columns, but I think you're really missed the boat here. A demagogue told the big lie to people, and many bought it!

For all the Democrats' (many shortcomings), the BLAME for the sad state of the middle-class, working class, and non-1% is on the Republicans' heads!

And the war on unions is one of the right-wing's key rallying points

Tucsonian OptPrime , 10 Nov 2016 19:3
You need to explain that assertion.

But let me make a related one:

Clinton is at least partly responsible for Brexit.

1) She led the US into invading Libya. Persuaded Obama, who was initially against it, and now calls it his biggest mistake as president.

2) As Gaddafi predicted, his regime was the "cork in the bottle of Africa" (Assange's words) since Libya was patrolling the region. Removing him opened the first front of the European migrant crisis.

3) Destabilizing Libya provided a base for ISIS and other factions, which helped destabilize Syria, opening the second front of the European migrant crisis.

4) The European migrant crisis was one of the primary drivers of Brexit.

dongerdo , 10 Nov 2016 16:4
Well regular Joe Blow has been mocked and ignored for years. Joe Blow might not live in a trailer park, he might have some nice house but he and Jane Blow are working double shifts to pay for it. Joe and Jane have long given up on politics because 'it does not change a thing anyways', they have never seen a politician outside the election phase to descend to their rather unremarkable town in the middle of nowhere. Unions are nowhere to be seen, no one actually gives a damn about them and no one listens to their concerns.
But they understand. They do not have a college degree so those people from NY or Detroit might be right that they do not understand the big picture, watching the news they see that their elected officials have much more important things to take care of. Gender neutral bathrooms, organizing community hours to paint the safe space at the nearby college, giving debt and tax reliefs to the same banks threatening the two of them to foreclose their house, apparently they are really busy.
But now, after years, someone is coming around and listens. He might not really care and only pretend to but he DOES listen. For the first time ever.

And we really wonder about the outcome of this election?!

tigerfisch , 10 Nov 2016 16:3
Reich's article pretty much nails it. The Democratic bigwigs preferred the company of corporate fat cats, facilitated their greed and lost touch with their base....
Bob999 , 10 Nov 2016 16:1
This is one of the few articles that provides any insight into the 2016 presidential election. The reality is that Americans don't like either political party and don't trust politicians. American voters identify with political parties far less than voters in other countries, and most Americans assume that politicians are crooks. That's just the way it is.

Presidential candidates hire consultants to provide marketing expertise to their political campaigns. Trump, by contrast, is himself a marketing expert. As a young man in his twenties, he had the insight that he could increasing the value of real estate by branding it, just as luxury automobiles are branded.

The people who have been mocking Donald Trump for being a real estate magnate and reality show TV impresario fail to realize that those are pursuits where it is impossible to succeed without understanding what the consuming public wants. Many people find Trump to be outrageously offensive, but that is part of a persona he has developed over decades in his property development and TV enterprises in order to attract large numbers of people to his golf courses and hotels, and to attract viewers to The Apprentice.

In politics, Trump's persona translated into a vicious political style that led his opponents to focus on his persona rather than his message. The message was that the increasing deemphasis on national borders (in the form of globalized trade, illegal immigration, and arguably even international terrorism) should be dialed back because it is changing America for the worse. That message resonated with a large number of people and resulted in his election.

Throughout the 2016 election cycle, Trump's opponents failed to address his message and focused instead on his persona. Every opponent who tried to take out Trump by attacking his outrageous and offensive persona was destroyed in the process. During the Republican primary, candidates were talking about Donald Trump so much that they were defining themselves in terms of Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton made the same mistake the 16 unsuccessful Republican primary candidates made. Her campaign was a social message that used Donald Trump as a bogeyman.

The appeal to social interest groups did not address the objective and important issues that Trump was (arguably inarticulately) articulating, which are the issues that really attracted voters to him attracted voters to him. Like Britain, America has a lot of towns where the local economy has been destroyed by the closing of, for example, a steel mill. Trump knew how to address the voters in those towns, and that's how he got elected.

TettyBlaBla Bob999 , 10 Nov 2016 21:1
The missing piece from your comment is Trumps use of media that was relatively new compared to prior presidential elections. In Trump's case this was Twitter and Twitter bot accounts re-tweeting messages to smartphones. Obama did well harnessing social media, just as Reagan used taped video feeds appearing to be live (have to remember how primitive color transmissions were not that long ago), Kennedy used television, and earlier presidents won harnessing radio.
Bob999 TettyBlaBla , 11 Nov 2016 15:2
That is true, as well. Trump's campaign was arguably the American equivalent of the Twitter revolutions that swept North Africa and the Ukraine a few years ago. One question is whether that use of social media is why Trump won or whether it is more narrowly why his win was not predicted by pollsters. This may also be relevant to the unexpectedness of the results of the Brexit referendum.

It's also a reminder to those who shout "power to the people" in the expectation that empowered people will return a particular result. With Trump, and with Brexit, the people appear to have repudiated those who see themselves as empowerers of the people. It's worth some reflection.

saltchunkmary , 10 Nov 2016 16:1
This is an excellent article. In a perverse way it was those zealously anti Trump wailers who unwittingly made him the 45th president of the USA.

Words of wisdom for those disappointed by the result: Understand why those who voted for Trump did. Don't just write them all of as racist/xenophobic. The majority are not. They are angry because politicians, including and especially those Democrats who were supposed to be on their side, sold their souls to the devil - globalisation, big corporations etc.

In fact one may argue that Bill Clinton signing the NAFTA free trade agreement back in 1994 sowed the seeds for this current situation. Think about it

David Perry saltchunkmary , 10 Nov 2016 16:2
Exactly! These people are suffering, and instead of getting help from the Democratic Party they were just all labeled as a bunch of racists, xenophobes. homophobes, etc. Most people who voted for Trump didn't vote for the man. They voted for the hope that they could take their country back from a bunch of elitist, corporatists, and rich bankers who have stolen it from them. You aren't going to win them back by denigrating them further.
Michael McBrearty , 10 Nov 2016 16:1
Yet the mainstream media will persist in explaining the Trump disaster in terms of race or gender issues, never in terms of economic class.
This is how they keep us divided.
Dunbar1999 , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
Yes. I live in rural Missouri, and I absolutely agree with this analysis. The bit that worries me is that none of the embryonic "plans" suggested by Trump -- the wall, the deportations, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act -- will do anything but make the less well-off less well-off in every way. Does anyone really believe, for example, that lowering the tax on business will induce any businessman with any sense to rebuild an old factory in a small, crumbling midwestern town with an uneducated workforce? Let alone allow a union to form, provide decent salaries, pensions and healthcare like their grandfathers had from companies like Ford, General Motors, Caterpillar, John Deere etc? Of course, there's always a war as a last resort: that used to get the economy going, using up lots of materials and lots of surplus young men, didn't it? But I'm afraid the Chinese don't want to fight us, they want to buy us. There's still so much useable, badly-tended space in the middle of America ...
Thatoneguyyouknow Dunbar1999 , 10 Nov 2016 16:1
"The bit that worries me is that none of the embryonic "plans" suggested by Trump -- the wall, the deportations, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act -- will do anything but make the less well-off less well-off in every way."

Actually, GETTING ELECTED was the best thing he could have done. At least it's a CHANCE for the Democratic Party to wake the **** up and see the working class (not the WHITE working class, the WHOLE working class) has been slipping away from them and at an accelerating rate. And they are FURIOUS at getting the shaft while their union "leaders" ORDER them to "vote blue no matter who" and are bullied and browbeaten if they so much as DARE to ask what happened to all those empty promises from last campaign season that have been DOWNGRADED yet again into something even smaller and less ambitious, only to be silenced with "the other guys will be the apocalypse so don't you dare ask any questions you dirty racists!"

Laborequalswealth , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
My husband and two friends and I traveled from SF to Philly to protest the DNC convention.

The protestors - most of whom were under 35 - were corralled in FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT PARK. The delegates lounged in WELLS FARGO CENTER. They even shut down the subway station used by both groups so that only delegates could use it. They did this even though at the end of the day a torrential electrical storm was drenching the protesters. Nope, folks. That PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS FOR THE DNC ONLY.

Did Hillary really think we didn't NOTICE?? Did she think that making FIVE TIMES the average annual income of Americans for a 45 minutes speech to Gold In Sacks would be ignored? That we didn't care that she and Bill RENEGED on the deal with Russia that Bush One made re NATO is pushing Europe to the brink of war? That she loves loves loves the TPP?

Just how fucking stupid did Hillary think we were NOT to notice her Wall Street/MIC worshiping history and positions?

Trump is a domestic disaster. We'll have to deal with that. But I am at least slightly comforted that he wants to stop this war machine (bon chance) and does not support the treasonous, sovereignty-killing TPP - which Hillary SUPPORTED.

The only one who got Trump elected was HILLARY CLINTON and her arrogant followers.

rentierDEATHcult , 10 Nov 2016 15:5
i hope mr reich can help to clear out the faux liberal power elites from the democratic party ... the wall street apparatchiks and senior officials that preside over the various electoral 'plantations' for the clintons: millenials, blacks, lgbt/trans and hispanics

this type of politics is regressive because it provides cover for vested interests (that derive their wealth through ownership of capital) to colonise democracy against the vast majority of people that depend upon wages for a living

the power structure at the top of the democratic party is corrupt and corrupting ... the way this organisation has sought and cultivated minority votes (not in the pursuit of some higher class goal) but to enhance the career prospects of an 'out of touch' political class on capitol hill is the ultimate form of betrayal

in particular, the way impoverished black communities across america have been used by a 'praetorian guard' of senior black democratic leaders to support the dynastic ambitions of the clinton family must come to an end

it is down to enlightened thinkers like mr reich to ensure that the democratic party transitions from being the 'last plantation owner in america' (and trader in chief of minority votes) towards a champion of working people and their class interests

this would be a good start: i would fire most senior black leaders in the democratic party ... (you know, the likes of donna brazile!) for activities incompatible with representing the class interests of working americans - period

LeonardPynchon , 10 Nov 2016 15:5
One problem the left has to overcome is the sheer seductiveness of the argument that the Farages and Trumps of this world put forward - they tell those who have not fared well under capitalism that the fault is not their own, that the real problem is immigrants - it is a cynical but effective lie that those who feel left behind find hard to resist.

In truth the problem is that the system they - Trump and Farage - actually favour is utterly dependent on workers who will work for very little whether they are immigrants or not. The tragic irony is that the right has absolutely no intention of improving the lot of the poor fools who vote for them.

ehmaybe , 10 Nov 2016 15:5
In a multi party parliamentary system the US labor unions and the US' left-leaning social justice voters would not be represented by the same party.
Too many people make the mistake of thinking labor in the US is a left-wing movement. It hasn't been for decades. US labor unions don't fight for workers rights, they fight for their workers pocketbooks and nothing else.
In 1972 labor abandoned the Democrats when they chose a too-progressive candidate for president. Since that time the relationship between progressives and the working class has been a nothing but a marriage of convenience. That marriage seems to have broken up.
Paul Loucks ehmaybe , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
17% of American indusrtry is union. There wasn't much of a marriage to break up. Factory mechanization was accompanied by moving out of the rust belt into anti-union Southern states. Later, they left for China.
ehmaybe Paul Loucks , 10 Nov 2016 16:2
The value of unions to Democrats has little to do with the voters in their ranks. Unions have long been the Democrat's counterbalance against Republican wealth - they can't buy as many ads but they can provide nearly unlimited free labor to the Democrats canvassing and telephone campaigns.
WIthout unions the Democrats would have even fewer seats in the House and Senate and Woodrow Wilson would probably have been their last president.
60boy , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
No, the democrats no longer represent the working classes in the US . As the Labour party here no longer does. I listened to Ed Miliband this morning on the radio and when asked whether he supported Brexit he said he was worried about coloured people, Muslims, transgender and almost everyone else, but he didn't mention the working class at all.
This is why the Tories can get away with doing whatever they want, because Labour is finished in most working class areas. They became a party for minorities and encouraged mass immigration. Now they mean less than nothing to most ordinary, indigenous people in this country!
We don't need a Trump, we've got the Tories and UKIP instead!
KrautOliver 60boy , 10 Nov 2016 16:0

but he didn't mention the working class at all.

That would be because the classical working class is an 1860s-1970s phenomenon. It's not describing any meaningful "class" of people anymore. Some people may "feel" working class, but the truth of the matter is that for everyone who feels that way, there's someone with similar living conditions who doesn't.

ene Adair , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
While I find much to agree with in analyses like Reich's and Frank's, I find that they tend to romanticize the white working class and ignore the elephants in the room, those being racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and the rest. I feel I can say this because I come from a white working-class background in small-town Arkansas (Bill Clinton's hometown and mine were thirty-five miles apart). Believe me, Robert, there is a virulent strain of racism among many of those folks, and It's something that needs to be better addressed by analyses such as yours and Tom Frank's. It's not just something that GOP fear mongering conjured out of thin air. It has deep historical roots and cannot be brushed easily aside by discussions based solely on economic arguments. (See, for example, Stacy Patton's article: http://www.damemagazine.com/2016/11/01/why-i-have-no-sympathy-angry-white-men .)
IamDolf Gene Adair , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
My GF comes from a similar background. I posted this earlier on this thread.

I know the "working classes" in the USA, especially the midwestern variety. Dumb, ill informed, incurious. Obsessed with macho posturing, weapons, military exploits.
Rampant racism, misogyny, extreme religiosity. Birtherism, creationism, paranoia, you name it. You have to read the anti-Obama and Clinton vitriol from people lke that to believe it. From people who do not have a pot to piss in.
My GF hails from some dot in the middle of nowhere in IA. She describes being raised there as living in a cult. She had to come to Long Island to realise that there actually were still jews alive today. She more or less thought they were like the Hittites and the Sumerians, something you read about in the bible. To this day she loves to watch documentaries on TV because the education she received in school was so poor and narrow minded.

Duggi390 Gene Adair , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
A lot of that rascism, xenophobia, homophobia etc is born out of the frustration that the working class find themselves in. Many believe, rightly or wrongly, that foreigners, the LGBTQ community, Arfrican Americans, Latino's, Asians and so on, are given special treatment. These groups have jumped to the front of the cue to reach the American Dream, while the working class have been stuck in line at the back for years and they have become frustrated and angry. It doesn't excuse those views, but if you look at it from their perspective you can see why they hit out.

Additionally, these views are held right across the demographic makeup of the US, not just the Working Class.

VinceDaFox , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
hopefully once the dust has died down this is the sort of considered writing that we will see in the Guardian - not the ludicrous outpourings of bile we have seen in the past few days.

I listened to the live radio account from the BBC and noted the evident discomfiture as the result differed from the script. At the end of a presidential election the assembled studio experts should have more to say about a candidate than bewailing perceived racism, perceived misogyny (I doubt that Trump is a true misogynist!) and Mexican walls yet listening to the BBC since then it's as if the programme presenters are working to a script. Likewise. I'm afraid, The Guardian.

What I find truly remarkable is the analogous positions of Trump and Corbyn: both outsider candidates who relied on votes from outside their respective Establishments to win through. Trump had little to do with the Republicans in the past. Corbyn was best known for voting against his party. Both have been reviled by their own party elites (and by the Guardian). Corbyn has faced a coup rumoured to have been organised from outside the PLP. Leading Republicans wore the fact that they had not voted for their own candidate as a badge of honour. Of course this was solely intended to save their political necks, but in the event did no harm whatsoever to Trump or Corbyn - indeed it may have positively assisted them. Had Corbyn been positively endorsed by say, Harriet Harman, he would possibly never have survived.

The US and UK political elites set great store by their acceptance of other faiths and ethnicities yet seem curiously intolerant to the outsiders in their own milieu.

BigPhil1959 , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
Clinton, Blair and Schroeder came up with the third way. Snake oil salesmen that all profited from sucking up to the corporations and selling their influence. Schroeder signed a deal with the Russians supply gas to Germany before joining Nordstream the company set up to do so. As for Clinton and Blair the list is long a sto how they have lined their pockets. The third way has never been about the ordinary working man. Wages have not risen in Germany in real terms for years as they havent in the US. In the UK easy credit has masked the real situation and now peple are suffering.

What Robert Reich has written has hit the nail on the head.

KrautOliver BigPhil1959 , 10 Nov 2016 16:1

Schroeder signed a deal with the Russians supply gas to Germany before joining Nordstream the company set up to do so.

Except he merely served on the supervisory board.

The third way has never been about the ordinary working man. Wages have not risen in Germany in real terms for years as they havent in the US.

"The working man" is waffling. Contrary to propaganda, Schroeder's reforms have contributed massively to Germany not being hit as hard by the financial crisis as others - and contrary to legends, it has improved the situation of the poor. It's the people peddling those legends, devoid of any understanding how the situation was before, who contribute to the unemployed feeling outcast.

It's the 21st century. Wake up. Waffling about the "Working Man" is the same as waffling about Cowboys and believing cattle farming is still being done like in 1850.

Loafervandross , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
Democrats are as much a part of the elite as republicans.
muttley79 , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
Guardian columnists such as Hadley Freeman, Lucia Graves, Wolff, Abramson, Freedland and company should be forced to read this article. These columnists very rarely if ever talk about the Gilded Age style inequality levels in the West, and the USA in particular. Instead it is all about identity politics for them. Can these individuals start writing about the disastrous chasm between the very rich and the rest please?
hexotic muttley79 , 10 Nov 2016 15:5
Definitely. Identity politics has been coopted by the neoliberal technocracy to divert attention from wealth inequalities, the operation of big corporations in politics and the general lack of democratic accountability in governance.
feenix07 , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
Thank you Mr Reich. Best article I have read for months.

The vote for Trump was a protest vote. It was a non violent revolution. A significant part of the US electorate were angry. They saw their quality of life eroded. They saw little change of their children having a chance of a better life. Trump was the perfect outsider. He was not part of the "corrupt system". If you are living on your knees why not vote for someone who might bring the whole corrupt rotting edifice crashing down?

THe usual media suspects have been trying to explain what happen in their normal closeted, university educated, urban, smug, condesending manner. But when people are angry, when they are protesting they want action, they want change , they don't want the status quo. During the French revolution the mobs didn't ask "whats your policy on gender based minorities?"...they just shouted "off with their heads"

Until the media, the politicians, the policy makers, the wealthy elite start properly listening to the people left behind, then we will continue to see more Trumps and Brexits.

Ahnaf15 , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
Excellent analysis . Mr Reich was Labour secretary under Clinton and so she shares the responsibility of his policies. Of note is media complicity including so called liberal progressive media no heavy weights. It seems that 'generating ' money / growth/ markets etc etc seem to be the all important factors . Citizens' solidarity and the needs of the most vulnerable are at the bottom of the checklist if it is ther at all. These progressives have fallen or perhaps fallen into the trap of believing that talking about 'progressive' topics e.g. misogyny and gender etc is enough to earn the badge of 'progressives and liberals '.

It is very strange indeed in the midst of all this ther is no mention of JC and McDonnel and co and their ' old 'foolish' 'defunct' types of policies that no one wants to vote for because .......

Finally it is curious to note that many US citizens voted for Trump because of the disillusionment with political establishment. The odd thing is that ' those in the know ' did not know about their anger -- To complicate matters further and using this an example does US and the West really know what ordinary citizens in Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of ME Asia and Africa really think about the ruinous roles of the West in making their lives and their children's lives and their countries and their future a waste . Just because ther are strategic and national security and economic interests of West and their local reps. Do we have to believe the stories and features of the natives and their 'backgrward ' oppressors or just believe ( as US election showed ) what we want to believe that the natives, want , deserve and should get --

And yes we are in 21 st century and using all the powers of Internet and modern society to be acquainted with the outside world -- Doh --

corund , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
This article and simon Jenkins article on trump are the best two articles I've read in the guardian for a long time! Spot on .keep reminding people that gw bush supported h. Clinton ,bush whose personal vendetta against Saddam cost thousands of lives ,Iraqi ,us ,UK ,etc! And how million american workers were put on the dole by bill clinton !ill
JacktheNat , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
Thanks for that, Robert.

The Clintons also helped corrupt the Democratic party to deny Bernie Sanders the opportunity to put many of these popular views to the test on Tuesday.

That also meant denying the voters the chance of having someone like Tulsi Gabbard as vice-president:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzYoDOXsNm8

jeanshaw1 , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
Exactly. Messrs Thatcher/Major/Blair/Cameron followed the same path here and that is why we have decided that we , the people , want to take back control and showed it by voting to recover our sovereignty by leaving the EU .
letrightbedone , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
Remember, Trump used to be a Democrat. The fact that he has led the Republicans to peers suggests very little difference between establishment parties, as in the U.K. Trump is a savvy enough schemer to play to the fears and feelings of the dispossed. Let's see what he can deliver. I doubt much. All I can hope is that he recruits right wing Us Supreme Court justices in the vein of Scalia.
Hopeabandoned letrightbedone , 10 Nov 2016 16:0
Mr Justice Scalia, by his verdict in the Citizens United case, sold US politics to the highest bidder. He and his devout followers have done more harm to their country than any other supreme Court Justice. A man who supposedly believed in the 10 commandments, but who lacked the integrity to hear any death penalty cases. A hypocrite.
kjjng1 dvdmartin , 10 Nov 2016 15:4
Glass-Steagall, which was used to protect ordinary savers from high risk investment banking, was removed by Clinton, not GWB. Sure, Congress and House were dominated by Republicans, but the Democrats had Bill Clinton and could have filibustered (see how effective the Republicans have been since). Instead, Gramm-Leach-Biley passed with bipartisan support. And let's not even talk about NAFTA.
FilthyRichBanker , 10 Nov 2016 15:2
The Socialist bread van resprayed in a liberalism, neoliberalism, multiculturalism, political correctness, globalism and liberal interventionism pretty colour by the Blairites, the Clintonites and EU political elites, was still the same old failed product under the bonnet.

Guaranteed whenever it is taken out on the roads to breakdown and take a Nation or Federal Superstate to the brink of bankruptcy before the passengers(electorate) see it for what it really is - they had been sold a clapped out old banger with a new coat of paint!

UK Socialists, memorably described by Margaret Thatcher as people who when in power always run out of other peoples money, are mostly a well meaning lot, but their bread van which crashed spectacularly in the 1970's and got taken to the scrap yard as beyond repair, was years later deviously bought(hijacked) as a 'damaged repairable', by a small group of liberal metropolitan elite scam artists who had quietly infiltrated the Labour Party.

After a little tinkering under the bonnet(parachuting their own candidates into Labour heartland seats) and a new touchy feely PR paint job, they relaunched it onto the streets as a New Model 'Green' Socialist vehicle, when in reality it just a bunch of second hand car dealers in sharp suits operating an industrial scale 'cut and shut' job scam of Madoff proportions on hoodwinked buyers(the electorate).

Working hand in glove with Goldman Sachs and big business, they made themselves extremely rich but now have a lot to answer for, as they're responsible for the rise of the left and right wing populist genie out of the bottle. Once out, like the inflation genie it is a devilishly difficult task to put back in.

As evidenced by the latest utterances of a beaming Nigel Farage, aka Mr Brexit, following the Trump Presidential winning campaign:

"Brexit, and now Trump, and now the wagons roll on to the rest of Europe for all the elections next year," Farage said, smiling like a cheshire cat. "This is a really exciting time. As someone who has now become a demolitions expert I'm thoroughly enjoying what's going on."

With bold, brash, crass, in your face characters like Trump and Farage at the forefront of the political stage, the next few years, like a fairground ride could be rather wild and bumpy, but never dull.

We live in interesting times --

Bilge FilthyRichBanker , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
What so you're saying Trump and Farage lied? ....They're not going to protect our lifestyles and western living standards using left wing socialist protectionism? ....who woulda thunk it?
Sal2011 , 10 Nov 2016 15:2
It may be a repudiation of the American power structure, or the result of building certain perceptions in the American public over the years by the mainstream media that Trump pounced upon and crudely exploited to the hilt. The US media couldn't steer the beast it had created when it wanted to. Think it's wishful thinking that we're not in for a period of great upheaval, possibly tragedy. We saw what happened during the Bush presidency, an ugly war with a tally of tens of thousands of lives and global financial meltdown. This time it could be much, much worse.
Ummmmm , 10 Nov 2016 15:2

The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.


Change "Democratic" for "Labour", "Washington" for "Westminster", "Wall Street" for "the City", and it still rings true. Corbyn and the swing to the left isn't the cause of the crisis, it's a response. What happens with Sanders and his base next will be pivotal.
CaptainHogwash Ummmmm , 10 Nov 2016 15:3
Change globalisation of "Trade" to "Rightwing Politicies" and I think you've hit a home run
evaelbee537 , 10 Nov 2016 15:2
Compulsory reading for all who formed & remain part of what is described with forensic precision, including many contributing journalist to this paper. To be taken seriously, not immediately denounced, Robert Reich could only put pen to paper with confidence after Trump won so decisively, & why we are still reeling from reality about to unfold from success of the Brexit campaign. Fundamental change in reactionary maverick hands.
Both Trump & UKIP/Farage/ Tory right engaged willingly, without shame, in a campaign of authoritarian demagoguery, with elevation of racist, xenophobic sentiments to being new national virtue of saying it as it is.
Existing power structures with their intricate connections, web of back rubbing fundraising, & legislation to enable profit accumulation to continue unhindered by challenges from 'shopfloor' labour groups, failed to see what was under their noses. Insulated, blinkered privileged they dismissed as unelectable what was coming down on them like a ton of bricks.
Great piece, well worth reading more than once.
Kurwenal , 10 Nov 2016 15:1
It is more an indictment of the mainstream political parties than the electorates that politicians like Trump, Farage, Le Pen and all the other hate preachers are attracting so much support. It is equally an indictment of the leftist media that they cling to the discredited leaders of the so called centre left parties. But then they have personally done very nicely out of the cozy relationships they have with leaders who are held in as much contempt by the ordinary voters as the misnamed liberal media holds them.
Maitreya2016 , 10 Nov 2016 15:1
Democrats were once for slavery as well.
leadballoon , 10 Nov 2016 15:0

The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.

That is the most relevant paragraph I've seen here in recent months. exactly the same for the UK Labour party, Nobody with any real prospect of power represents the working class. The only shadows left are the unrealistic promises of Trump, or Brexit that we know will be ignored once the vote is cast. But what else is there?
IamDolf leadballoon , 10 Nov 2016 15:2
The "lumpenproletariat" that brought the social democratic parties in europe to power and made the european communist political parties a force to reckon with no longer exist. The old working classes have been superseded by an underclass who do the truly unskilled work, and a middle class, the successful children of the former workingclass who now are nurses, administrators, middle managers, etc.
Steel, mining, ship building, car manufacturing, etc, used to employ thousands or even tens of thousands of people in a single plant. Those days are over. Everywhere. To exclusively focus on the 20% of the population that are truly left behind is political suicide. And why a guy like Corbyn will never see an electoral win.
And then one needs to keep in mind that the American working class are much more right leaning than their european counterparts.
goto100 , 10 Nov 2016 15:0
Fuck all globalist hellspawn. Fuck all neocons. Fuck all neoliberals. All of them.
SoccerPundit WorrierQueen , 10 Nov 2016 15:2
First past the post does have benefits e.g., stable governments that last 4-5 years, manifesto's printed up-front rather than debated behind closed doors, prevention of extremist parties achieving influence via balance of power.
UK, USA main two parties are actually 'large tents/broad churches' where multiple views exist rather than narrow dogma.
Democracy is not perfect - but the peaceful transfer of power - in the UK, US is to be commended and not taken for granted.
(ps I agree with gerrymandering in US but that's a result of the States vs Federal system. Also one more thing - FPTP is the only way to choose a President whether by Electoral College or popular vote).
BarrieJ SoccerPundit , 10 Nov 2016 16:2
Stable governments that don't represent voter's views or needs. Manifestos that are manifestly ignored at the earliest convenience, policies that were never announced or publicised, pursued in the interests of political lobbyists, donors or corporations. Politicians whose default position is to lie if it serves them better than the truth and the electorate offered the only opportunity to dismiss them at the next election, when they can reliably expect to be rewarded with a seat in the Lords or any number of sinecures in the form of directorships and consultancies.
The system is not fit for purpose and that's just the way our political class likes it.
PerspectivesPlease , 10 Nov 2016 14:5
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you, Secy. Reich. I cannot say enough!

Yes, Sir no one can fool all the people all the time. The Clintons were masters at this game and believed they could get the people to believe that 2+2=5 assisted with their unlimited corporate money, Wall St. influence, and the dissemination of misinformation aided by the media.

There would not have been any need for organizations like Wikileaks, if journalists had a modicum of integrity.

As for the Guardian, it had to have their favorite, and the most corrupt, candidate defeated at the elections resoundingly in order to have voices, the like that of Secy. Reich express his views in this otherwise skewed newspaper. With the increase in corruption in public office, journalistic integrity followed that same path.

The frustration of the people with establishment politics rose to such a level where they did not care even if the opposing non-establishment candidate was Donald Trump or Donald Duck who groped other ducklings.

Omoikani , 10 Nov 2016 14:4
The Guardian was one of Clinton's loudest barking dogs, following the Goldman Sachs playlist to the letter. Adverse comments BTL about her or the Guardian's election coverage were deleted.
CaptainHogwash , 10 Nov 2016 14:4
"Democrats once represented the working class. Not anymore "

Republicans never represented the working class but the working classes continued to vote them into office.

The destruction of the trade union movement has always been one of the highest priorities for Conservatives – the success they have had in large part due to the concerted efforts of Ronnie and Maggie (who are now engaged in a torrid posthumous affair).

In the UK there is a sinister parallel between zero hour contracts and workers during the depression standing in the streets hoping to pick up a day's work.
Apparently "job security" is a threat to the prosperity of the nation and so it goes on.
Now that the unions have been dealt with the Tories in the UK have set their sights on dismantling the NHS (by incrementally starving it to death) and there is presently nothing to stop them.

Trump clearly tailored his message to reach the disenfranchised but unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any evidence that (a) he really cares about them and (b) anything substantial is about to improve their lot.

sylvesta34 , 10 Nov 2016 14:4
Its quite ironic that right-wing, neo-lib ideology, created what we have now, and at the same time its the right and far right that are getting all the gains. The popularity of Trump. Farage and this movement tells you how utterly and totally the left and liberals in general have failed in connecting with the working classes and offer something different.
Biblio , 10 Nov 2016 14:4

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama helped shift power away from the people towards corporations. It was this that created an opening for Donald Trump

Sums things up succintly. If you're concentrating on stealing their clothes, they can steal yours, especially when you only wave them about listlessly yet refuse to wear them.

Trojans08 Biblio , 10 Nov 2016 14:4
That's been happening since Reagan. I get the blame on Clinton & Obama in the context of "Dems played the same game as GOP", but not in a more open context. This has been happening for 35 years with trickle down economy. It also happens to "coincide" with the widening of wealth gap...
Light_and_Liberty , 10 Nov 2016 14:4
It was a repudiation of President Barack Obama and his leftist [neoliberal] policies that decimated middle class jobs, health insurance and the respect for the rule of law.

A valid point can be stated in one sentence.

Karl Holder , 10 Nov 2016 14:3
Obama just nailed the whole working class with a massive Obamacare rate hike. What did they expect was going to happen? You cannot provide free healthcare to the poor on the backs of the working class while the upper mids and wealthy pay nothing. The upper mids already have employer insurance, people, and they do not get an opinion. OCare is hitting me for $400 a month for insurance with a $13,000 deductible! That is fraud! I am a working class liberal- Obama broke every campaign promise he ever made to us, and Clinton has done nothing to shed her 'corrupt DNC insider' image or distance herself from Obama's treacherous policies. ALL of the reasons the Trump people are giving for voting for Trump are VALID and we can blame this one on THE DNC. BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON.
PDXtoNOLA , 10 Nov 2016 14:3
I find it poetic that the Guardian, which seemed this past year to be competing with the other US majors in the grotesque sidelining and marginalizing of Bernie Sanders, is now On their hands and knees with their contribution drive. I will never give a dime to these hacks. What's funny is that had they stuck to their principles of fearless reporting I have no doubt a huuuge number of readers would have jumped at the opportunity to make a worthwhile contribution. Like the DNC, they had a clear thoroughbred in the stable and they drowned it in the backyard. i have no sympathy for this rag. I have contempt for it.
Bilge , 10 Nov 2016 14:3
Trump + brexit means the right have control. OK guys what happens next, what's the plan?
RationalGuardianMan , 10 Nov 2016 14:2
Just as after Brexit, this paper is flooded with articles claiming how 'minority' groups, BMEs, LGBTQ...s, and even women, are now being attacked in numbers and how vulnerable they feel.

I follow the MSM and have seen nothing of substance that backs this up.

Nor do I feel that Trump is going to mount major campaigns against such groups.

Interestingly I believe it true that 29% of the 'Hispanic' minority actually voted for Trump.

Similarly was the figure for white women not c.50% ?

Many fewer blacks did, but should Trump's economics actually bring back jobs for the 'working class' why would blacks in this group of both (all ?) sexes not benefit also and if that is the case watch how their voting patterns change next time.

NoSerf , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
Thankfully there are articles like this.
Media other than Guardian who don't care to give this thought the time of the day, slip into irrelevance. I mean the MSMs here who all embody Trotzkism.
Trotzkism dictates that the livelihoods of people ought to be taken away to make them pliable. China bought US-TBs (for US government aggrandizement) upon US shipping jobs over there. Feeding the hungry? With the Fed going into overdrive. Banks together with govt concocted the financial crisis to profit off bear strategies that mortals can't do. In following years, the elite coined high-flying ideals such as globalization, which is good for them because they sit in govt, teach in universities or are detached ueber-owners of businesses. Joe Blow was screamed at when he would ask: How am I gonna pay for stuff that the big wigs have now manufactured overseas, when we now make, or get as welfare, $10 instead of $25 an hour?
Hard to reverse the destruction, but worth a try.
Willbeck , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
I never thought I would be in agreement with Robert Reich but I am today. Every election cycle the Democratic Party spouts happy talk about being the people's party and the worker's party (in contrast to the supposedly blue blooded, monied Republican Party.) While that may once have been a somewhat accurate portrayal, it has long since become a sham of an image.

Today's Democratic Party is the party of the corporate billionaires, the tech titans, and the globalist elitists who don't want a simplistic notion like that of national borders to get in the way of their profit seeking. Naturally, the entertainment and media stars gravitate toward their corporate masters and shill for the Democrats. Throw in a fixation on divisive identity politics and the Democratic establishment and its less loud and proud Republican counterpart thought that the authentic voice of the American people could forever be drowned out. The success of Bernie Sanders (done in by the rigged Democratic Party rules) and Donald Trump demonstrates that the people will no longer be silenced.

biologixco , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
Hey GUARDIAN, where is that 99% chance of Hillary winning???
I personally know three people that didnt vote because they thought she had a win in the bank.
Shame on the Guardian.
Those pollsters along with GUARDIAN should be summarily FIRED.
And don't let the door hit them in the a$$.
meggo56 , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
Thank you for your voice of intelligence & grounded wisdom. As I read elsewhere, the treaties that Mr. Clinton & Obama have backed have unravelled the middle class. And let's not forget Mr. Reagan who reversed high tax rates on the wealthy and broke the back of unions. Neither party represents working people anymore. Certainly Mr. Trump does not. And playing to that disenfranchisement won him the election---but I fear that he has no interest in redeeming the middle class. He was interested in getting elected and telling people anything they want to hear.
Bilge , 10 Nov 2016 14:0
The western first world dominance is coming to an end. People in the west like to think they are the top of the food chain but reality is the second world of Asia and the far east is rapidly stepping into their shoes. Capitalism dictates that maximum profits are returned for minimum outlay so if you can make a product for minimal cost i.e. wages, and sell for the maximum price then you have a successful business model. Protectionism has been tried before and Trump's version trying to roll back globalisation will be no more successful. ..same applies to brexit. It'll get even worse as robotics take over more and more, the only solution will be social control mechanisms to ensure that suppliers have consumers to sell their products to. It's going to take a while for this realism to sink in...but it's unavoidable.
eminijunkie Bilge , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
Protectionism is working great in China, and it once did wonders for the US.

Free trade is the pathway to poverty for all but the [already] rich.

MalleusSacerdotum , 10 Nov 2016 14:0
Sense at last in a Guardian article.
But still not enough sense to say clearly what a weak campaigner and what a poor choice of candidate Hillary Clinton was.

Oh well... maybe the Guardian will use the period between now and January 20 to reflect on how they cheer-led for a candidate who didn't have what it takes to win an election.
Or maybe not. Maybe they will continue to print and post stories that are tinged with hurt surprise that democracy means one -and only one- vote for every citizen who cares to cast it. How can democracy function if all those white unemployed and immiserated vote against the candidates that the rich have prepared for them?

LibertineUSA , 10 Nov 2016 13:5
As is usual Mr. Reich hits the nail squarely on the head.

The working class had long been the backbone of the Democratic Party electorate. They no longer are because the Democratic Party is no longer the party of the working class. The banks, the upscale suburban liberals, minorities and specific issue oriented groups are the people that matter most to the Democratic Party. The working class support has been taken for granted for far too long by the Dems. I can't remember how many times I have heard said, or seen written, by Democratic insiders "where else do they have to go (for candidates to support)?"

The working class has to be a part, and an important part, of the left's coalition going forward or risk seeing more shock election results like this. Their lots have not improved in this brand new global economy championed by both parties. And while their numbers aren't as large as when Reagan was elected (and before) there are more than enough of them to be an election decider.

It also will be helpful to choose candidates who will not to insult them like who, for example, call them all a "basketful of deplorables".

coolook , 10 Nov 2016 13:5
the biggest factor in the Trump victory,and in the Brexit mayhem,is quite simply Globalization. it is Globalization that has exported jobs,and skills out of the western world. it is responsible for ghost towns in the industrial and manufacturing heartlands. western governments have had no strategy for regeneration on anything like a great enough scale. unless the consequences of globalization are addressed and reversed, the West faces ever falling living standards and huge unrest.
simpledino coolook , 10 Nov 2016 19:0
Yes, what we call "globalization" is quite simply the universalizing of a certain set of relations between capital and labor -- it's clear that if the process is allowed to proceed without proper safeguards, capital will be greatly favored, while labor will be reduced to the lowest possible level. Marx pointed out a long time ago that the tendency of capitalism is to squeeze the greatest amount of "surplus value" out of the workforce while granting them only as much money as necessary for them to scrape by from day to day. Essentially, under capitalism, he wrote, people exist to produce things and are less important than the things they produce. Marx may have been wrong about the viability of "scientific socialism," but he was often spot-on as an analyst of the way capitalism works and who it really benefits.

Trade is wonderful, but only when it doesn't proceed by reducing us all to wage slaves. Maybe Dems who keep supporting bullshit neoliberal trade deals need to go read some of old Uncle Karl's delightfully sarcastic works. Capital, Vol. 1 would be a fine start: see in particular the chapter, "The Fetishism of the Commodity and the Secret Thereof." It's a masterpiece.

blackrocket2000 , 10 Nov 2016 13:4
Can anyone turn back the tide of globalisation and power of the corporations? What is the role of MSM? Are they all part of the problem? Interesting times. Maybe Trump will be force for good. We certainly need stronger leadership from our politicians, on both sides of the pond.
simpledino stupormundi , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
Yes, I think of lot of that sort of stuff is misplaced. True, there are some despicable people supporting Trump -- the Klan, neo-Nazi types, and so forth. But most people who voted for him aren't like that. It's probably more the case that they put aside considerable disdain for Trump's wretched behavior and voted for him based on his promise to "unforget" the working class. Personally, I think he's a brazen demagogue who doesn't give any more of a rat's bottom about the poor and the working class than Hitler did in Germany, what with all his "national socialist" promises of "two chickens in every pot." But it isn't hard to understand the appeal of such populist rhetoric when people are suffering and insecure. The American Left needs to rediscover its proper role as a moderator of the harsher side of capitalism -- it has forgotten that role, and the bill for that forgetfulness just came due. I don't blame Hillary personally -- Secretary Reich is right to frame the problem in much broader terms, i.e. as having to do with the Democratic leadership as a whole.
Aboutface , 10 Nov 2016 13:3
The business of government has morphed into the government for businesses.
Take a hint from what President Xi of China is doing, in managing the PRC. A good yardstick of good governance comes from the analects of Confucius.
Pyrophyte , 10 Nov 2016 13:3
What an excellent article.

It's the same almost everywhere.

For instance, once upon a time in Germany, social democrats represented the working class. Not anymore. People couldn't care less about Germany's wonderful economic growth either, as most of the surplus goes to the top.*

The "social democrat" Schröder demolished the welfare state and introduced a new low wage sector, much beloved by his corporate buddies. Thanks to his and Angela Merkel's efforts, numbers of working poor and food banks are increasing. So is the wealth gap.* Thanks to an ongoing media hate campaign against the meritocratic losers, most people suffered in silence. And now everyone acts shocked and confused that a right-winged populist party is on the rise.

Well, thank you Angela Merkel, these are the fruits of your beloved austerity. The next vote in Germany is going to be interesting. And just for the record: austerity was employed by Brüning to boot. And that turned out so well, didn't it?

http://www.dw.com/en/study-income-inequality-reaches-new-high-in-germany/a-36009472

trundlesome1 , 10 Nov 2016 13:2
Capitalism is the best economic system we have but it becomes increasingly self destructive and unstable if it is not managed properly. The moderate left and right would both agree on this normally but the left would prioritise the interests of workers and the right the interests of capitalists. However both, self interestedly, would support policies and institutions that kept the system stable and growing.

Unfortunately hubris and market fundamentalism has turned the right's head and allowed the rich and greedy to destructively run rampant. This is in no-one's longer term interest as the impoverishment of the middle class and destruction of a prosperous mas market will eventually undermine even most of the wealthy. The economic elite need to be dragged back under control. Theodore Roosevelt broke up the trusts in the 20s and Franklin brought in the New Deal in the Great Depression. It has been done before. It needs to be done again.

Russ Bestley , 10 Nov 2016 13:2
Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump's isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn't care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.

Exactly, and the parallels with the Brexit vote and against an EU corporate bureaucracy set up to benefit the wealthy are stark. You could apply the same phrasing here in the UK:

Now British voters have rebelled by supporting a campaign that wants to fortify the UK against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Brexit's isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most British workers couldn't care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.

trundlesome1 , 10 Nov 2016 13:0
Great article.

The Democrats have more or less sold out the working class to the rich and powerful. They are, in large part, the rich and powerful as this article points out. If the left wants to counter right wing populists such as Trump it will need to address the growing anger of the white working class towards policies that have put them in a position where they will be a minority in their own country where they have historically been a large majority. It will also have to look after the unemployed, working and middle classes at the expense of Wall Street, big tech and big business generally. Ironically the right needs to do exactly the same thing. And both need to do these things while protecting the well-being of minorities. Will these mainstream politicians be able to escape the orbit of the rich? It is difficult to be optimistic.

ThomasD , 10 Nov 2016 13:0
Maybe so, but the only solution offered here is more Unions... if you think that's a solution to the stagnating earnings of the bottom half of the population then I'm afraid you are way off the mark.

The problem, and it's one that Trump will utterly fail to address and strikes at the heart of our beliefs, is that a modern economy has little use (and places little economic value) on low and unskilled labour. There is not a thing that can't be done cheaper by foreign factories and machines (computers/robots/automation). This is deeply unpalatable and I do not like it, but without a solution to how we ensure fair treatment of people who are, day by day, becoming less economically valuable to the modern economy, this issue will not go away. Trump is a reaction, but he is not the solution but he will set out to blame every minority, foreign government, trade agreement he can because he can't or won't address this issue, and that will be very bad for everyone.

epidavros ThomasD , 10 Nov 2016 13:2
Its much worse than that. The modern economy places no real value on labour at all. Over the coming years about 1/3 of all jobs are considered at risk of automation, including doctors, lawyers (already happening), journalists (already happening) etc. The liberal elite in some of these jobs are like lobsters in a slowly heating pot - they are too busy congratulating themselves on how toasty warm their situation is to realise what is going on, and so all too happy to applaud the status quo.
ThomasD epidavros , 10 Nov 2016 14:1
Certainly it's a rising tide that threatens to wash away at everyone, though the higher skilled the safer you are likely to be, at least for now.

I think the challenges are ultimately going to affect everyone, the question is going to be who benefits politically. The left (which is where my political sympathies lie) is currently in a real funk and lacks meaningful answers, the right is reducing it's message to 'blame the others, they take your job, benefit at your expense etc'. No real answers.

P.S. I think your reference to the 'liberal elite' is misplaced, I'm not sure if the local GP or bloke who writes wills in the local high street really count as an elite, just ordinary people doing relatively well for themselves. The risk in this kind of language is that the tendency is to think they are some kind of other who are to blame for all this, when what's happening is actually far more wide ranging and fundamental.

epidavros ThomasD , 10 Nov 2016 14:2
Liberal elite is a slight. Its not misplaced at all. Wikipedia gets it spot on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_elite

And the liberal elite are by definition to blame for this because they are the ones whose privilege got them the managerial and leadership positions they hold yet whose ideology and political views have meant they have carried out these roles so badly.

I agree that neither side has the answers because both sides are in effect faces of the same coin, cut from the same metal, imbued with the same flaws. Corbyn no more has answers than Trump.

What Trump has done is prove that no politician can go forward ignoring the questions. Hillary firmly expected to.

Josh Graver , 10 Nov 2016 13:0
Mirrored exactly with the new labour. Billionaires and celebrities rubbing shoulders with the political elite, little wonder why we became disillusioned with them. For years now, the government neglected the working class. Industries and jobs vanished ever since replaced with ZHC jobs and low pay, keeping the broken system going on the back of a 'trickle-down effect' lie.

The Democrats had their party, Perry turned up, endorsed by lines of celebrities, we are looking back with perplexed bemused expressions. If we elect her, it would be more of the same. The free market shite started off a few decades ago, heavily entrenched by corporations and billionaires, the scandal of offshore trust funds, we are dumped and forgotten.

basalte , 10 Nov 2016 13:0
What struck me as a tourist to San Francisco in 2014 were the sheer numbers of very visible homeless on the streets, begging or just looking beaten . Yet all around them there were mass preparations for the annual Gay Pride celebration. Obviously I am not decrying Gay Pride but the sense of priorities seemed strange and I was forced to think that America is a pretty insane place. It is going the same way here, a lot easier to celebrate identity than to tackle systemic injustice. That used to be Governments` job but they have largely abandoned their historic responsibilities. Time for Labour to bring those fundamental responsibilities back --
TettyBlaBla basalte , 10 Nov 2016 22:0
All told, San Francisco spends close to three quarters of a Billion dollars every year on "homeless" of which close to $200 million is a specific department and budget item. As such, many flock to San Francisco, which is also well known for lack of enforcement of many laws. Many of the beggars are already housed at taxpayer expense and prefer to generate additional income outdoors on a schedule of their choice, which is where they also purchase and consume items never sold in stores.
lotusblue , 10 Nov 2016 12:4
The working classes have been stripped of their dignity, whole communities have become wastelands and virtual ghettos. The working class don't trust the left to sort things out for them and that is why and how a figure like Trump can come along and say 'I will save you all' and become President. Meanwhile, the socialist left sit around scratching their heads, unable to work out what has happened and squabble about the spirit of socialism and ideology that in all honesty, most working class people don't give a toss about. They just want jobs that pay a decent wage, a nice house to own, nice food on the table, two cars and nice holidays. They want to be middle class in other words.
marjane52 lotusblue , 10 Nov 2016 12:5
But democrats are not left. They right wing too. If Americans think that Democrats are left, they don´t know what left is at all. And what socialist goverment has USA had. I see Americans saying tthat Democrats are socialists, really?.Hillary left and socialist?. Trump and Hillary are both right wing, only that Trump is more extreme.
BlessedCheesemaker , 10 Nov 2016 12:4

A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo. "The economy is in good shape," he said. "Most Americans are better off than they've been in years."

The political elite of *both* parties are completely out of touch with the citizenry. The economy has been restructured over the last 20-30 years to completely de-value labor and prioritize the rich and corporations.

Having said that, I believe people just want to be heard. Voting for Trump was seen as voting against the status quo, and voting for Hillary was voting for the big establishment. Much like Brexit, I don't think voters were thinking through the long-term consequences of their decision.

petermhogan , 10 Nov 2016 12:3
Monday morning quarterbacking of the worst kind. That the Democrats have lost the white working class is obvious. But to blame the Democrats, such as Hillary, is misplaced. It is the Dems who have attempted to help the working poor and propose improvements in health care and child care and tax redistribution. It is not a lack of concern that is the issue. What Reich ignores is that voters are voting an ideology and not self-interest. They have bought into the notion that getting rid of immigrants and taking care of the rich will solve all problems.
The voters had a clear choice and they chose the demagogue peddling a non-solution. They wanted to believe that they are wonderful people and problems can be solved by a wealthy idiot who promises to turn the clock back. In Democracy sometimes it is the voters who get it wrong.
Justanotherwageslave , 10 Nov 2016 12:3
The analysis is correct more of less , the issue here is class , the Republicans and Democrats are the two wings of the same party. The party of property and money and the powerful , the vote for Trump is one of those events that happens much like Obama being elected twice after the Republicans stole the two previous elections via the supreme court and election fraud. It can happen but the system remains the same , there is no serious challenge to the supremacy of the ruling class.

The one analysis you will not hear in the media is a class one and if it is then it will be howled down lest it gain currency and the wage slaves realise they have been conned yet again , Trump is not unusual in his attitudes or views , it's just that the campaign gave them wide publicity.

In the UK the same kind of thing has happened to Labour , they lost Scotland and the 2010 election and the remain vote because ordinary working people are tired just as they are in the US of seeing the rich get every richer and their own living standards fall and nothing in the future but more pain and misery. They vote UKIP/SNP here as a cry in the wilderness and they voted for Trump for the same reason because they aren't what they've had before , the real problem will come when the right wing populists have been in power for a while and nothing has really improved.

Minorityreported , 10 Nov 2016 12:1
For the last thirty years, there has been no left or right wing governments - not economically or fiscally. Third way centrism (liberal progressiveness) embraced the primacy of unfettered market capitalism and corporate globalism, and focused exclusively on using political power as a tool to win the culture war instead. That's fine if you've done materially very well out of unfettered market capitalism and corporate globalism, and all that therefore matters to you is social justice issues. But if you were once in a secure job with a decent income and decent prospects for your children, and all of that has been ripped away from you by unfettered market capitalism and corporate globalism, and the people responsible for preventing that - or at least fixing it when it happens - are more concerned with policing the language you use to express your fears and pain, and demonstrating their compassion by trying to improve the life chances of people on other continents, then social justice issues become a source of burning resentment, not enlightenment. There has been a crushing rejection of globalism and corporate plutocracy by Western electorates. The Western progressive left will only survive if it has the courage to recognise that, and prioritises the fight for economic and fiscal policies that promote the interests and prospects of its own poor and middle class, over and above the cultural issues that have defined it for a quarter of a century. We should always remain vigilant, but the truth is that the culture war is won. It would be tragic beyond words if that victory was reversed by an explosion of resentment caused by the left's determination to guard old battle fields, while ignoring the reality that its thinkers and activists are needed to right new injustices. Trump's success doesn't represent the victory of hate over hope, it just represents the loss of hope. The left has to see that or its finished.
HHeLiBe , 10 Nov 2016 12:1
The Guardian had a very interesting article on Bill Clinton's culpability for mass incarceration of drug users, mainly Afro-Americans.

It is really questionable whether they represent liberalism.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/15/bill-clinton-crime-bill-hillary-black-lives-thomas-frank

ECullen DrMcNounVerber , 10 Nov 2016 16:4
It's not quite as simple as that. Some things like clothes are certainly still made by people (in horrific conditions for terrible pay) but more and more factories are automated with a bare skeleton staff running the show. The BBC series 'Inside the Factory' was an eye opener for me. The UK food manufacturing industry for example is heading toward almost full automation - I'd imagine the US industry is even further down the automated road. This is why the UK and US have moved to services and these areas are the vast bulk of unskilled jobs now.
Quint Red , 10 Nov 2016 12:1

The Democratic party once represented the working class

Now it sneers at them as a "basket of deplorables". The same has happened in the UK; only this morning Owen Jones was asking the left to reach out to the working class, and in the very same article labelled them as racist, misogynist homophobes.

The consequences of this disdain are entirely predictable

Bootsy_Collins Quint Red , 10 Nov 2016 12:3
Re: "basket of deplorables" -- if you care about accuracy, she didn't sneer at them as a basket of deplorables; she sneered at *half* of them as a basket of deplorables. In the same paragraph, she described the other half as having legitimate concerns that weren't being addressed.

As far as her criticisms of half of Trump's voting base -- politically, stupid as hell. But valid? Well, what do carefully-taken public opinion polls from the 15 months before the election tell us? 2/3 of Trump supporters believe Obama is a Muslim who was born in another country. 63% want to amend the Constitution to eliminate citizenship for people born in the U.S. 40% consider African-Americans lazier than white people. A third of Trump supporters believe that the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2 was a good thing. 31% believe in banning homosexuals from entering the United States. A quarter of them believe that Antonin Scalia was murdered in a conspiracy. A quarter believe that vaccines cause autism. 16% believe that whites are a superior race, and another 14% just aren't sure.

I don't see a very strong case that she was wrong.

EdmundLange , 10 Nov 2016 12:1
It's the same problem the UK had with brexit. People feel squeezed, invariably because of neoliberalist policies that benefit the wealthy, and the rising wage and wealth gap drives resentment because of it.

Suddenly, you get populists who spring up with "solutions" to such problems, but rather than being actual solutions seem to scapegoat totally unrelated factors, such as immigration, free trade, power blocs, specific groups of people who may be out of favour at the moment, rather than the actual correct causes in the first place.

PSmd Captain_America , 10 Nov 2016 13:0
Your post actually chimes with what I've been saying. There was a big moment for the left, that came in 2008 in the USA. A mixed race opponent of the Iraq War, sounding plausibly leftish leaning, praised public healthcare, accused relentlessly by the right of being a communist/socialist, of being a muslim, of not born in the USA. And he won. So only 8 years ago, there was a moment where American electorate shifted left, it'd seem. But instead Obama brought back Rubin, Summers, Geithner, same old 1990's wall street cabal. FDR he was not.

There'll be a moment within a decade for things to move left, who will head 'the left' (Clinton and Blair types?) will tell whether things actually do move in that direction.

[Nov 11, 2016] Trump voters want to get rid of the corruption in Washington. Specifically, the Clinton Foundation, with its $600,000 salary to Chelsea Clinton, and Hillarys receipt of cash from Saudi Arabia and Morocco

Notable quotes:
"... Specifically, she adduced the Clinton Foundation, with its $600,000 salary to Chelsea Clinton, and Hillary's receipt of cash from Saudi Arabia and Morocco, as well as complaining about Benghazi and something that I took to be death panels. ..."
Nov 11, 2016 | http://crookedtimber.org/2016/11/09/what-can-we-do/#comment-697744
Howard Frant 11.10.16 at 1:41 am 138

I talked to an elated Trump voter today. She had little to say about Trump, other than "Give him a chance." No, her elation was at the defeat of Hillary, and the attendant possibility that opened up to get rid of the corruption in Washington. Specifically, she adduced the Clinton Foundation, with its $600,000 salary to Chelsea Clinton, and Hillary's receipt of cash from Saudi Arabia and Morocco, as well as complaining about Benghazi and something that I took to be death panels.

... ... ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html?_r=0

[Nov 11, 2016] Carma proved to be bitch for Hillary

Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

mcdee November 10, 2016 at 5:52 pm

The savaging of the Rust Belt by NAFTA costs Clinton MI, OH, IN, WI and PA and Haitian refugees cost her FL. How fitting. Karma IS real.

ProNewerDeal November 10, 2016 at 5:54 pm

HClinton outspent (campaign + SuperPACs) Trump by 45% ($534M to $367M per the election Wiki page, given preliminary FEC reports currently available) in the election, yet lost. Perhaps the most clear sign as to what a horrible candidate HClinton was, both in policies & campaign tactics.

When was the last Pres election the top fundraiser did NOT win? How many times has this happen, say since the 1980 Reagan election or since the 1948 post-WW2 election? IIRC, Thomas Ferguson with his Investment Theory of Politics shows that in the vast majority (90%+ ?) of US elections (Fed/State/Local), the biggest fundraiser wins.

TK421 November 10, 2016 at 7:03 pm

I don't think s happened in a presidential election since WWII.

[Nov 11, 2016] The Democratic coalition of Wall Street (Silicon Valley) + Identity Politics is imploding, because it cant deliver populist goodies without losing part of its core base.

Notable quotes:
"... "Sanders and Trump inflamed their audiences with searing critiques of Capitalism's unfairness. Then what? Then Trump's response to what he has genuinely seen is, analytically speaking, word salad. Trump is sound and fury and garble. Yet - and this is key - the noise in his message increases the apparent value of what's clear about it. The ways he's right seem more powerful, somehow, in relief against the ways he's blabbing." ..."
"... "But Trump's people don't use suffering as a metric of virtue. They want fairness of a sort, but mainly they seek freedom from shame. Civil rights and feminism aren't just about the law after all, they are about manners, and emotions too: those "interest groups" get right in there and reject what feels like people's spontaneous, ingrained responses. People get shamed, or lose their jobs, for example, when they're just having a little fun making fun. Anti-PC means "I feel unfree." ..."
Nov 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

bob mcmanus 11.10.16 at 1:45 pm I thought someone above talked about Trump's rhetoric

1) Tom Ferguson at Real News Network post at Naked Capitalism says (and said in 2014) that the Democratic coalition of Wall Street (Silicon Valley) + Identity Politics is imploding, because it can't deliver populist goodies without losing part of it's core base.
Noted no for that, but for my equation of Neoliberalism (or Post-Capitalism) = Wall Street + Identity Politics generated by the dematerialization of Capital. CDO's are nothing but words on paper or bytes in the stream; and identity politics has much less to do with the Body than the culture and language. Trumpists were interpellated as White by the Democrats and became ideological. Capital is Language.

2) Consider the above an intro to

Lauren Berlant at the New Inquiry "Trump or Political Emotions" which I think is smart. Just a phrase cloud that stood out for me. All following from Berlant, except parenthetical

It is a scene where structural antagonisms - genuinely conflicting interests - are described in rhetoric that intensifies fantasy.

People would like to feel free. They would like the world to have a generous cushion for all their aggression and inclination. They would like there to be a general plane of okayness governing social relations

( Safe Space defined as the site where being nasty to those not inside is admired and approved. We all have them, we all want them, we create our communities and identities for this purpose.)

"Sanders and Trump inflamed their audiences with searing critiques of Capitalism's unfairness. Then what? Then Trump's response to what he has genuinely seen is, analytically speaking, word salad. Trump is sound and fury and garble. Yet - and this is key - the noise in his message increases the apparent value of what's clear about it. The ways he's right seem more powerful, somehow, in relief against the ways he's blabbing."

(Wonderful, and a comprehension of New Media I rarely see. Cybernetics? Does noise increase the value of signal? The grammatically correct tight argument crowd will not get this. A problem I have with CT's new policy)

"You watch him calculating, yet not seeming to care about the consequences of what he says, and you listen to his supporters enjoying the feel of his freedom. "

(If "civil speech" is socially approved signal, then noise = freedom and feeling. Every two year old and teenage guitarist understands)

"But Trump's people don't use suffering as a metric of virtue. They want fairness of a sort, but mainly they seek freedom from shame. Civil rights and feminism aren't just about the law after all, they are about manners, and emotions too: those "interest groups" get right in there and reject what feels like people's spontaneous, ingrained responses. People get shamed, or lose their jobs, for example, when they're just having a little fun making fun. Anti-PC means "I feel unfree."

The Trump Emotion Machine is delivering feeling ok, acting free. Being ok with one's internal noise, and saying it, and demanding that it matter. Internal Noise Matters. " …my emp

Noise again. Berlant worth reading, and thinking about.

[Nov 11, 2016] In one of Trump last speeches before the election he said, Tomorrow, the working class takes back this country. I was struck. No contemporary Democratic politician would (or could, credibly) say those words. Afraid of scaring off their donors or being red-baited, most Democrats wont even utter the phrase working class -preferring the capacious and increasingly meaningless middle class or, at best, working families.

Nov 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

engels 11.11.16 at 1:43 am 243

I watched one of Trump's last speeches before the election. In it, he said, "Tomorrow, the working class takes back this country." I was struck. No contemporary Democratic politician would (or could, credibly) say those words. Afraid of scaring off their donors or being red-baited, most Democrats won't even utter the phrase "working class"-preferring the capacious and increasingly meaningless "middle class" or, at best, "working families."

But Trump said it. His rural and exurban white supporters have a class consciousness of sorts. They despise elites. They feel that the system is rigged. But that antipathy is entirely entangled with their fear of a black president, of eroding racial and gender hierarchies, and their perception that multi-cultural elites are helping minorities at their expense. Trump can say "working class" because everyone in his audience hears the unsaid word "white" preceding it. It is, as it has ever been, the left's task to build a mass political movement where there are no words silently preceding the term "working class." It's not hyperbole to say that everything depends on it.

http://samadlerbell.com/trump-and-the-working-class/

[Nov 11, 2016] Low black turn-out numbers in key states, such as Michigan, NC, and Florida came as no surprise to me because I watched Leslie Wimes one week before the election explain that it was already over for Hillary in Florida

Nov 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

kidneystones 11.11.16 at 10:19 am 265 ( 265 )

I'm going to be as diplomatic as I can about the lack of gravitas clearly displayed in the comments here as I can, whilst at the same timing reviewing some of the data that many clearly missed.

One of the key reasons I remained confident that Hillary would lose irrespective of what the FBI did, or did not do, if you're interested, is that I was keenly interested in the attitudes of African-American voters from the outset of this election. As I've said throughout, I do not regard Trump as a 'Republican' in anything like the conventional sense of the word, but rather see him as a New York celebrity vulgarian with liberal inclinations. Trump from the outset had a clear plan to appeal to African-American voters, even it was far from fleshed-out. And given the 'of course, African-American voters will support the Democrat' attitude of practically every white supporter of Hillary, I was confident Trump wouldn't need much of a plan beyond saying: 'vote for me, what have you got to lose?' to do fairly well no matter how badly he was smeared.

Turns out I was right. Low black turn-out numbers in key states, such as Michigan, NC, and Florida came as no surprise to me because I watched Leslie Wimes one week before the election explain that it was 'already over' for Hillary in Florida.

Not one to mince words, Ms. Wimes, who voted early for Clinton, reports that she warned the Clinton campaign and the DNC as early as September that black voters in Florida were not, repeat not, going to be turning out in sufficient numbers to permit Hillary to carry this critical state. But nobody wanted to hear. Funny, that.

Maybe some would like to listen to Ms. Wimes now.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/01/dem_strategist_clinton_should_be_in_panic_mode_over_enthusiasm_gap_with_black_voters_nothing_she_can_do_now.html

Layman 11.11.16 at 11:13 am 266 mclaren: "No, what I was pointing out is that the two candidates who set the electorate on fire were the two populist candidates, Trump and Sanders."

You're abusing the term 'the electorate'. 'The electorate' in a primary (or a caucus!) is a different thing than 'the electorate' in a general election, and results in one don't translate into results in another. The point of the Obama Idaho 2008 example is this: Obama beat Clinton by 60 points in that caucus, but this did not mean he was going to win Idaho in a general election, and in fact he got trounced there in the general election. This is because, again, 'the electorate' is a different thing in those two contests. No one knows if Sanders would have done better in this general election, and primary results don't provide an answer to that question.

[Nov 11, 2016] Hillary extreme militarism and jingoism as well as attempt to make Russophobia a part of the platform of the Democratic Party, effectively positioning it as yet another War Party were part of her downfall

Nov 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

likbez 11.12.16 at 3:01 am 288

Sorry, but I do not see in this thread any attempt to discuss Hillary extreme militarism and jingoism as well as attempt to make Russophobia a part of the platform of the Democratic Party, effectively positioning it as yet another War Party.

In some areas of foreign policy Hillary looks like John McCain in the pantsuit. There is no military intervention that she did not like, and she was always prone to the most hawkish positions on any war related issues, trying to outdid her male counterparts in jingoism, as if overcompensating her hidden sense of inferiority.

That might be another negative factor affecting the elections results. Few people outside military industrial complex lobbyists are exited about the possibility of unleashing WWIII (for example via enforcing "no fly zone" in Syria) even with conventional weapons. And a lot of people, especially among more educated part of electorate, still remember her role in the destruction of Iraq, Libya and Syria. Especially the latter ( moonofalabama.org)

The people loyal to the Syrian government are happy with Donald Trump winning the U.S. election:

At the passport counter, a Syrian officer's face lit up when he saw an American traveler.

"Congratulations on your new president!" he exclaimed, giving an energetic thumbs up. Mr. Trump, he said, would be "good for Syria."

The first significant step of the new administration comes while Trump is not even in offices. Obama, selfishly concerned with his historic legacy, suddenly makes a 180 degree turn and starts to implement Trump polices. Lets consider the initial position:

Asked about Aleppo in an October debate with Clinton, Trump said it was a humanitarian disaster but the city had "basically" fallen. Clinton, he said, was talking in favor of rebels without knowing who they were.

The rebels fighting Assad in western Syria include nationalists fighting under the Free Syrian Army banner, some of them trained in a CIA-backed program, and jihadists such as the group formerly known as the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front.

The Obama administration, through the CIA led by Saudi asset John Brennan, fed weapons, training and billions of dollars to "moderate rebels". These then turned around (vid) and either gave the CIA gifts to al-Qaeda in Syria (aka Jabhat al Nusra) or joined it themselves.

The scheme was no secret at all and Russia as well as Syria pointed this out several times. The Russian foreign Minister Lavrov negotiated with the U.S. secretary of State Kerry who promised to separate the "moderate rebels" from al-Qaeda. But Kerry never delivered. Instead he falsely accuse Russia of committing atrocities that never happened. The CIA kept the upper hand within the Obama administration and continued its nefarious plans.

continued its nefarious plans.

likbez 11.12.16 at 3:20 am 289 Another interesting question that needs to be discussed is the "cleansing" of DNC from Clinton loyalists (the word "super delegate" smells of corruption) and thus weakening the dominant neoliberal wing of the party:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/10/liberal-democrats-lash-out-at-dnc-say-overhaul-needed-to-woo-back-working-class-voters/

"You can't tell working people you're on their side while at the same time you're raising money from Wall Street and the billionaire class," Sanders said. "The Democratic Party has to be focused on grass-roots America and not wealthy people attending cocktail parties."

Sanders acknowledged the need for the party to continue its function as a fundraising vehicle but suggested a model akin to his presidential campaign, which raised much of its money from small-dollar donors.
… … …
Leaders of several progressive groups, who had been courting Clinton as a potential ally on many of their causes, have expressed anger in the aftermath of the election, arguing that the result was a repudiation of a campaign driven by the Democratic establishment.

"The Democratic establishment had their chance with this election," said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "It's time for new leadership of the Democratic Party - younger, more diverse and more ideological - that is hungry to do things differently, like leading a movement instead of dragging people to the polls."
… … …
Neil Sroka, a spokesman for the liberal group Democracy for America, said Ellison would be "a potentially phenomenal choice" as DNC chairman, but said the organization was open to other choices, provided they weren't part of the party establishment.

"I think Tuesday night was a tremendous loss that must sit at the feet of the political establishment of a Democratic Party that preordained the primary process from the very beginning," said Sroka, whose group backed Sanders in the primaries. "The folks that enabled the loss need to step back and let the grass roots lead it."

In a sign of tension at the DNC, a staff meeting there was interrupted Thursday by a staff member who stood up and blamed Trump's win on Brazile, the Huffington Post reported.

One telling comment:
PackersFanWisconsin

The Democrats abandoned Midwestern working voters and now they want us back??? Dream on! My town voted Dem for years, they used to care about us, then they want all bonkers social justice white people are all bad and sent all our jobs overseas. We will never vote Democrat again, Democrats betrayed us and they had the nerve to think we wouldn't notice!

[Nov 11, 2016] Clintons defeat can also be seen as a partial rejection of Obama, since traditionally putting the heir in power has been a marker for a popular presidency

Nov 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

Suzanne 11.11.16 at 4:24 pm 284 Agreeing with everything said by LFC in#280. Certainly many people are still not in a good place after eight years of slow recovery; in this respect Clinton's defeat can also be seen as a partial rejection of her boss, since traditionally putting the heir in power has been a marker for a popular presidency.

Also, @246, don't forget that some of us where also whingeing about sexism.

@239: Clinton is a decent Democrat who ran to the left of Obama. She is not and never has been the superstar he was. The Democratic Party has a perennial issue with getting portions of their base out when it's an off-year election and also when the presidential candidate is okay but doesn't send a thrill up their leg.

[Nov 11, 2016] Okay….post election discussion

Nov 11, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

Dan Crawford | November 9, 2016 7:23 am

Journalism Politics US/Global Economics Via Bill Black at Naked Capitalism and Thomas Frank at the Guardian .

What we need to focus on now is the obvious question: what the hell went wrong? What species of cluelessness guided our Democratic leaders as they went about losing what they told us was the most important election of our lifetimes?

[Nov 11, 2016] Trump Is Making the Same Mistake that Clinton Did: Hes Already Ignoring Working-Class Rust Belt Whites. Progressives Need to Start Illustrating This by Highlighting His Planned Court and Cabinet Nominees. Now.

Nov 10, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
There are several excerpts from the news media since Tuesday night that help drive home the point I make in that title about Trump and the Democrats in the immediate future. But the excerpts are about Clinton, not Trump:

There are several excerpts from the news media since Tuesday night that help drive home the point I make in that title about Trump and the Democrats in the immediate future. But the excerpts are about Clinton, not Trump:

There are vast rural, small-town or post-industrial areas of the country where Barack Hussein Obama will have greatly outperformed Clinton

– twitter.com/AlecMacGillis of Pro Publica, Nov. 8, late evening

The left-behind places are making themselves heard, bigly

– twitter.com/AlecMacGillis of Pro Publica, Nov. 8, late evening

From Pennsylvania to Wisconsin, industrial towns once full of union voters who for decades offered their votes to Democratic presidential candidates, even in the party's lean years, shifted to Mr. Trump's Republican Party. One county in the Mahoning Valley of Ohio, Trumbull, went to Mr. Trump by a six-­point margin. Four years ago, Mr. Obama won there by 22 points.

Donald Trump Is Elected President in Stunning Repudiation of the Establishment , Matt Flegenheimer and Michael Barbaro, New York Times, yesterday

Clinton and her operatives went into the race predicting her biggest problems would be inevitability and her age, trying to succeed a two-term president of her own party. But the mood of the country surprised them. They recognized that Sanders and Trump had correctly defined the problem-addressing anger about a rigged economy and government-and that Clinton already never authentically could. Worse still, her continuing email saga and extended revelations about the Clinton Foundation connections made any anti-establishment strategy completely impossible.

So instead of answering the question of how Clinton represented change, they tried to change the question to temperament, what kind of change people wanted, what kind of America they wanted to live in. It wasn't enough.

Using Trump as a foil and a focus, she hit on a voice and an argument for why she should actually be president that perhaps only she could have, and that she'd struggled for so long to find on her own. That wasn't enough either.

Meanwhile, her staff harnessed all the money and support they could to out organize, first in the primaries and then in the general, grinding out victories while her opponents had movements.

None of it was enough, though all of it should have been, and likely would have been for another candidate. She couldn't escape being the wrong candidate for the political moment.

Interviews over the closing weeks of the 2016 campaign with members of Clinton's innermost circle, close advisers and other aides reveal a deep frustration with their failure to make a dent, a consuming sense that their candidate's persecution paranoia might actually be right, and a devastating belief that they might never persuade Americans to vote for her.

"There was no way to generate momentum," one top adviser said.

Any positive storyline from Clinton "was always fragile," admitted that adviser, and issues related to the emails inevitably stripped away any uptick in Clinton's favorable ratings.

Inside the Loss Clinton Saw Coming: Publicly they seemed confident, but in private her team admitted her chances were 'always fragile.' , Edward-Isaac Dovere, Politico, yesterday

To several top aides, the best day of this whole campaign was a year ago, before the Sanders headache or the Trump threat really materialized, when the House of Representatives hauled Clinton and her emails in with the single aim of destroying her candidacy over Benghazi. …

She delivered tirelessly [that day], knocking back the Republicans one by one, complete with facial expressions that have launched GIFs that have been all over Democrats' Facebook and Twitter feeds ever since. She renewed her shaken team's faith that she was the leader they wanted to follow into what was already shaping up to be a dejecting primary battle.

"It reminded people of everything they like about her," said one of her senior advisers. "It's toughness, but also a calm, adult presence of someone you can actually see being president of the United States."

Inside the Loss Clinton Saw Coming: Publicly they seemed confident, but in private her team admitted her chances were 'always fragile.'

Bill Clinton had his own problems, but never that one [his gender], and neither did Trump, who openly disparaged women throughout his campaign and still prevailed. The result was at once unfathomably difficult for the Clintons and yet not entirely surprising to Bill. He saw the signs all along the way of this campaign. He knew the people who were voting for Trump, and also the people who during the primaries were voting not for his wife but for Bernie Sanders. He saw the anger and the feelings of disconnection, but he did not know how he, or his wife's campaign, could connect to it effectively without resorting to demagoguery or false populism, something Hillary was not good at even if she was disposed to try.

The Clintons were undone by the middle-American voters they once knew so well , David Maraniss, Washington Post, today

Last year, a prominent group of supporters asked Hillary Clinton to address a prestigious St. Patrick's Day gathering at the University of Notre Dame, an invitation that previous presidential candidates had jumped on. Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr. had each addressed the group, and former President Bill Clinton was eager for his wife to attend. But Mrs. Clinton's campaign refused, explaining to the organizers that white Catholics were not the audience she needed to spend time reaching out to.

As it became clear on Tuesday night that Mrs. Clinton would lose to Donald J. Trump, supporters cast blame on everything from the news media to the F.B.I. director's dogged pursuit of Mrs. Clinton over her personal emails, and to a deep discomfort with electing a woman as president.

But as the dust settled, Democrats recognized two central problems of Mrs. Clinton's flawed candidacy: Her decades in Washington and the paid speeches she delivered to financial institutions left her unable to tap into the anti­establishment and anti­-Wall Street rage. And she ceded the white working­-class voters who backed Mr. Clinton in 1992.

Though she would never have won this demographic, her husband insisted that her campaign aides do more to try to cut into Mr. Trump's support with these voters. They declined, reasoning that she was better off targeting college­-educated suburban voters by hitting Mr. Trump on his temperament.

Instead, they targeted the emerging electorate of young, Latino and African-American voters who catapulted Mr. Obama to victory twice, expecting, mistakenly, that this coalition would support her in nearly the same numbers. They did not.

Hillary Clinton's Expectations, and Her Ultimate Campaign Missteps , Amy Chozick, New York Times, yesterday

And then there is this:

Clinton picked Mook, instead of promoting a campaign manager out of loyalty from her own inner circle. She persuaded Podesta, who had kept his distance in 2008 because he didn't get along with polarizing top strategist Mark Penn, to join as the guiding hand and the buffer for all the "friends of" who streamed in with advice and second-guessing.

But that didn't mean there weren't serious problems. Bill Clinton complained throughout that Mook was too focused on the ground game and not enough on driving a message-based campaign. Without a chief strategist in the mold of Penn or David Axelrod, the campaign was run by a committee of strong-willed aides struggling to assert themselves in the same space. Longtime consultant Mandy Grunwald and Palmieri grappled at points over message control as Palmieri worked her way into the inner circle. Mook and strategist Joel Benenson barely spoke to each other for the month of April, battling over their roles.

Inside the Loss Clinton Saw Coming: Publicly they seemed confident, but in private her team admitted her chances were 'always fragile.'

And here it is, in summation of all of the above:

Whoever takes over what's left of the Democratic Party is going to have to find a way to appeal to a broader cross section of the country. It may still be true that in the long term, Republicans can't win with their demographics, but we found out Tuesday that the long term is still pretty far away. Democrats have to win more white voters. They have to do so in a way that doesn't erode the anti-racist or anti-sexist planks of the modern party, which are non-negotiable. If only there were a model for this. [Link in original. Do click it.]

The few Democratic leaders who remain are going to say that it was just a bad note struck here or there, or the lazy Bernie voters who didn't show up, or Jim Comey, or unfair media coverage of Clinton's emails, to blame for this loss. I am already seeing Democrats blaming the Electoral College, which until a few hours ago was hailed as the great protector of Democratic virtue for decades to come, and Republicans were silly for not understanding how to crack the blue "wall." They will say, just wait for Republicans to overreach. Then we'll be fine.

Don't listen to any of this. Everything is not OK. This is not OK.

The Democratic Party Establishment Is Finished , Jim Newell, Slate, yesterday

Among all the email exchanges leaked from Podesta's hacked email account-the ones I read; I read a couple of articles quoting from each group of releases-the most revealing, in my opinion, were two sets of exchanges released about a week before the Comey outrage. Both were from early 2015, a few weeks before Clinton was scheduled, finally, to announce her candidacy in mid-April.

One shows newly hired campaign manager Robby Mook asking for John Podesta's and Huma Abedin's help in persuading Clinton to ask her husband to cancel a $225,000 speech to Morgan Stanley scheduled for a few days after her announcement and while she was scheduled to be in Iowa on her inaugural campaign trip.

The difficulty wasn't resistance from Bill; it was resistance from Hillary, at whose instance the speech had been arranged. The email exchanges indicate that Hillary could not be persuaded to all the cancellation, because it had been arranged personally by her and Tom Nides, a top aide to Clinton at the State Dept. and by then a top executive at Morgan Stanley.

Finally it was decided that Abedin would get Bill to agree to cancel the speech, and she would tell Hillary that Bill (who apparently did have qualms about the speech) was the one who decided to cancel it. Abedin reported back to Podesta and Mook that Clinton was angry about it for a couple of days but then moved on.

The other one is from about the same time and is somewhat similar. This series of exchanges was among Mook, Abedin, Podesta and Neera Tanden, and concerned Hillary's appearance in early May, shortly after her campaign announcement, at a massive Clinton Global Initiative gala in Morocco paid for by the king of Morocco, a friend of Clinton's, who all told would donate $12 million to the foundation. This, too, had been arranged by Hillary, and was not strongly supported by Bill or anyone else at the foundation.

Abedin's emails suggest (without saying outright) that she and perhaps others had tried to dissuade Clinton from arranging this, and then, once Clinton had set the date of mid-April for her campaign announcement, tried to persuade Clinton to cancel it. But by the time of this email exchange with Mook and Podesta, Abedin said it was so late and Clinton had had earlier opportunities to cancel but instead had assured her presence there, that it will break a lot of glass" (or some such phrase) for Clinton to cancel. Mook did manage to get Clinton's agreement to have Bill attend instead of her.

These instances illustrate what was a constant throughout: Mook and two or three others, including Podesta, having to put on a full court press to stop Clinton from acting as though she weren't a candidate for president. Or a candidate for anything. Both Podesta and Tanden complained about Clinton's "instincts," a euphemism for "I'm completely unaware of the overarching mood of the public in this election cycle. Or, I don't give a damn about the overarching mood of the public in this election cycle. And I certainly don't give a damn about down-ballot Dems. Or about Dems. Or about anything other than what I want to do."

Clinton arranged to clear the Democratic field of anyone thought in early 2015 to have chance against her in the primaries. She just wasn't willing to swear off anything else she wanted, besides the presidency, in order to reduce the chance that she would lose the general election.

This wasn't Lent, after all. And anyway, Clinton isn't Catholic.

Had Mook not killed that $225,000 speech to Morgan Stanley by Bill Clinton in April 2015, Bernie Sanders-whom Clinton could not clear the field of until June 6, 2016-would have won the nomination and would be president-elect now, accompanied by a newly elected Senate, and maybe House, Democratic majority. That fee would have been identified in the Clintons' tax returns, filed presumably in last April and (presumably) released shortly afterward.

In early 2015, when Hillary was arranging for Bill to give that speech-undoubtedly arrangements made shortly after Elizabeth Warren removed any doubt that she would run-Clinton looked to be free of any challenge from the left. So it didn't bother her one whit that this would be revealed during the primary season.

Nor, since she expected her general election opponent to be Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, did it concern her that this would be known during the general election campaign. It wasn't as if Bush wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street. Or Rubio owned by other highly unpretty financial interests.

And even if it did, well, it was worth the risk. After all, after the general election, the gravy train for both her and her husband would stop. And it wasn't blue collar workers in the Rust Belt who were her target votes, so it wasn't all that big a risk anyway.

So we were saddled with a Democratic presidential nominee whose decades in Washington and the paid speeches she delivered to financial institutions left her unable to tap into the anti­establishment and anti­-Wall Street rage. Someone who had to cede the white working­-class voters who backed Barack Obama in 2008 and again in 2012, because the only way someone who'd taken so very much money from Wall Street as personal income for doing so very little-someone who was selling her anticipated presidency to Wall Street-had no avenue with which to connect effectively with working class Rust Belters without resorting to demagoguery or false populism, something she was not good at even if she was disposed to try.

The answer then was to highlight her high status and the importance she placed on connections with celebrities and the pillars of the establishment in various venues, by campaigning hardly at all, by spending August secluded in the Hamptons, by parading with entertainment celebrities at the few rallies she had.

And by incessantly rolling out ever more names of the most elite establishment people to endorse her or at least make clear that they, too, recognized that her opponent is unfit to hold the office of the presidency. Because even though the targeted audience has access to the same information on that the elite establishment did, and were reminded by Clinton and her ad campaign of these lowlights so often that they lost their resonance, there might be a few people whose decision would turn on the opinion of these elites.

They just weren't the people the blue collar Rust Belters who, it seemed clear all along would play an outsize role in the outcome of the election. As they had in 2008 and 2012.

Nor, apparently, did she have any avenue to point out whom Trump's financial campaign backers actually were, who was writing his budget and regulatory proposals, who was selecting his court and agency-head nominees, his SEC, FTC and NLRB member nominees, and why. They're not people with labor union backing, nor do they have the interests of blue collar folks at heart. Their interests are diametrically opposite those of blue collar workers. And Trump wasted not so much as a day in handing over to them the entire panoply of powers of the federal government.

But having sold her avenue for informing people of this, to Wall Street and any other huge-money interest waiving a mega-check around in exchange for a 45-minute-long speech by or question-and-answer session with, the likely president she was limited to reminding voters of what they themselves saw, and assuring them that elites viewed him just as they did. Which may be why her campaign manager, Mook, wasn't as focused on messaging as Bill Clinton wished. Normally, a candidate has one. This candidate had foreclosed to herself the message she needed to have, and had nothing much filling in for it. That wasn't Mook's fault.

Trump wasn't going to co-opt Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell were going to co-opt Trump. All the indications were that that is what would happen. And that, Trump has made unabashedly clear now, is what will happen. Our nominee couldn't-or at least wouldn't campaign on this anything resembling consistency.

The way to contain this is for high-profile Democrats to make clear to the public what is happening. And to threaten massive campaigns on this in none other than the Rust Belt, in the 2018 election cycle. And to start very, very soon. People who supported Obama in 2008 and 2012 aren't Donald Trump's base. Most of them would have flocked to Sanders or to Elizabeth Warren in this election.

The latter should be shoved in anyone's face who starts blathering about sexism hurting Clinton among the hoi polloi . The former should answer the question about whether racism was part of the appeal to the voters who put Trump over the top, by one per cent, in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and came within barely more than a point of doing son in New Hampshire and, of all states, Minnesota. All states went comfortably for Obama, and all except Pennsylvania went for Sanders in the primary, as did Indiana. And had Warren instead of Sanders been Clinton's primary challenger, she like Sanders would have voted for her.

People who claim otherwise on either point don't know the region. It is not the South and it is not the Southwest. Trump's racism and xenophobia did not win those states for Trump. Nor did Clinton's gender.

The first step is to appoint a strong Sanders backer in charge of the DNC. Jeff Weaver, maybe. Or Jim Dean. No war for the soul of the party. That ship sailed on Tuesday.

Recognize that.

And join me in wishing Hillary and Bill Clinton a happy jaunt in their retirement as they luxuriate in the massive wealth that, while possibly still not quite enough to sate them, we are about to pay very dearly for.

Links to be added later today.

[Nov 11, 2016] It was the Democrats embrace of neoliberalism that won it for Trump by Naomi Klein

Nov 11, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
People have lost their sense of security, status and even identity. This result is the scream of an America desperate for radical change

They will blame James Comey and the FBI. They will blame voter suppression and racism. They will blame Bernie or bust and misogyny. They will blame third parties and independent candidates. They will blame the corporate media for giving him the platform, social media for being a bullhorn, and WikiLeaks for airing the laundry.

But this leaves out the force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we now find ourselves wide awake: neoliberalism. That worldview – fully embodied by Hillary Clinton and her machine – is no match for Trump-style extremism. The decision to run one against the other is what sealed our fate. If we learn nothing else, can we please learn from that mistake?

Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present.

At the same time, they have witnessed the rise of the Davos class, a hyper-connected network of banking and tech billionaires, elected leaders who are awfully cosy with those interests, and Hollywood celebrities who make the whole thing seem unbearably glamorous. Success is a party to which they were not invited, and they know in their hearts that this rising wealth and power is somehow directly connected to their growing debts and powerlessness.

For the people who saw security and status as their birthright – and that means white men most of all – these losses are unbearable.

Donald Trump speaks directly to that pain. The Brexit campaign spoke to that pain. So do all of the rising far-right parties in Europe. They answer it with nostalgic nationalism and anger at remote economic bureaucracies – whether Washington, the North American free trade agreement the World Trade Organisation or the EU. And of course, they answer it by bashing immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading women. Elite neoliberalism has nothing to offer that pain, because neoliberalism unleashed the Davos class. People such as Hillary and Bill Clinton are the toast of the Davos party. In truth, they threw the party.

Trump's message was: "All is hell." Clinton answered: "All is well." But it's not well – far from it.

Neo-fascist responses to rampant insecurity and inequality are not going to go away. But what we know from the 1930s is that what it takes to do battle with fascism is a real left. A good chunk of Trump's support could be peeled away if there were a genuine redistributive agenda on the table. An agenda to take on the billionaire class with more than rhetoric, and use the money for a green new deal. Such a plan could create a tidal wave of well-paying unionised jobs, bring badly needed resources and opportunities to communities of colour, and insist that polluters should pay for workers to be retrained and fully included in this future.

It could fashion policies that fight institutionalised racism, economic inequality and climate change at the same time. It could take on bad trade deals and police violence, and honour indigenous people as the original protectors of the land, water and air.

People have a right to be angry, and a powerful, intersectional left agenda can direct that anger where it belongs, while fighting for holistic solutions that will bring a frayed society together.

Such a coalition is possible. In Canada, we have begun to cobble it together under the banner of a people's agenda called The Leap Manifesto, endorsed by more than 220 organisations from Greenpeace Canada to Black Lives Matter Toronto, and some of our largest trade unions.

Bernie Sanders' amazing campaign went a long way towards building this sort of coalition, and demonstrated that the appetite for democratic socialism is out there. But early on, there was a failure in the campaign to connect with older black and Latino voters who are the demographic most abused by our current economic model. That failure prevented the campaign from reaching its full potential. Those mistakes can be corrected and a bold, transformative coalition is there to be built on.

That is the task ahead. The Democratic party needs to be either decisively wrested from pro-corporate neoliberals, or it needs to be abandoned. From Elizabeth Warren to Nina Turner, to the Occupy alumni who took the Bernie campaign supernova, there is a stronger field of coalition-inspiring progressive leaders out there than at any point in my lifetime. We are "leaderful", as many in the Movement for Black Lives say.

So let's get out of shock as fast as we can and build the kind of radical movement that has a genuine answer to the hate and fear represented by the Trumps of this world. Let's set aside whatever is keeping us apart and start right now.

xpxpxp , 11 Nov 2016 14:5>

Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously.

You forgot to mention identity politics. Neoliberalism and identity politics go hand in hand. I don't think it's a surprise that after the 50's and the Second Red Scare, HUAC, McCarthyism and the John Birch Society the socialist, communist and other left-wingers were gone from the US and identity politics became ascendant.

We don't see SJW being dragged in front of Congress and them losing their jobs, nor do we see the National Guard coming in to break up Slut Walks. Instead, we see them in the highest positions of power and with governments and corporations embracing their ideas. The reason is simple; identity politics and SJWs are no threat to people in power.

Keep people divided into ever smaller identities and they can't fight back. Keep demonizing people for objecting, calling them sexist and racist for speaking up, and you muzzle the opposition. If someone wants to take on neoliberalism then they need to abandon identity politics.


ngonyama , 11 Nov 2016 12:5>
Glass-Steagal was repealed, Wall St. stole itself rich, people wanted change (Yes we can!). But not a single bankster megathief was even investigated and in the rust belt and elsewhere millions suffered. They were told that they needed to shut up because they were evil privileged white males who needed to be HRC's blue wall because she owned them. Refusal to comply meant they were racist misogynists.

So now they are racist misogynists and proud of it.

And why all this? Because Hillary's ego is so large that it bumps into the edges of the universe. She calls that her class ceiling.

Thanks Hillary. You brought us Trump. You and that bunch of privileged DNC-ers that are in bed with Wall Street.

Mark Linley , 11 Nov 2016 12:3>
The left's reflections are getting closer, but we're still not quite there it seems.

... ... ...

The visible, real-life consequences of globalisation and modern capitalism are those targets picked out (hardly by coincidence) by Trump and Farage. The most obvious sign of globalisation is not a billionaire's yacht, but that when you call to sort out being overcharged or crappy service, you finally get through to an outsourced offshored call centre. And when the right attacks them and the left inevitably and correctly defends them - that immigrants do contribute to the economy, but are still disadvantaged economically, that women are paid less for the same work, that muslims face discrimination every day - we're infact subliminally reinforcing Trump/Farage's blunter message: that the left's priority constituents are immigrants, people of colour, muslims and women.

And then we criticise a 50 year old white unemployed or zero-hour-contract man for being "selfish" and "stupid" when he votes for the only candidate who *appears* to put him first, when we seem to ask him to put everyone else first.

The left is losing the argument because our answers to modern problems are removed from everyday experience. Correct, but complex. Trump and Farage understand KISS. If we think the solution is to just keep saying the same thing louder, like an English tourist abroad, we'll carry on losing.

Quistal , 11 Nov 2016 11:5>
"It was the Democrats' embrace of neoliberalism that won it for Trump"

Yes indeed, I have seen this coming since the mid nineties, when the -fairly high tech- Company, where I worked for at the time, became a victim of globalization, 120 people got fired, a.o. me.

Gladly I was able to still find a job at 50, a hell of a lot of others did not.

Besides, I have been active in International business since the early 1960's until recently, so I know what I am talking about.

We are spoiling 200 years of social economic improvement to the short term interests of capital at supersonic speed. (modern communication and transport, the free movement of capital)

Both the republicans and the democrats made that happen (as their followers did in Europe)

The Globalizing, Outsourcing, Monetary, Laissez-Faire, Supply side economy.

That is the one thing that I was in agreement with, with Trump, for the rest, by the way he is talking now, it looks very much as if we will be having to deal with a liar. (and a cheat?)

After all he did say a lot of different things while selling himself in the campaign from the image that he seems to depict now..

The worst things are in my opinion his wish to destroy the livelyhood of lots of people world wide by not accepting the human influences on the climate, this besides lots of others things is in my opinion extremely selfish, especially seen the fact that a green economy can be -at least- as profitable (in work and money) as the fossil one was.

And of course the repeal of Obamacare, one of the few successes that Obama could materialize in his mainly obstructed time in office.

wariquari MarkAWilliams , 11 Nov 2016 10:5>

What is 'Neoliberalism'
Neoliberalism is a policy model of social studies and economics that transfers control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sector. It takes from the basic principles of neoclassical economics, suggesting that governments must limit subsidies, make reforms to tax law in order to expand the tax base, reduce deficit spending, limit protectionism, and open markets up to trade. It also seeks to abolish fixed exchange rates, back deregulation, permit private property, and privatize businesses run by the state.

Liberalism, in economics, refers to a freeing of the economy by eliminating regulations and barriers that restrict what actors can do. Neoliberal policies aim for a laissez-faire approach to economic development.

Investopedia

Also: Steve Keen

"It's a belief that the human social system works best if there's almost no government, and almost everything is done through markets... and also it says there should be no trade unions, no tariffs, remove all the controls and the economy will work better.

Now that's only true of a system if it is inherently stabilizing, it's like saying 'this ship will go a lot faster if you take off all the stuff that's there to stabilize it.' Yeah it will but it'll go upside down at some point and sink."

Jim987 , 11 Nov 2016 08:4>
From the British perspective this is true here as well. After a number of high powered meetings over a fifteen year period, the Labour Party embraced NeoLiberalism and paid when it failed. Those meetings where pretty big and millions turned up. Those meetings took place in 19779, 983, 1987 and the final one was in 1992. The general public announced that no one would elect anyone who did not support wholesale privatisation, free markets at every turn with a special emphasis on labour market laws. Any devience, under any circumstances from Tory ideology was punished at the ballot box. Labour was forced to drop clause four as a sop to get elected.

And when this neo liberal wet dream started to crumble in the form of crippling PFI schemes, light touch banking, zero hour agency work and possibly bigger than the light touch banking collapse, the free movement of Labour for the biggest companies in the UK. Who did the public blame for these Tory driven Liberalism? The Tories? Themselves for forcing the Labour Party to adopt these flawed policies? The Newspapers who condemned anything other than free market ideology? Nope, the blamed the very people who had been campaigning against Tory policies all along. The people who got blamed for the banking collapse was not the people who DEMANDEDbanks be deregulated, not the Party who carried out the deregulation, but the poor saps in power when it blew up.

Who gets blamed for the importing of labour? The political ideology that people had supported for thirty years? Nope, again the Party that bent over backwards to accommodate the Tesco, ASDA and sports direct et al.

And guess what? After punishing anything to the Left of Reagan or questioning free trade at the ballot box, and dismissing it as 'Socailism' it turns out they voted for a protectionist who is opposed to free trade and multi Nationals. The Party who are opposed to free trade, multinationals and 'What is good for GM is good for America'? The protector of jobs and regulated labour markets? Why the GOP of course. The Party whose DNA has all this time been at the heart of protecting jobs who shun free trade agreements and are at the very heart of the socialist movement are the Republican movement. And nobody even said anything. We all just moved into a parallel universe where the Republican movement have been campaigning against free trade for two hundred years.

Jeff Miller , 11 Nov 2016 08:0>
"The indisputable fact is that prevailing institutions of authority in the West, for decades, have relentlessly and with complete indifference stomped on the economic welfare and social security of hundreds of millions of people. While elite circles gorged themselves on globalism, free trade, Wall Street casino gambling, and endless wars (wars that enriched the perpetrators and sent the poorest and most marginalized to bear all their burdens), they completely ignored the victims of their gluttony, except when those victims piped up a bit too much - when they caused a ruckus - and were then scornfully condemned as troglodytes who were the deserved losers in the glorious, global game of meritocracy."

- Glenn Greenwald

Lily Ng , 11 Nov 2016 07:1>
"Neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade..." Are you sure those are neoliberal policies? They sound exactly like conservative Republican mainstays to me. Didn't Trump run on these very things?
phil100a Lily Ng , 11 Nov 2016 07:4>
Exactly, they are virtually the same, with the difference being that the GOP adds "nostalgic nationalism and anger at remote economic bureaucracies – whether Washington, the North American free trade agreement the World Trade Organisation or the EU. And of course, they answer it by bashing immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading women".

In difficult times, people want relief as fast as possible and they want to blame *anyone* for their plight. This is what a demagogue offers; it's why Trump is in the White House. Prepare yourselves, and never give in to Trump's cynicism.

epidavros Lily Ng , 11 Nov 2016 07:5>
They sound like EU policy to me. And that is because they are EU policy, all backed by EU directives.
reidlou , 11 Nov 2016 07:0>
Warren sold Sanders out. Sanders sold his supporters out for Debbie Wasserman Shultz, who incidentally was reelected. Hillary was forced on the ticket by the oligarchy. Change will not come from Trudeau, or Obama, or Trump, or Sanders or Warren. These people have betrayed what they said. Where do we go from here? Which is the way that's clear? Dunno, but all of the above have shown to be frauds. Whose next?
bernique , 11 Nov 2016 06:2>
In this election, Donald Trump was the lesser evil, so I am glad that he won. There won't be nu clear war on Iran or wherever, and better relations with Russia, China, and hopefully, the rest of the world.

As for domestic politics, we'll take care of those issues ourselves, forcefully protesting against, if necessary. It'll be few and far between, I project.

bernique , 11 Nov 2016 06:2>
In this election, Donald Trump was the lesser evil, so I am glad that he won. There won't be nu clear war on Iran or wherever, and better relations with Russia, China, and hopefully, the rest of the world.

As for domestic politics, we'll take care of those issues ourselves, forcefully protesting against, if necessary. It'll be few and far between, I project.

AnneGlenEden , 11 Nov 2016 05:1>
"...a green new deal. Such a plan could create a tidal wave of well-paying unionised jobs, bring badly needed resources and opportunities to communities ... and insist that polluters should pay for workers to be retrained and fully included in this future."

That is, at least, the only positive suggestion that's been made. I think it's a good one the needs to be developed. I'm far from an economist but perhaps we need also to start thinking about blended economic systems rather than just one type as well.

What I don't agree with is the continuation of identity politics. It's suffering badly from overuse and also from its juxtaposition with the application of economic pain to those who are also consistently abused with every vile epithet known to man. In brief, people have been operant conditioned to either worship at its feet or loathe it with most or all of their being. It's past its use-by date and needs to grow into the real expression of its stated aims.

As an example, Merkel is quoted as saying, ""Germany and America are connected by values of democracy, freedom, and respect for the law and the dignity of man, independent of origin, skin colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or political views."

The words are just positive framing. We all know now that 'democracy' (defined by the UN as extreme terrorism to be fought and eliminated when iit involves public voting) refers to voting by an elite group. For the rest of it, Junckers right hand man was quoted this week as saying it's to be achieved by 'elimination of all national, cultural, ethnic, and faith identity'.

There is a unbridgable gulf between those two concepts, and the first one is simply dishonest. But journalists never explain that.

The way forward is to treat all people with dignity and respect, as long as they're not harassing or killing each other, and stop trying to brainwash them. If someone is a racist and content to keep that to themselves, leave them alone. Likewise with all the other -isms and -obias. The law and institutions need to treat people equally indeed. No negative and no positive discrimination. 'Indigenous peoples' could have a special role- but not to dispossess, sponge off, or lord it over others. Religious holidays need to be observed for all religions, not for none. I can hear the business howls now but the reality is we need to be decreasing industrial pollution and having less 'stuff', not increasing it.

I wanted Trump to win but if I saw someone(including him) harassing someone else racially, homophobically, or any other -ism or -obia, I would defend the victim to the death as long as they were in my presence. That includes male victims of domestic violence. Everything has its day and identity politics is in that category.

We need a new way and it needs to honour the reality described in the fraudelent rhetoric of the recent past globalist, multiculturalsit, and liberalist concepts. We need a completely new economic system or blend of the old which serves the needs of all the people, al the time. And we need democratic systems which empower constant feedback from those people on how far its succeeding.

AhBrightWings , 11 Nov 2016 02:4>

Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present.

Agree 100% with this, but am at an utter loss to grasp why this is chalked up to the hip new lingo of "neoliberalism." Bullshit. It's as pure a distillation of conservatism as has ever been penned.

This obsession with renaming things for the sake of confusion serves no one well. This is prime Trickle Down and the Conservative Manifesto through and through.

Woodenarrow123 AhBrightWings , 11 Nov 2016 03:1>
I am afraid the author is correct in describing the problem as Neo Liberalism - It is not Conservatism or Capitalism.

This is Neo Liberalism - You are the CEO of a plant employs 5,000 people that makes widgets. You don't know how to make a better widget but you want to increase profits so you decide to close down your plant and outsource 4,000 of the jobs to a low wage economy where workers don't have the same rights (remember China doesn't have democracy or freedom of speech).

Now your making widgets cheaper but you still aren't making enough money so you offshore the tax liability to a tax haven - There goes schools, roads, hospitals.

Now your making so much more money for the company what do you do? You give yourself a pay rise. Not any old pay rise. You pay yourself five or ten times as much.

And then you buy shares because the share price goes way up.

And then you donate to politicians and they tell the great unwashed (that's you and me) this wheeze is FREE TRADE, or conservatism or capitalism or trickle down.

It isn't its Neo Liberalism and both left and right in most of Europe and the USA has embraced it to the detriment of its citizens.

HolyInsurgent , 11 Nov 2016 02:4>

Naomi Klein: The Democratic party needs to be either decisively wrested from pro-corporate neoliberals, or it needs to be abandoned.

It starts by having the DNC follow its own rules. The superdelegates were dutifully counted as Hillary supporters from Day One of the primaries. Something like 507 to begin with! When Sanders won successive states, more and more superdelegates mysteriously appeared supporting Hillary. People understand what a rigged game means. This was Thumb-On-The-Scale tactics and people saw through it. The Party chose Hillary and that was that. That's not democracy. The Democratic Party needs a complete transformation from root to branch.

But yes, the bigger picture must be a focus on institutional reform. Not just for America but everywhere.

Excellent article.

aulusmagnus , 10 Nov 2016 23:3>
I agree with Klein's take on neoliberalism, its Panglossian economic model, as a cause of much angst in the world, but the remedy is simple in the US -- regulation. Break up the big banks, end monopolies based on third-party payments, licensing and credentialing (health care, the universities, etc.), and levy higher taxes on the wealthy. I truly believe that race relations among Americans have never been better, and that most "problems" have largely been manufactured. What America is crying out for is good, pragmatic government.
Debra Smith , 10 Nov 2016 22:5>
Naomi is spot on. She is speaking a truth that too many have no wish to hear because it tampers with their idealize status quo. They have theirs and to hell with everyone else. That time has past and the groaning of the privileged- people who do not CARE (which does not include many people with means- that is stupid to relegate the carers to hell with the criminals) is so LOUD right now. They are spinning bank reports and market doom and gloom.

It has been said that HALF of the USA is a 'basket of deplorables' - WOW that is reductionist logic and it explains nothing.

I am not American and yet, what I know is that PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE- human beings- so please- what a bullshit argument- that you have tried all too often with Brexit (its not working for you so who is the insane one? Wasn't it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result?

RESEARCH says that people are usually very informed about the issues of their own lives. All they have left is their lives and the lives of their children. A LITTLE respect would be nice.

Many creatures can only see things that are moving. Maybe some people are like that once they trust. WE ALL trusted government, police, agencies because we wanted to believe in a common good. That trust was ABUSED. The last grasping woke people up. They saw that grab very clearly.
And this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWNqMV4Bgs (I was married to a cop at that time and the interviewee is one of the most staid journalists in Canada with a program on public television.
Someone has to OWN those facts before casting aspersions on mankind. The voters are not stupid ESPECIALLY when it comes to SURVIVAL and it is brink time.

You expect them to DIE QUIETLY? Dream on in your precious nightmare.

colddebtmountain , 10 Nov 2016 22:0>

People have a right to be angry

And people have been saying that for decades but no one has been listening, least of all the trendy neoliberals who thought they had found the final economic solution.

You cannot strip away a person's identity, life and loves, without them losing their dignity -totally. You must prepare and assist every one of them for change over realistic time scales dealing with every consequence as it happened. None of that was done because all of what has happened is the product of opportunism - cash today think about it tomorrow.

These trendy neoliberals have cheated us all, not once, not twice, but all the time, and they show no guild, no guilt at all. They will continue to pay the price until they listen to us and change.

Debra Smith , 10 Nov 2016 22:5>
Naomi is spot on. She is speaking a truth that too many have no wish to hear because it tampers with their idealize status quo. They have theirs and to hell with everyone else. That time has past and the groaning of the privileged- people who do not CARE (which does not include many people with means- that is stupid to relegate the carers to hell with the criminals) is so LOUD right now. They are spinning bank reports and market doom and gloom.

It has been said that HALF of the USA is a 'basket of deplorables' - WOW that is reductionist logic and it explains nothing.

I am not American and yet, what I know is that PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE- human beings- so please- what a bullshit argument- that you have tried all too often with Brexit (its not working for you so who is the insane one? Wasn't it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result?

RESEARCH says that people are usually very informed about the issues of their own lives. All they have left is their lives and the lives of their children. A LITTLE respect would be nice.

Many creatures can only see things that are moving. Maybe some people are like that once they trust. WE ALL trusted government, police, agencies because we wanted to believe in a common good. That trust was ABUSED. The last grasping woke people up. They saw that grab very clearly.
And this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWNqMV4Bgs (I was married to a cop at that time and the interviewee is one of the most staid journalists in Canada with a program on public television.
Someone has to OWN those facts before casting aspersions on mankind. The voters are not stupid ESPECIALLY when it comes to SURVIVAL and it is brink time.

You expect them to DIE QUIETLY? Dream on in your precious nightmare.

Azul66 , 10 Nov 2016 21:0>
Perfect. Thank you, Naomi, for the best column on the 2016 election. Democrats are proving to be sore losers but they can come around if they all or most read your take on the outcome of our presidential election. Neoliberal has been our downfall but still most Americans are not aware of even the word. Times to get explanation of the ideology and the negative effect on the world. It has been so cruel and so horrible since Jimmy Carter who started this whole thing but the Clintons were the cruelest of all. I am so glad Hillary did not win. I could not vote for Trump so voted for Jill Stein.
ViewFromTheUSA , 10 Nov 2016 19:5>
It was also their (and the left in general's) embrace of identity politics. Welcoming the whiny 'social justice warrior' attitude that puts everyone into little groups and puts those groups into little lanes, and no one can ever leave their group or lane. Calling people racist or bigoted, not for actual racism or bigotry, but for merely expressing a different opinion. White privilege- trying to shut down the opinions of white people. Cultural appropriation- witch-hunting people for wearing a certain hairstyle or costume. Safe spaces- creating echo chambers and segregating people from even hearing opposing opinions or ideas. Microagressions- claiming offense over perceived slights and insults in harmless remarks. not to mention trying to police, ban, and control speech.

I'm a liberal, I lean left, my ideals and values and principles and what I stand for are more in line with left-wing ideology, but if they want to be taken seriously and have a chance at winning again, the left needs to let identity politics die.

RobMorganAU Hubert Hammack , 10 Nov 2016 20:5>
Yeah, you need to slow down a bit there, Hubert.

Neoliberalism.

An ideology that believes that if you give rich people absolutely unfettered ability to make even more money, they'll magically look after everyone else.

American_Sniper , 10 Nov 2016 19:4>
Davosland where Bill Clinton gets to hang out with Rupert Murdoch.
Dominique2 , 10 Nov 2016 19:3>
Not only the Democrats.

The center left's shameful, braindead acceptance of Thatcher-Reaga, Dumbonomics has been a worldwide plague.

The EU, supposedly a bulwark of common sense, is still officially austerian and neoliberal, even though some hard thinking is going on.

Anger-fuelled adoption of far right policies and economics is a further lurch in the same direction: deregulation, unchecked corporate power, quashing of workers' rights.

A bad time for the disenfranchised all over the world, now being used as electoral cannon fodder by their owners.

AnnHodson , 10 Nov 2016 19:1>
As an English woman who lived in America for some years, it was perfectly clear to me that voters there have a choice between cuddly-right and hard-right.

There is no "left" in America, and there is none in the UK either in any meaningful, workable sense. All we have is the soft-right and an unreconstructed 70s Trot. Brilliant.

Nice as it might seem, " The Leap Manifesto, endorsed by more than 220 organisations from Greenpeace Canada to Black Lives Matter Toronto, and some of our largest trade unions" sounds like yet another loose coalition of pressure groups with no cohesive platform or plan. Same old, same old.

ilwudumass , 10 Nov 2016 18:4>
Absolutely spot on. I remember, as a rare liberal working at a GOP-run Enron, how disheartened I was watching Bill Clinton pander to the GOP elites and shove NAFTA through a GOP-run Congress while the majority of Democrats voted against it. He also sought, for political expediency, many neoliberal solutions that doomed the working class to subsistence. The GOP crowed that Reagan won the Cold War when actually it was the shift of wealth from the West to the 3rd world as a bribe that ultimately brought us to the globalized mess we find ourselves in. This was during Clinton's presidency. Unfortunately Obama did a u-turn and continued GW's disastrous tenure in what really matters: wars, globalization, abandonment of the working class. Why didn't the Democratic elite not remind voters that the GOP was behind globalization and the shift of wealth from the middle class to overseas?
JohnBinxBolling , 10 Nov 2016 18:3>
A Message from the Rust Belt: It's the NAFTA, Stupid

The road to President Trump began with the enactment of NAFTA, a heinous betrayal by the Democratic Party of its blue collar base and of it's most basic principles, taking it from the party of the New Deal to the party of the Brave New Global World Order Deal, screwing it's most loyal constituents in favor of Wall Street.

The next step on the road to the Trump House was the Clinton's reckless deregulation, culminating in the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, yet again in the name of a bigger, more profitable, more powerful Wall Street at the peril of Main Street.

But perhaps the most decisive factor in sending blue collar rust belt America into the arms of an orange-haired demon is what happened when they put their faith, heart and souls into electing Barack Obama, a man who ran as a progressive, promising hope and change, but who then immediately governed as a neo-lib.

I know what some of you are saying right now, that given the fierce opposition he was up against, he accomplished what he could; but that's a bunch of bull, as we say in the Midwest.

No one forced him to appoint, immediately upon taking office, Wall Street insiders to his cabinet and make Larry Summers (the architect of deregulation, neo-lib style) his chief economic adviser.

No one forced him to appoint corporate toady, Common Core loving, privatization loving (through charter schools) Arne "teach to the test" Duncan to Secretary of Education.

No one forced him to immediately abandon, in the fight for Obamacare, the public option.

No one forced him to ultimately come up with a health care plan, that at its base, is of by and big Pharma and the insurance industry, one that lowers costs not by controlling them but by rationing care (that's what those huge deductibles and co-pays are for and they're working--working Americans, even while insured, don't dare visit the doctor, except when at death's door, for fear the doctor will order tests they can't afford to pay.)

Most now use their insurance as catastrophic policies to be used only in emergencies. This is why Obamacare is so hated in America--not because it's socialist, but because it isn't. (Remember, they voted for hope and change)

No Republican cabal forced Obama to embrace TPP, NAFTA on steroids and so univerally hated here in the heartland.

Ah, but you say, Hillary has come out against it. But only after praising it and only in cagey language, about not approving it in its present form (and she has yet to comment on the viscerally hated NAFTA forever linked to the Clintons and the Democrats).

Much is made (and rightly so) of Trump's threats to constitutionality and the rule of law. Yet Democrats seem blissfully unaware of their own full-frontal assaults on the Constitution.

For elected officials who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, supporting NAFTA and TPP, which sign over US sovereignty to unelected, unaccountable (corporate controlled) international tribunals, giving them the power to, in essence, overturn any US, state or federal, is nothing less than an act of treason. You might as well just take the Constitution, rip it to shreds, and throw it up in the air like confetti.

(It's so easy to see Trump's threats to the Constitution, so difficult for Democratic elites to see their own obliteration of it.)

Why is the hatred of NAFTA, of TPP (and of the Clintons) so visceral in rust-belt America?

I know people who watched the plants they worked in dismantled piece by piece and shipped off to Mexico. I've spoken to people who've had the humiliating experience of going to Mexico to train their replacements. I've talked to union members who've reported that employers, at the bargaining table, have demanded huge cuts in pay and benefits, saying that unless they concede, they're moving to Mexico.

It's personal.

It's not like blue collar, rust-belt America hasn't given the Democrats chance after chance. They've been voting Democratic since 1992.

They gave Obama two chances, believing his promises of hope and change, only to witness his championing of TPP.

Time and again, the Clintonian Democrats have deceived and betrayed their blue collar, rust-belt base. Time and again rust-belt blue collar America has supported them, nonetheless, hoping, like Charlie Brown, that this time they wouldn't have the football pulled away.

But the accumulating decay, the devastation of the great recession (and the feeble, corporate oriented Democratic response) have left them with no hope left. The vote for Donald is a howl of rage and desperation. He was the only way left for them to vent their rage (after the Democratic elites dispensed with Bernie Sanders).

The next four years are going to be hell. But for heartland rust-belt America, the last thirty-five years have been hell (and they have nothing left to lose).

Welcome to their world.

Tzctguar JohnBinxBolling , 10 Nov 2016 21:5>
Some USians , trumpeters mostly, are very funny.

On the one hand you don't want immigrants in your mist because they undercut local workers.

And in the other hand you don't want those same people to get good jobs in their own country, because they undercut your own workers.

You think you have a God given right to jobs for which you aren't productive enough.

In other words you don't want to compete.

You want to sell us your stuff allright ( NAFTA slaughtered the Mexican farming sector, specially subsistence farming) but you would rather don't buy Mexican stuff, unless it is raw materials so you can add value and sell it back to us.

NAFTA has made countless articles cheaper to all of you, and has slowed down illegal immigration which has been in the decline for a while.

But you want it all, no matter how unrealistic.

Having you cake and eat it. While riding an unicorn please.

Emma Rosenthal , 10 Nov 2016 18:1>
Why Klein doesn't mention Jews in her list of targets of this right wing hate and reaction is surprising. In defining the reason neo-liberalism failed so many people, she states "At the same time, they have witnessed the rise of the Davos class, a hyper-connected network of banking and tech billionaires, elected leaders who are awfully cosy with those interests, and Hollywood celebrities who make the whole thing seem unbearably glamorous. Success is a party to which they were not invited, and they know in their hearts that this rising wealth and power is somehow directly connected to their growing debts and powerlessness." And this paragraph directly applies to how the Trumpettes, the KKK, who endorsed him, the Alt-right who he played a major role of normalizing, sees JEWS. Central to the ideology of the extreme right is their hatred of Jews. How Klein missed that is really baffling.
ID4352889 rubagreta , 10 Nov 2016 18:2>
Naive comment. The "lefts" criticism of Israel is largely unrelated to the growing right's hostility to Jews. It's the latter you need to be concerned about.
rubagreta ID4352889 , 10 Nov 2016 18:3>
What right's hostility in the US? Where are they. There isn't a single Republican member of Congress who is hostile to Israel. David Duke ran for senate in Lousiana and got 3% of the vote.
WTIngle , 10 Nov 2016 18:0>
Naomi: "But this leaves out the force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we now find ourselves wide awake: neoliberalism."

Is this completely correct, leaving out as it does something that has grown since at least the last days of WWII and throughout the Cold War, something that some call the "Deep State?"

Here's one view of it, written by a former Republican congressional staffer but in an essay found on the Bill Moyers and Company's website (Bill Moyers is definitely neither a Republican nor a conservative):

http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/ .

"Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day."

Lofgren's description is not exhaustive, not really focusing on the darkest heart within the "military industrial complex" that is intimately associated with the deep state, namely the covert, classified areas of the intelligence and security components. (I find the fact that the present president recently renewed the illegal and unconstitutional 9/11 State of Emergency Act for the eighth year in a row, just as his predecessor did every year he was in office after the Act was first signed in September, 2001, telling.)

Still, it's good starting point.

It looks to me that this huge beast is more about empire than Neoliberalism (or even NeoConservatism -- it encompasses both; it's not necessarily "left" or "right" as most use the terms, not truly Democrat or Republican).

bananakingdom , 10 Nov 2016 16:3>
Hillary has promised to be a president for everyone…that is, everyone who contributes to 'The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation'.
According to the Foundation's website, it is a 'non-profit 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.'
The easiest way to make an organisation non-profit is to pay out all earnings - seven-figure director fees, first class travel, Fifth Avenue offices…oh how you can spend your way to a luxurious non-profit outcome! And whatever is left over after your personal indulgences have been satisfied, you can spend on a few pet projects.
The Clintons are seen as money grubbers who'd sell their own family members for the right price. Hillary is a despised person.

Trump is no better. The only difference between him and Hillary is that he is openly corrupt. Whereas Hillary hides her corruption behind a cloak of establishment respectability.

ArchibaldLeach , 10 Nov 2016 16:3>
The dumbest thing about the response to this is is how everyone is just shoehorning their own narrative into this. If this was just about neoliberalism, nobody would have voted for the Republican party. Trump won for a variety of factors. It wasn't that he was against globalisation, it's that he lied that he could change it. These people believed his "we'll bring back all the jobs" over concrete plans.

Such a coalition is possible. In Canada, we have begun to cobble it together under the banner of a people's agenda called The Leap Manifesto, endorsed by more than 220 organisations from Greenpeace Canada to Black Lives Matter Toronto, and some of our largest trade unions.

I hang around in liberal circles in Toronto and even there, Black Lives Matter is hardly popular. I know socialists see the result and think that they can be next, but they won't be.

MooseMcNaulty , 10 Nov 2016 16:2>
The political class assiduously serves the needs of the wealthy, while the working people fend for themselves. The banks get a bailout, the bankers get a bonus, and the consumer gets his house foreclosed on. The oil companies and hedge funds get loopholes built into the tax code, and the middle class hears that they might not be able to draw their Social Security until they're seventy. It's not hard to see why people are unhappy, and Trump was unafraid to call the system rigged and the players corrupt. You can analyze the results of this election until you're blue in the face, but I think what it ultimately comes down to is that the working people have been thrown under the bus in favor of corporate profit for far too long.
Bar4U MooseMcNaulty , 10 Nov 2016 16:3>
True enough, but Trump's "solutions" will just make it worse for the same group of people and continue to support corporations and the wealthy. Sadly yet again the voters have been duped.
MooseMcNaulty Bar4U , 10 Nov 2016 17:1>
Probably. The only hope I have is that Trump is a vanity candidate, so I expect he really will try to do the best job he can for as many people as he can. He genuinely has no love for the political class and our campaign finance or lobbying systems. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that something half decent might yet come of his election. Probably not any of the big issues, and it's a shame about the environment and the Supreme Court, but you never know... Or so I'll keep telling myself.
Alarcos , 10 Nov 2016 16:1>
The problem with this stroy is two-fold:

1] Since the Eighties the powerless left have been saying that the solutions are on the left ... while the voters kept moving right. Repeating the same thing but louder doesn't make it work any better.
2] Since the Eighties every faction of the left has been calling unto the other flavours of left to 'unite' ... whereas as what they usually meant was 'join us'. Even now I see no evidence that the left is capable of running a 'united-self' ... let alone capable of uniting and healing the deep rift in the society of Trumpian-US or Brexit-UK.

This ship has sailed! The Modern Left has failed to prevent this fascist take-over every bit as much as 'Old Left' failed to stand-up in the Europe of the 1930's and 'Older Left' failed to withstand the nationalist fervor of '14-'18. No, I am afraid that, as in all previous episode, this fascism must be fought. We better start preparing while we still can.

formerlefty Alarcos , 10 Nov 2016 16:2>
But the problem with your story is that the left were defeated some time back. What we've had since are liberals (i.e. the neo-liberal right) tacking ever-rightward, constantly insisting that's the only way to avert the hard populist right. The result has been complete failure, as all that right-ward movement by liberals has achieved is to further create the conditions that lead to the rise of the right.

Its pretty much the same thing that happened in Russia post-communism. Neo-liberalism/liberalism (they are, in fact, the same thing) led to the rise of watered-down kind of fascism.

The modern pro-capitalist/non-populist right has failed to prevent this fascist take-over every bit as much as 'Old Right' failed to stand-up in the Europe of the 1930's...

Europa77 Alarcos , 10 Nov 2016 16:3>

as much as 'Old Left' failed to stand-up in the Europe of the 1930's

The 'old left' did stand up in the 1930s. The prison camps of mainland Europe were full of 'lefties' who stood up.

DunedainRanger , 10 Nov 2016 16:1>
This article is spot on. Neoliberalism creates its own hierarchy which has no place for the peole who voted for Trump. Two quotes from US voters (with acknowledgements to Sky News).
1. A black man who voted for Trump...'most blacks have more in common with white woeking class families trying to make ends meet than they do with the democrats'
2. A well heeled white democrat man in shock....'trying to come to terms with an election which has shown me a side of America I was unaware of...'
Shock horror....Trump was elected by ordinary people.
fmajor7 , 10 Nov 2016 16:1>
It was interesting to see that nearly each and every newspaper in the US and the UK and everywhere else and nearly all the TV channels started a barrage of anti-Trump rhetoric always repeating his sexual escapades and his racist and sexist comments. Only a few alternative blogs or news channels dared to criticise Hillary or question her integrity.
Now that Trump has won has shocked all these news channels and everybody is asking who voted for him ? All those "deplorable" people as mentioned by Hillary or all those sexist, racist or uneducated whites ? Were they angry ? If so, why ? Was it a protest vote ? Why ?
It is interesting to read Charles Hugh Smith's writing "The source of our rage" below and wonder why all these "expert" commentators got it wrong --
https://goo.gl/VuEGZy
bananakingdom , 10 Nov 2016 16:0>
Turn on your television or pick up a paper. Listen to a radio or read the online news. There's always someone telling us how we should think, and what we should do.
The belief that they know better - that they are superior to the rest of us - permeates every corner of our lives. Those that disagree with and challenge the 'consensus' are considered ignorant or uneducated.

This is the argument that's been trotted out since Brexit. The poor old folks didn't know what they were doing. That somehow, those who grew up under the black cloud shadowing post-Second World War Britain couldn't comprehend the implications of seeking to regain control of their economy and borders.

That's the way society has gone - the megaphone minority blasting away in our ear. The elites who believe their values and opinions are the only ones that matter. Pity the poor taxpayer who picks up the tab.

The international 'specialist' who flies in for a couple of days to lecture us on what they think we're doing wrong. From how farmers should manage their land, the type of energy we should use, through to how to control our borders. How these self-appointed experts love to enlighten the great unwashed. It happens at the local level as well. It could be the council dictating something as simple as the colour a homeowner is allowed to paint their fence.

There's the local action group. After moving into an area and setting themselves up as they see fit, they seek to restrict who can join them, and what their fellow residents can do.
A paddock that once held a herd of sheep has been subdivided, and then subdivided again. Yet the new owner places a placard on their new fence protesting against any future developments.

The events of yesterday in the US have turned the world on its head. World leaders are struggling to know how to respond, to Trump's victory.
While so much of the commentary and analysis by the experts has been about the two personalities involved, the US election results reflect something much more basic than that.

It's that the ones who do the lifting - that is, those who set their alarms early and go off to work - are tired of subsidising those that are the recipients of the public purse. They've had enough of paying for the lifestyles of those who look down on them. This includes the political class who lecture them, and everyone else.

The commentariat are putting their spin on the US election result. Much like Brexit, they're arguing that the poor uneducated folks didn't know what they were doing. The result is a two-fingered salute to the political elite who sign off on trade agreements with little regard for those that will lose their jobs. It's a protest against those elected to represent the voters' interests but rarely, if ever, visit the factory floor.

But it's not only the political class who left the majority behind. The result also reflects the great chasm that continues to grow between the wealthy elite - Wall Street - and those on the other side where wages have gone nowhere for years.

The post-GFC world has only pumped more money into the top few percent, while everybody else has been left a long way behind. While the Dow Jones Industrial Index has increased more than two-and-a-half times since the lows of 2009, real wages have barely increased a dime.

Nobody knows how the Trump presidency will play out. I doubt he even knows himself. And as the elites predict, it might turn out to be one of the US' great follies.
Some are calling the result a swing back to conservatism. But the result illustrates ever so strongly how the so-called 'silent majority' are deciding to reclaim the way their lives are governed. It's a major blow to elitism, and is a trend that will only grow.

Matt Hibbard,
For The Daily Reckoning

Andrew Failes bananakingdom , 10 Nov 2016 16:1>
Yeah because putting one of the elite in power a 'a major blow to elitism'. Maybe you actually should listen to an expert
outkast1213 , 10 Nov 2016 16:0>
Perhaps if The Guardian and every other major left media site would have been understanding this the past few years instead of ignoring Bernie, plugging for Clinton, and pushing the SJW stuff there wouldn't have been a Trump presidency. Everyone shares a bit of blame for his win. Hopefully we can not get so obsessed with blind Dem support and identity politics going forward.
Bogdanich , 10 Nov 2016 15:5>
Ya think? Finally someone says something sensible. Neo-liberal economic policy and neo-con foreign policy I might add. There is a German blogger who is a polyglot. He speaks German, French, Italian, English and Russian. He reads the romance languages at least I don't know about Russian. He monitors how different news events are spun to the various populations. Which facts are presented, which omitted, obfuscations, lies and who's controlling the narrative. Because of the time difference he went to bed before the election results were known and woke up after. The opening sentence on his piece that morning was, "So I just woke up and found that the world has changed. World War III was called off."

Which in my estimation is accurate. Perhaps not WWIII but certainly another major war. And what's the result over here in America? It's the Hillary supporters who are behaving violently. Rioting, destroying property, assaults, interfering with transportation etc. Not covered in your press of course because it is the republicans who were supposed to be the violent monsters and it doesn't fit the narrative.

AmyInNH Bogdanich , 10 Nov 2016 16:4>
First, neo-con warring, an essential subcomponent of neoliberalism, for when CIA manipulation of political strife isn't possible. Indonesia versus Iraq, for example.
Second, Hillary supporters rebelling is in the news this morning, though they aren't a) airing it as an alarming event, nor b) having the same paramilitary police response to it.
Third, R has been pushing for warring and I've no idea where you'd (they'd?) come up with an all R Washington isn't going to jump right in. Particularly, post election, when congress refuels the "campaign donation" money laundering machine, defense contractors (Northrop, etc.) and infrastructure (Parsons Brinckerhoff, etc.), with the gifting of federal contracts, which will no doubt run way over budget as cost plus contracts.
Peter Wynn , 10 Nov 2016 15:5>
Many of those left seemingly disenfranchised by neo-liberalism are taking up scapegoating, rather than blaming the REAL cause of their problems.
AmyInNH Peter Wynn , 10 Nov 2016 16:5>
There's a whole lot of less than Whole Truth used to manipulate. Some intentional, some due to ignorance.
Long ago I asked, what is the difference between ignorance and arrogance, and about the only thing I can come up with is ignorance is unintentional while arrogance is confident ignorance.
Dean Myerson , 10 Nov 2016 15:5>
And people like Trump never went to Davos? Republicans don't do that? Yes, a lot of people are in economic pain, and the Democrats and Clinton share that blame. I agree that the Democratic party needs to be either decisively wrested from pro-corporate neoliberals, or it needs to be abandoned, but Trump's victory is not just about economic pain. It's also about fear of the diverse country we are becoming. You want to know who is to blame for the election of Donald Trump? The people who voted for him. They are the ones who fell for the con that he was their solution.
mcstowy Dean Myerson , 10 Nov 2016 16:0>
What you say is correct, but the point is that it is expected that the GOP will protect business interests and profit at the expense of people. That is why they exist. The Democrats have historically been the party that protects the working class. As the author points out, they have abandoned that role during the last 40 years, leaving the working class without protection from the concentration of corporate wealth, power and influence. Working class whites, Latinos and blacks should be allies, not competitors for the scraps left after the Davos party. The conservative right in America is successful because they have successfully pitted these natural allies against each other, but they have been aided the the embrace of corporate neoliberalism by the Democratic party leadership.
PierreCorneille , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
Bill Clinton gave us Bush the Younger thanks to having the self control of an adolescent chimpanzee. Now the Democrat establishment aided by another Clinton gave us Trump. When are we going to stop buying into the neo-liberal bullshit. They have played us like suckers since the revolution the French won for us. Speaking of the French, their revolution scared the shit out of the "founding fathers" especially the parts about equality and fraternity. I saw Trump coming a long time ago, but I thought someone would stand up. It wasn't as if we weren't warned. Instead all the talking fucking heads are telling us it's time to heal to work together. Right, like the way the Republicans worked with Obama. Are we going to work together, are we going to fight? Nah. We"ll find someone new to bomb in the name of liberty and some new shinny thing will come along and we'll just stay bent over. But never forget, we are the greatest and the most exceptional.
evacarey PierreCorneille , 10 Nov 2016 15:5>
Good post. But it was also Obama who recently led us here. He didn't do anything. Sure he was stymied by the Republican congress. But he didn't even use the bully pulpit.
He seemed to me to want to work for the rest of the world more than he did the U.S. He couldn't even see that the trade agreements are a problem for our citizens. And I supported him more than any previous presidential candidate, because I thought he cared.
NoOneYouKnowNow , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
Ironic that Ms Klein has published this in the Clintonista, neocon Guardian. Perhaps we can revive the media as well.
nonsensefactory JulesBywaterLees , 10 Nov 2016 16:4>
Generally speaking, American and British media supports neoconservative foreign policy (regime change in Libya and Syria, military confrontation with Russia and China, expanded funding for NATO, the Iraq War WMD lies, etc.). At the same time, it tends to support neoliberal trade policies (free flow of capital, offshoring manufacturing to sweatshop zones) that enrich billionaires while impoverishing the middle class.

The only real difference between "conservative" and "liberal" media outlets is in their take on identity politics; this is why people view media as propaganda that tries to point people away from the more important issues of global war and wealth inequality. It's a distraction tactic.

nonsensefactory , 10 Nov 2016 15:2>
Naomi Klein is right about the neoliberalism that played such a huge role in the creation of massive wealth inequality in the United States, but the other issue is that Hillary Clinton embraced the Bush-era neoconservative program (just look at her record as Secretary of State with Honduras, Haiti, Libya and Syria, as well as all the arms deals and support for Saudi Arabia and Israel). In addition, she was completely loyal to the Wall Street interests who crashed the economy in 2008 and yet were never criminally charged by the Obama Administration.

Obama shares much of the blame - despite coming in with Congress in Democratic hands, he quickly abandoned his populist base in favor of pro-Wall Street agendas; he expanded the domestic mass surveillance program and persecuted whistleblowers like nobody before him; and he was seduced by the CIA's regime change/drone assassination program. His peace prize is now the punchline of a joke. He didn't help out homeowners who'd been targeted by Wall Street; he instead pushed for a massive taxpayer bailout of Wall Street - and minority homeowners in particular were hit hard by the banks. As far as all the young people who supported him? He did nothing to alleviate student loan debt; that's not what Wall Street wanted. As far as renewable energy? He did little if anything on that front; instead he quietly OK'd offshore oil drilling, oil exports, and pipelines like Dakota Access. He betrayed his base and served Wall Street, and of course that's what Hillary Clinton would have done as well.

Bernie Sanders, in contrast, had good policies on all these issues and would have won the primary if it hadn't been rigged by the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the corporate media.

The Democratic Party reforms needed are obvious:
(1) A fixed number of debates in the primary (Sanders vs. Clinton? 9 debates. Obama vs. Clinton? 26 debates).
(2) Elimination of the superdelegate system. (In Feb 2008, Clinton had 241 to Obama's 181; in Feb 2016, Clinton had 451 to Sander's 19)
(3) Opening the primaries to independent voters in places like New York, at the very least allowing last-minute party registration for independent voters.

That all takes power away from Wall Street-tied party elites, who will otherwise continue to pick losers that will serve Wall Street interests in exchange for big donations - but who are unpopular with the general public. That rigged process is why Bernie Sanders, who would obviously have beaten Trump with enthusiastic millenial support, was prevented from winning the Democratic Primary.

The other party in this debacle, the corporate media - they deserve to be broken up by anti-trust legislation. TimeWarner, Disney, etc. should all be forced to break up into a hundred independently owned news outlets, otherwise it'll be an endless stream of Wall Street propaganda from them.

mypets nonsensefactory , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
Sanders was far too radical and unrealistic to have carried the day. He lost fair and square.
freeandfair nonsensefactory , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
" Hillary Clinton embraced the Bush-era neoconservative program (just look at her record as Secretary of State with Honduras, Haiti, Libya and Syria, as well as all the arms deals and support for Saudi Arabia and Israel). In addition, she was completely loyal to the Wall Street interests who crashed the economy in 2008 and yet were never criminally charged by the Obama Administration."

Very much so. Hillary Clinton to me was pretty indistinguishable from George Bush. I never voted for Bush and I wasn't going to vote for a female version of him.

Dewsburian , 10 Nov 2016 15:1>
"They will blame James Comey and the FBI. They will blame voter suppression and racism. They will blame Bernie or bust and misogyny. They will blame third parties and independent candidates. They will blame the corporate media for giving him the platform, social media for being a bullhorn, and WikiLeaks for airing the laundry."
And in the Guardian, of course, they'll work out some way to blame Jeremy Corbyn...
Kevin Parcell , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
Wrong.

We need to ask why the polling was wrong. People who normally vote did not, and people who normally don't vote did. Clinton really did rig the election as proven by Wikileaks, and lots of Bernie supporters could not bring ourselves to vote for her ; and Clinton called Trump's redneck base "a basket of deplorables", and many of those folks who would have watched the election from a bar stool got up to kick her ass. Naturally the same persons who pretended that Clinton did not rig the election want to continue to pretend. But Naomi, she really did.

Mckim Kevin Parcell
LYLEJAMES Mckim , 10 Nov 2016 16:5>
I too believe Clinton and the DNC sealed their own fate. But the "bucket of losers" accusation has proved to be false, the product of a spoof Podesta email.
ronaldadair , 10 Nov 2016 17:3>
So in other words Naomi Klein admits that "rampant insecurity and inequality exist" and that something is required to be done to correct this - which I think many of us realise is a balancing of the needs of national autonomy and globalisation, but then Naomi has the audacity to attribute these "responses " to "neo fascists" So suffer on you poor under privileged unwashed. but should you rise up then we ( the enlightened) know that you are being prodded by neo fascists !! A totally ridiculous idea which can only be explained as the last desperate gasp of the politically correct whose credibility is not only on the line but is now clearly beyond the pale
kleptco , 10 Nov 2016 17:2>
Beautifully said. Eight years of neo-liberal acting/progressive talking Barack Obama and the prospect of more of the same from the deeply flawed Hillary Clinton was enough to hand the presidency to the grotesque Donald Trump. The Democratic party is smoldering and needs to be rebuilt as Naomi says by and for the 99%.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-calls-voters-bucket-of-losers /

nonsensefactory , 10 Nov 2016 15:2>
Naomi Klein is right about the neoliberalism that played such a huge role in the creation of massive wealth inequality in the United States, but the other issue is that Hillary Clinton embraced the Bush-era neoconservative program (just look at her record as Secretary of State with Honduras, Haiti, Libya and Syria, as well as all the arms deals and support for Saudi Arabia and Israel). In addition, she was completely loyal to the Wall Street interests who crashed the economy in 2008 and yet were never criminally charged by the Obama Administration.

Obama shares much of the blame - despite coming in with Congress in Democratic hands, he quickly abandoned his populist base in favor of pro-Wall Street agendas; he expanded the domestic mass surveillance program and persecuted whistleblowers like nobody before him; and he was seduced by the CIA's regime change/drone assassination program. His peace prize is now the punchline of a joke. He didn't help out homeowners who'd been targeted by Wall Street; he instead pushed for a massive taxpayer bailout of Wall Street - and minority homeowners in particular were hit hard by the banks. As far as all the young people who supported him? He did nothing to alleviate student loan debt; that's not what Wall Street wanted. As far as renewable energy? He did little if anything on that front; instead he quietly OK'd offshore oil drilling, oil exports, and pipelines like Dakota Access. He betrayed his base and served Wall Street, and of course that's what Hillary Clinton would have done as well.

Bernie Sanders, in contrast, had good policies on all these issues and would have won the primary if it hadn't been rigged by the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the corporate media.

The Democratic Party reforms needed are obvious:
(1) A fixed number of debates in the primary (Sanders vs. Clinton? 9 debates. Obama vs. Clinton? 26 debates).
(2) Elimination of the superdelegate system. (In Feb 2008, Clinton had 241 to Obama's 181; in Feb 2016, Clinton had 451 to Sander's 19)
(3) Opening the primaries to independent voters in places like New York, at the very least allowing last-minute party registration for independent voters.

That all takes power away from Wall Street-tied party elites, who will otherwise continue to pick losers that will serve Wall Street interests in exchange for big donations - but who are unpopular with the general public. That rigged process is why Bernie Sanders, who would obviously have beaten Trump with enthusiastic millenial support, was prevented from winning the Democratic Primary.

The other party in this debacle, the corporate media - they deserve to be broken up by anti-trust legislation. TimeWarner, Disney, etc. should all be forced to break up into a hundred independently owned news outlets, otherwise it'll be an endless stream of Wall Street propaganda from them.

freeandfair nonsensefactory , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
" Hillary Clinton embraced the Bush-era neoconservative program (just look at her record as Secretary of State with Honduras, Haiti, Libya and Syria, as well as all the arms deals and support for Saudi Arabia and Israel). In addition, she was completely loyal to the Wall Street interests who crashed the economy in 2008 and yet were never criminally charged by the Obama Administration."

Very much so. Hillary Clinton to me was pretty indistinguishable from George Bush. I never voted for Bush and I wasn't going to vote for a female version of him.

Giancarlo Bruno , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
While I'm troubled by many of the implications of this electoral result, I think the main story is that the Democrats have bled so many votes that an extremely unpopular Republican candidate was able to win simply by holding on to most of the votes that Romney managed to get 4 years ago and flipping a few swing voters. When the final tally comes in, Hillary Clinton will likely have received over 8 million fewer votes than Obama in 2008 and nearly 5 million less than he got in 2012. Trump got fewer still, and he'll now be president because he managed to sway just enough voters in the rust belt to win several of those states.

It could not be clearer that Sanders' approach would have been the better one for this election by far. He spoke to the anger at the economic hollowing out of so much of this country while offering prescriptions that were in the best interests of the vast majority of people and framed the discussion in a way that made it clear race was not at the center, that the unchecked pursuit of the class interests of the wealthy & well-connected was responsible for so much of the human devastation that can easily be observed in so many parts of the country.

Anyone who zealously advocated for this view was derided as a "Bernie bro" or mocked with sneering suggestions that Bernie was only a viable candidate in white states. (Nevermind that being absolute bunkum) Clinton supporters and other DNC hacks falsely equated working class white people in states like Wisconsin and Ohio supporting a more left-leaning economic program that placed a lesser emphasis on racial & identity issues to engaging in some sort of insidious white male identity politics- and they did so deliberately, to muddy the waters.

They forced a widely reviled, ethically challenged, evasive servant of the establishment who deemed TPP "the gold standard" of trade agreements, supported the Iraq war, was content to let the financial sector completely off the hook for the last financial meltdown and engineered the disastrous Libya intervention down everyone's throat on the premise that Americans didn't have a choice. Anyone who expressed their fear that this would result in a loss to Trump, much less voiced a slight preference for Trump over Clinton (even if absolutely de minimis), was vilified to such a degree that I am confident that it stifled some of the public discussion about how to electorally confront Trump. The only acceptable answer was voting for Hillary Clinton without reservation, even accepting that many criticisms of her were valid was tantamount to enabling fascism.

Look where we are now. There's a lesson in this: you cannot rely on progressive issues on a few social positions as a fig leaf to cover up a massive failure to challenge the systemic rot of our economy, our governmental institutions and our legal system. Standing up for a person's right to peace, security and opportunity irrespective of race, ethnicity or creed is absolutely the right thing to do. Same goes for women's right to make family planning decisions or the rights of gay people to marry and live free of discrimination. None of these can begin to mask massive system-wide failures, that we are seemingly hopelessly chained to an economic paradigm that is grossly indifferent- even actively hostile- to the welfare of the majority of our citizens.

I think Sanders' response to Trump's election is entirely appropriate. If Trump does follow through on some of his challenges to globalization, lobbyists or modernizing and improving our infrastructure, we should offer our qualified support. If he attempts to push through massive deregulation, lopsided tax cuts for the wealthy, stripping of environmental protections, or anything to stoke the flames of bigotry and division we should unite in principled, civil opposition.

Laborequalswealth Giancarlo Bruno , 10 Nov 2016 15:5>
Excellent and intelligent post. I especially agree with your last sentence. Trump may have saved us from an insane war with Russia. But mass resistance is called for if he and the blood-red Congress try to turn us into Christo-fascist serfs.
Ardnas1936 , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
Absolutely on target, thanks Naomi! The DLC (Democratic Leadership?? Council) won this for Trump. They may have taken a couple of presidencies--mostly on false promises--but their wishywashy presidents did nothing for real people and worked solely for the rich oligarchs and imperialists. The "Leadership" was only toward the Right. This election was the Revolt of the Rustbelt and the Dead Small Towns. But Drumpf will do nothing for them except postpone, then forget, and finally turn against any who dare complain.

And just think--if not for the DLC stuffed shirts and Wall Street bootlickers who held power in the Dem establishment, we might be happy that Bernie & Jane Sanders--AUTHENTIC feminists and genuine reformers--were going to the White House. I'm 80 years old, may not be around to see the young people's victory, so I get sick thinking of how much we almost gained, but was lost by the DLC Beltway minds and the GOP (Greedy Oil Party) solipsists. We lost more than Trump can guess, until his Miami properties are all swallowed by the sea. It takes a heavy knock on his orange noggin to get that egomaniac's attention.

I firmly believe that we must bring down BOTH of our over-age, limping, idiot-led political parties, or reform them from the grassroots up! (If they can be saved, which I doubt.) It's time to revive the LaFollette Progressive Republicans and the New Deal Democrats, but under different names--and this time NOT just for privileged, "entitled" white males. Yes, I know Bob LaFollette tried to be inclusive, but the time is way past when our children and grandchildren must support and empathize with the entire HUMAN race, not just the paleface branch who've grabbed all the goodies.

As for the macho white males, offer the cowboys a chance to put their he-man cravings to work at the top of wind-powered electric generators 200 feet tall out in the deep ocean, or avoiding glass slashes from large solar trombe wall collectors or even small glass solar cells, or staying alive around unexpected flares of methane, or getting caught in the ebb of a massive tidal bore and swept out to sea. All of these are renewable energy generating systems, safe for the planet but requiring daredevils who would marvel at how comparably un-scary mining and lumberjacking were back in the Olden Days.

John McManus , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
Trump was born into the 1% and has stayed there; inherited wealth don't ya know. His policies and those of the Republican hierarchy include : union busting, lower taxes at the top, austerity at the bottom, financial deregulation below 2008 levels, and privatization of government services. Democratic policies are the complete opposite in each of these cases.
Trump doesn't stand for less neoliberalism but more.
cielosdeazul , 10 Nov 2016 14:4>
"People have lost their sense of security, status and even identity."

That's about the only part that's correct. Globalisation and the threat of open borders is what does that. Everyone wants to feel secure in their home, individually or collectively, without the threat that anyone who likes your home better than theirs can invite themselves over and redecorate.

Canada's elite smugly refuse to recognize that its seeming imperviousness to "ethnophobic nationalism" is precisely because it has secure borders and an immigration policy that selects immigrants.

FooBar21 Nancy M Ruff , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
Obama was elected twice in very recent history. If the country consisted mostly
of bigots, that would have never happened. To chalk this up to bigotry is
exactly the wrong thing to do - it makes one feel all smug and superior without
bothering to engage with the real issues, like the ones that Klein is discussing.
The Democrats have failed as a party of the middle and working classes. They
are the party of Wall Street bankers and the MIC and the Hollywood elite, who
are more concerned with eating organic arugula and with the bathroom rights of
transgender people than they are with the economic plight of the majority of
people in this country. And they nominated the one person who almost perfectly
embodies this establishment: Clinton - a war mongering, corrupt establishment neoconservative who revels in Hollywood fund raisers with $50,000/person
tickets, gets paid a quarter of million dollars by Goldman Sachs for an 1-hour
speech, and salivates at the prospect of starting more wars in the middle east
and poking Putin in the eye. That's why the lost, not because of bigotry.


It's not bigotry that got Trump elected,
although

richardbunning , 10 Nov 2016 14:3>
This piece is exactly right. The infiltration of the neoliberals has poisoned mainstream politics and hijacked the left. It is given form by the Washington Consensus:

1. Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;

2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;

3. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;

4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;

5. Competitive exchange rates;

6. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;

7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;

8. Privatization of state enterprises;

9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;

10. Legal security for property rights.

Trump is planning to tear up a lot of this, and he is quite right to do it, even if for the wrong reasons. Globalisation has screwed working people in the developed world and enabled multinationals to form an unholy alliance with the chinese communists to exploit the chinese people to make bigger profits, whilst the old manufacturing base in the developed economies has been hollowed out and sent to China.

jackrousseau , 10 Nov 2016 14:2>
The Democratic Party changed fundamentally under Carter/Clinton in the 1980s/1990s. Very much like Labour in the UK changed during the same period under Blair. During that period, both parties morphed from domestic worker's parties into global capitalist parties with (somewhat) progressive social agendas. In both instances, the move away from core left economic values was justified by electability. The sweeping elections of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair in the early 1990s won the argument and relegated the original base of the parties (workers) to the periphery.

Now that neoliberals are no longer electable, what's the justification for their continued existence? No one on the left is happy with their core policies (deregulation, privatization, free trade, unfettered immigration, coziness with corporations/banks, etc.). If they aren't advancing progressive social issues y winning elections, why should we continue putting up with the neolibs co-opting our economic policies?

Ideally, Democrats would use this opportunity to revert back into being a domestic worker's party with genuine progressive/leftist values (much like Labour did in the UK by electing Corbyn). It almost happened with Sanders. Given the enthusiasm/turnout he generated, that's clearly the way forward.

Sadly, if I were betting, I'd imagine the Democratic establishment will do exactly what the Labour establishment did in the UK post Brexit...circle the wagons and double down. And with the anger being directed at Trump rather than the Democratic establishment's malpractice in this botched election, they may get away with it (unlike the Blairites in the UK).

Diane Lake jackrousseau , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
The New Democrats (neoliberals) have been circuling the wagons for awhile now. They have tried to shoot down progressive candidates running in primaries for office and support the neoliberal ones.
The guy who lost to Rubio was a former republican who became a New Democrat while the party shut down any progressives.
It will take alot of battles to change the party back to their New Deal roots. The party saw the reaction to the true son of the New Deal, Bernie Sanders. Instead of taking lessons from that and what the democratic voters craved, they did everything to undermine him and shut him down.
It will take very heavy equipment to remove the entrenched neoliberals from the party and put true democrats in their rightful place
jackrousseau Diane Lake , 10 Nov 2016 15:2>
It's strange to watch...the UK seems to be about half an election cycle ahead of us in its rejection of neoliberalism. Everything happening in UK politics is echoed over here about 6 month's later. Down to the fact that, in both countries, wealthy orange haired baboons somehow managed to speak to the disaffected working class. If Gove hadn't snaked Boris Johnson at the death, both countries would currently be led by said orange haired baboons. I mean, what are the odds?

Granted, it is the Year of the Monkey per the Chinese calendar...so there might be something in that after all.

Relatedly, I cannot wait until the UK's new Secretary of State has a photo op with our President elect. Which one is the doppelganger?

wiggystardust , 10 Nov 2016 14:1>
This is a very decent article, indeed the mainstream left made a deal with the devil and now he's getting his due. But on the other hand I think it's terribly optimistic to assume everything boils down to kick starting a new democratic-socialist movement, raking in all those votes that have just been waiting for it to happen(and only voted for a right wing populist because it didn't yet, sure) and fixing everybody's problems forever.
For one, the neoliberals managed to singlehandedly to make the left look like even more of a villain in the eyes of those who already eschewed it, alienate those who believed in a left solution but were not diehard about it, and fracture the remaining group into niches who refuse to engage in dialogue or even in recognize each other as fellow lefties. Managing to form a stable coalition is a beginning but it only deals with the latter problem, the left still has a huge public image problem to solve before it can make a return.
And for another, the very idea of safety nets and benefits seems to have fallen out of fashion with the electorate: the "I had to climb the hill both ways to get here, so nobody dare cut a tunnel through it" mentality has been on the rise lately. It seems the neoliberals' failures somehow managed to make us all even more individualist, if only a bit more tribal too. Thus, for a new left to rise it wouldn't be enough to restore trust among all the isolated left groups, but also among society as a whole.
Diane Lake wiggystardust , 10 Nov 2016 15:3>
But, when you have people homeless, starving, falling through society's cracks you have a rise in crime.
Many who are suffering are not shiftless. Many are working but, don't make enough to pay bills and put food on the table.
Many do not have access to healthcare.
Children go to bed without food.
When society is uncaring, mean and causes undue suffering, society falls apart and into haves and have nots.
All the money that went to help people is the same money that now lines the pockets of the uber wealthy.
Our schools cannot teach with rats and cockroaches, ceillings falling in and no heat. When children cannot get a lunch anymore, how do they learn?
When we cannot pay teachers or even support them, you end up with the bottom of the barrel teaching the upcoming generation inadequately.
You can tell the strength of a society from how it cares for its poor and in need.
Ours is a 'i got mine' selfish shallow society now.
And it is violent and people are filled with hate.
Maybe because we have stopped caring and making sure people have opportunities and jobs and education and help when they fall on hard times.
MaryCurry , 10 Nov 2016 14:1>
Agreed, except for the major actors who started this globalization's depression ofN. American and European workers-- the Reagan and the Bush corporate supporters and puppet masters. Clintons and other neolibs have followed suit because they wrongly believed that they could beat them by joining them yet still do a bit of good for their voters. Wrong. But yes, the Revolution continues. Whether it can save the planet -- the environment, however, is doubtful, and nothing matters nearly as much. For years on is far to late.
Justthefactsman , 10 Nov 2016 14:0>
Yes it was the Democrats promotion of neo-liberalsim aided by such claptrap as this opinion from another Guardian scribbler.

"Centrism has failed these and many other voters. Clinton was not handpicked by the Democratic party's elite: she defeated an unexpectedly successful challenge by self-described socialist Bernie Sanders, partly because of his failure to inspire African Americans. "
That a closet Clinton supporter should have the temerity to write something like this to explain Clintons defeat is beyond belief, when we know from Wikileaks e-mails that the DNC actively opposed Sanders.
The reality is that all politics is dominated by the golden rule: he who has the gold rules.
Well meaning scribblers like Naomi can scribble all they want it will never change the situation. Even revolution will not change the situation for the simple facts are "the oppressed are potential oppressors".
The achievement of dominance and superiority seems to be built into human genes, and why not it is so in the rest of the animal world.

Ardnas1936 Justthefactsman , 10 Nov 2016 15:2>
Forget Richard Dawkins, dominance is certainly not universal among living creatures. If a species exists with a plentiful supply of food, domination and competition are unnecessary. Think of the cooperative bonobo and the symbiosis of insects and field flowers. On the other hand, where resources are scare, competition begins and we have social structures like the baboons and leafy trees that kill competitive seedlings by their own shade.

However, throughout evolution cooperation outweighs competition. If it didn't we'd still be solitary single-celled amoebae. As things are, our own bodies are well-furnished with microscopic critters from RNA through viruses and bacteria, many of whom run the shop in the background. Cooperation, whether vestigial, symbiotic or by choice, is the way that leads to life. Competition is the way of violence and death. That's not Marxism. It's nature.

Justthefactsman Ardnas1936 , 11 Nov 2016 04:1>
"Forget Richard Dawkins, dominance is certainly not universal among living creatures. If a species exists with a plentiful supply of food, domination and competition are unnecessary."
There is a plentiful supply of food for the human species.
So how can you explain the general situation that exists on the planet whereby governing elites control and enjoy the major part of all that human labour creates to the detriment of over 50% of the human population ?
Matt Wood , 10 Nov 2016 14:0>
"Neo-fascist responses"? Get over yourself Klein. Trump won because the Clinton's "own" the Democrat Party and they and Goldman Sachs were confident she would be the nominee and millions of gullible Americans would vote for Hillary.

By far the best candidate was Bernie Sanders but the Clintons had him run off the road by "Super Delegates". Oh and by the way is it not odd that the Democrats did not change the electoral system when they were in power?

House of Cards comes close to showing us just how ruthless the Clintons really are.

Karsten Scheibler , 10 Nov 2016 14:0>
Well, that it is worthwhile reading. At the beginning I thought: good that someone pointed that out. People haven't forgotten NAFTA and Hillary's speeches in closed wall street circles and so on. I just wanted to remark that it was probably a multitude of reasons that explain the Democratic loss. Comey's interference and other stuff that is outright dismissed by the author also played a role. However, as I read on I couldn't help but realize that there seems to be another person who wasn't even aware that Bernie and Elizabeth supported Hillary and wasn't aware of their arguments or the Democratic platform Bernie Sanders fought so hard for. The last two paragraphs speak volumes of Ms. Klein's realism or rather the lack thereof.
JTMcPhee gerrygoulde , 10 Nov 2016 14:3>
And how clear does it have to be that "the Network" is and has been purely supra and post-national? How many trillions in dark loot in shadow banks and other asset dumps which the Panama Papers only show a fraction of?

These Fokkers and Fuggers, what drives them? How much is enough? There's always been this cadre of people who figure out how to scam and manipulate and "transcend boundaries," but to the extent that exists today? With the habitability of the planet in question?

But then I have to remember that these people are into self-pleasing on a gargantuan scale, are what we call sociopaths, who have been with the species since "we" figured out how to grow grains and build granaries and walls to protect the granaries and warriors to man the walls and attack the neighbors and take their stuff, and artisans to make the weapons and "improvements," and kings to issue the orders, and priests to justify it all as the Hand and Will of God -- what we call "civilization." And the people at the top have known since forever that if they insulate themselves adequately from the rabble, they face no consequences for their predations, and can live out their lives of looting and indulgence and die comfortably, cared for by loving nurses and doctors who will ease their passing (unlike what the rest of us now face). Because as they have known since forever, "Apres ils le deluge," "IBG-YBG," http://tradicionclasica.blogspot.com/2006/01/expression-aprs-moi-le-dluge-and-its.html ,

And what are the rest of us going to do when they have passed on, or fled like the Nazis with the gold from the teeth of millions and the art treasures and other portable wealth of demolished and decimated nations, to live out their lives as CIA "assets" or in comfortable temperate South American and African places? Dig up their corpses and desecrate them, or try to find their "cremains" and burn them again? They do not care what happens to their children, even.

I wish us ordinary people all the luck in the world trying to create and maintain a different order that will let everyone eat only to their honest hunger and drink only to their reasonable thirst...

kakaran , 10 Nov 2016 13:3>
Couldn't agree more. The neo-liberalism orthodoxy instead of suddenly knocking at the door has come silently home to roost. The Democrats in America and Labor in UK were hand in glove with elites in the greatest robbery the history has ever seen. The concentration of wealth in one percent which was rationalized as panacea of all economic ills has turned out to be an opening of mythical Pandora's box unleashing evils of racism, xenophobia, misogyny etc. The abhorrent echo of "too big to fail" is still heard by the those who were let down by the same oligarchs. I have yet to find an answer to the vexing question as to why enormous benefits of human knowledge and scientific advances be exclusively extracted by one percenters.
vacuous , 10 Nov 2016 13:3>
Guardian commentators use identity politics and cries of "racism, sexism and xenophobia" to try and distract the working class from noticing how internationalism, globalization and immigration has stagnated their wages, moved meaningful jobs oversees and stoked up asset prices allowing a homeowner in London to earn more by twiddling their thumbs than their Polish cleaner gets paid in a year.
No matter how shrill the likes of Owen, Jonathan, Paul, Polly and Hadley try and distract us with their daily dribble of identity politics, we increasingly see them as just another faded facet of the corporatist, internationalist status quo.
JTMcPhee glauben , 10 Nov 2016 14:5>
The union excesses (which have largely been killed off and the union and former and would-be union workers looted and impoverished along with the rest of the "lower orders) are just part of the disease -- which is corruption, and self-pleasing at the expense of everyone else. Union "leaders," absent disinterested "regulation" by government (which has been mostly corrupted too) and thanks to cooptation by "capitalists," definitely screwed the ordinary people (who one must acknowledge included quite a few rank-and-file that aspired to leadership so they could join the looting).

There probably is stuff that needs to be built and manufactured (not the 7,000 pound SUVs and big Dodge and GMC and Ford F-series and "TUNDRA" trucks) to try to keep the species and culture alive. But killing the ability of ordinary people to organize, essentially making unions illegal except in tiny niches, just makes the end-game even worse. And continuing to punch down on working people on account of some 1962 wages (NOT "salaries," these were hourly payrolls, with "benefits" that in may cases like pension funds were subsequently looted by "private equity" vampire-squids and captured-government actions) just makes it harder for ordinary people to come together AS A CLASS and fight the 0.01% for a decent future.

Arnie Arnesen , 10 Nov 2016 13:1>
my post on Facebook that mirrors Naomi:
My thoughts about last night:
Bill Clinton's New Democrats were incinerated last night...arrogant, ivy league, sleeping with Wall Street, multinational corporations, insurance companies... and thinking that if they wrap themselves in the social issues from abortion to gay marriage that wage starved workers with enormous bills and debts, evaporating opportunities, disappearing pensions, shit schools and deteriorating infrastructure wouldn't notice they were overlooked and forgotten. This election underscores that Economic injustice is color blind
shooglebunny , 10 Nov 2016 13:1>
Good analysis; and exceptionally honest.

What I want to know though is that, given the reality of what you are saying, did none of this occur to the Democratic party prior t the election?

If they knew all this why did they not respond to it instead of continuing to plough the same old furrow regardless of the likely consequences for ordinary voters?

macktan894 shooglebunny , 10 Nov 2016 13:4>
Why? Because the Dem Elites knew that with Hillary their perks, access, power, etc. was secure. They wanted status quo and, just as they have behaved the past years, failed to listen to their constituencies, ignored them. They should have known just by seeing Bernie's exceptional campaign and the enthusiasm that fueled it, giving him more money than what Hillary often raised from her wealthy donors each month, that no one was excited about more of the same. Arrogantly, they chose to ignore and minimize what was before their eyes.
Mardak , 10 Nov 2016 13:1>
The most cogent analysis I have read so far. Bravo Ms. Klein. In a year where the country was screaming for populist change, the Democratic party establishment who had their own highly effective populist candidate, CHOSE to offer up possibly the most "establishment" candidate in history. Fly-over America responded with a sharply erect, if ignorantly self-destructive middle finger.
zenkaon , 10 Nov 2016 13:0>
Spot on diagnosis. People are angry that neolibralism has failed them and does not given a damn about them. Clinton offered nothing but the same to too many people. Trump was a molotov cocktail, warts and all, that they got to throw into Washington.

I don't buy the racist argument. People that elected Obama in 2008 and 2012, but Trump in 2016 are not racist. At the same time I acknowledge that all the KKK people did vote Trump.

Question is, does the left have an answer that is palatable to the people? It would be good if it did, but I'm not holding my breath. Corbyn isn't it, that you can be certain of.

tinguinha , 10 Nov 2016 13:0>
Clinton was a comically bad choice that made no sense whatsoever. The left often gets told that it has to endlessly suffer centrist/neo-liberal "lesser evil" candidates in order to defeat the right as they're more electable, which is an argument that at least makes some logical sense under some circumstances, even if I disagree with it. But in the case of this election, everyone has known for years that Clinton is wildly unpopular, and there was a radical alternative to her available who consistently out-polled her against Trump in the form of Sanders.

Now her backers, such as Hadley Freedman on here today, rather than admitting their massive and obvious mistake in supporting her against Sanders and generally backing the "centrist" policies that brought us to this point, are suggesting nonsense such as the idea that those who voted for Trump should be "held responsible." What does that even mean? What are you going to do, elect a new people? You could have had a radical candidate who unlike Clinton could have brought about real change, and unlike Clinton would have attracted many of Trump's blue collar supporters and, you know, won .

All that lesser evil neoliberal politics gives us is a lack of change that allows the right to make even more radical changes during the periods they're in power and eventually leads to the rise of people like Trump, and it's particularly stupid when it throws up deeply unpopular and unelectable people like Clinton, Miliband or the various empty suits lined up against Corbyn. It's time this paper decisively turned its back on the concept.

Lord Lew , 10 Nov 2016 13:0>
I don't have a lot of confidence in the prospect of political ideologies forged in the Industrial Age - "left", "right", "conservative", liberal" - being able to meet the challenges of this post-Industrial age and the future beyond.

Western societies are fracturing into ever-smaller social groups defined by different, complex combinations of social/economic/national/ethnic/topographical/sexual/religious factors which mushrooming sub-groups all create their own realities based on the unregulated information they they select from divisive, self-reflexive social media sources rather than inclusive "mainstream" news media which have become increasingly corrupted and not trusted.

Fragmentation, disintegration of societies - these lead to paranoia and aggression aimed at the "other" - and we can see this on both the "left" and the "right" in the blame-games that have followed Brexit and Trump's victory. The 19th century liberals and conservative who provided the foundations for the institutions of Western Democracy didn't foresee the emergence of global corporations and banks with interests that could defy "the national good" or disrupt the moderately equitable distribution of wealth and replace it with a massive diversion of wealth to a tiny global elite (So long affluent workers! Goodbye aspiring middle-class!) - while placating most of the population with a consumerist, material lifestyle mostly funded by debt. The old system is broken.

In both the Brexit referendum and the US election the most striking split was between the old - the over-50s, clinging to the past - and young people, disconnected in their social media silos, wanting a different future but, as a generation, not able to organize and politically express their unhappiness and their hopes for the future because inadequate conventional Left/Right political thinking doesn't chime with the reality of their lives.

Not everyone who voted for Donald Trump is a racist or a misogynist. Not everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton has no sympathy with an unemployed factory worker in a mid-west town whose future has been written off. However, everywhere you look - people are anxious and fearful that "the others" are trying to stop them getting what they solipsistically feel they deserve.

Donald Trump won't be able to get Apple of Walmart to switch their product sourcing from China to the US, nor will he be able to halt the long-term economic decline of the US any more than Theresa May will be able to prevent post-Brexit economic decline in the UK: the challenges our dysfunctional political institutions face are too complex for politicians who are strong on rhetoric and promises but intellectually feeble and cowardly when it comes to decision-making and execution.

We need education, public-service-based information, new political ideas and new political parties that can cut through the destructive white noise of Twitter and Facebook and focus on values that bring people together and counter the greed of the supra-national elites - something more powerful than divisive, out-dated concepts like Left and Right.

nooriginalthought Lord Lew , 10 Nov 2016 13:2>
What a lot of words to say bugger all.
Why do people with no answers always say we need more education ?

We have to get rid of this notion that we US and UK are post industrial.
We have made a huge mistake offshoring our industry and must relocate the more essential parts. We cannot be a service economy without making things.
Bashing metal turning wood molding plastics must be part of our future.
We cannot be a nation of management consultants and hairdressers.

mzlizzi Lord Lew , 10 Nov 2016 14:3>
The boom in population during the Boom didn't help. We are overpopulated, and our current economic structure cannot support the material lifestyles and the narratives of freedom that we grew up living with or dreaming about. That's the education that's needed.

Until we accept our current situation, we cannot understand or construct new political ideas, parties, or narratives.

goldshirt39 Kipwar , 10 Nov 2016 13:5>
Neoliberal globalization is the worst kind of socialism, whether or not it is actually socialism. It's what we're going to get if young people don't become collectively more informed and quickly. There is an attitude of entitlement among young people that drives towards a socialist mentality and the left has picked up the scent. They're going to chase that vote and those disaffected voters are going to chase that lie right down the rabbit hole eventually. If Hillary and Obama have their way, the riots that are being orchestrated right now will start the process immediately.
lochinverboy , 10 Nov 2016 12:3>
A very confused article. Neo liberalism is unfettered Global Capitalism given a nice sounding name. It is an invention of the right. To think that the most extreme Republican President ever, will improve the lot of the common man is quite simply bizzare.
onlythetruth1 , 10 Nov 2016 12:2>

A good chunk of Trump's support could be peeled away if there were a genuine redistributive agenda on the table. An agenda to take on the billionaire class with more than rhetoric, and use the money for a green new deal

Particularly as Trump himself is a member of that billionaire class and clearly has no interest in redistributing wealth away from himself, or in doing anything to overhaul the economic system that has made him very rich.

RutherfordFHEA , 10 Nov 2016 12:2>
Trump was elected US President by riding the same wave of anger & disaffection that fuelled Brexit. Many of those who were disappointed by the result were quick to console themselves with the (wishful) thought that he will not attempt to implement his more radical proposals, or that, if he tries, he will be thwarted by the Republicans (who now hold majorities in both the House and the Senate). It is important to bear in mind however, that any who dare oppose him will know that they do so at the risk of their seats.
WinkingJesus , 10 Nov 2016 12:1>
The "Inconvenient Truth" is that the politics of Donald Trump has much in common with movements like Attack and Occupy Wall Street, and hence with Naomi Klein. They both want to stop, or put a break on, international trade. Donald Trump wants to revive local production through protectionism. Klein sees international trade as a source of both environmental and social degradation.

Naomi, thus, carries some responsibility for Donald's success.

The combined Trump/Klein policies would see the old rust belt workers boarding self driven electrical buses to go to work in the new windmill factories. These windmills, normally, would be both more expensive and less effective than if the business was subject to international competition, hence the electricity they produced would be more expensive, giving domestic business a disadvantage.

The new environmental businesses would require support from the public purse (if not, we would already have had them). The taxpayers seem in no mood for such grand scale subsidies.

History does not repeat itself, but in the 1930s the industrial nations raised barriers to trade in order to protect their work forces. As a result, everybody got poorer and reacted by electing extremist politicians.

BonzoFerret , 10 Nov 2016 12:0>
Michael Moore outlines his post-election strategy. Point 1 is Take over the Democratic Party and return it to the people. They have failed us miserably.

Exactly the same as what is happening in the Labour Party. But in that case The Guardian supports neoliberalism and seeks to undermine the ones who are trying to change things.

http://www.trueactivist.com/michael-moores-post-election-plan-is-being-shared-30000-times-an-hour/#.WCRDLir-FmI.facebook

Nada89 , 10 Nov 2016 12:0>
Klein's diagnosis is depressingly accurate.

Sadly I think the electorate in some western societies are in danger of becoming just as ineffective as 'the proles' in 1984, while the vice like grip of the military/industrial complex is just as tenacious as that exerted by Big Brother and the party.

Since the entire political class, or least those with any clout all sing from the same hymn sheet while moderate, or leftist figures, like Corbyn, or Sanders, are bound to be shredded by their own party and by the media, then what hope, eh, unless that hope is something new and outside of party politics?

Tom Wessel , 10 Nov 2016 12:0>
Thank you, thank you, thank you Naomi. Even after an unbelievable defeat, the neoliberals still don't get it. Blame game articles are starting already but no self reflection.

The how and why:
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit /

Gem59 , 10 Nov 2016 11:3>
The role of the media (The Guardian included big time) have a responsibility and offended people's intelligence and sensitivity about democracy, elites etc. Now they are running for cover. Today, Hadley Freeman writes "Misogyny won the US election – let's stop indulging angry white men". Disgrace, offensive and arrogant. Also, Hadley Freeman with "The US has elected its most dangerous leader"...No remorse, no responsibility, blaming American people for being angry, for swallowing the same medicine again...

Compare the Guardian and AP (recall who called California early and rigged the pre-selection against Sanders?) and Waleed Aly here: ( http://www.theage.com.au/comment/us-election-2016-its-not-about-racism-or-sexism-its-about-class-warfare-20161109-gslxzs.html)...What options did the "forgotten", vast majority, the "insignificant other", the disadvantaged, the powerless have? When one is drowning, the relatively privileged onlooker has a duty to help rather than blame the one drowning for "pulling our hair". Of course the future looks terribly bleak for democracy, gender/racial relations etc...

Seriously, could Clinton be an answer for the family that struggles to pay rent, the homeless, the unemployed, those scared of terrorism or a WWIII, the working poor, those in debt due to college fees, those who lost their house and jobs for the sake of "free trade"...These are many, many people folks...real people with flesh, dreams and humanity...

Understanding their pain and their lack of options (thanks to NDC & the Media) does not mean one identifies with Trump and the ugly fascist monsters creeping behind him...It's not about us or one's dream about equality, freedom...It's about survival & human dignity for millions of US people...
Did the demonizing of many working people send them straight to Trump land? Waleed Aly: "progressives have treated the working class largely as a source of xenophobia ... ignore it at our peril" --

KillerMarmot Gem59 , 10 Nov 2016 11:5>
I agree. The Freeman article was a disgrace.

She fails to see that such arrogance was precisely what many Trump supporters were voting against.

TheDudleyOmmer , 10 Nov 2016 11:2>
Excellent article much of which could have been written during the past thirty years.

We all know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I was puzzled as to why Mrs Clinton seemed to cold shoulder Bernie Sanders. He had already connected with many of the 'left behind' by putting a Social Democratic view opposite to Mr Trump's views. Both had identified the problems that the Chicago economists and neoliberalism had caused, but not having Mr Sanders involved or even accepting that his views would be part of her next administration, Mrs Clinton left the field open to her opponent. If only she had remembered her husband's slogan 'Its the economy, stupid', it may have turned fire on Trump's campaign.

There is an irony that although it was right wing politicians who bought in the neo liberal policies which have impoverished working people, it is the social democratic parties on both sides of the Atlantic who have suffered by trying to make neoliberalism work. They could not demonstrate however how 'trickledown' benefitted the poorest and the image left was of rich people sucking up more wealth and more influence over politicians as Ms Klein points out.

On our side of the Atlantic Mrs Thatcher ensured that the right have a strong supportive press due to her ownership reforms and the right is gradually weakening our BBC so that any opposition views will be stifled. Mr Corbyn has already been character assassinated. It remains to be seen if Mr Trump carries out his threats to the American press supporters of Mrs Clinton to reinforce only right wing views.

The smell of authoritarian regimes is now appearing in many places.

Whereangelsfear , 10 Nov 2016 11:1>
There was an almost dynastic arrogance in the Clinton's assumption that they would carry the day. I have often been impressed with Bill's eloquence and Hillary's tough fight for a rational health and insurance system, but have never heard a word of self-criticism about the dire effects of deregulation and the financial crisis. The democrats missed their chance for radical measures when they had control of Congress just after Lehman Bros.
Still, for international affairs, climate change, any sane kind of approach Trump is an unmitigated disaster. Hillary has much experience in international affairs, but her opportunism in the wake of 9/11 had led her to support the intervention in Iraq. Of course we were all opposed to Saddam's régime, but not with those means and in that kind of way, made much worse of course by Bush jr. Islamic State is a direct consequence of the chaos and unemployment in Iraq created under the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration.
stuart6233 Marangaranga , 10 Nov 2016 11:4>
"Neo-fascist responses"
"Trump-style extremism"
"they answer it by bashing immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading women"

You call my right to vote the way I choose "stupid".
You just don't get it. Millions of Americans voted exactly this way. A big middle finger to the establishment, media, Wall Street, "experts", and yes moral posturing know-it-alls is a great way to use your vote.

You completely misunderstand Trump. He is far more for the working man than Clinton. The poor voted for him in droves. And for good reason.

KelvinYearwood , 10 Nov 2016 10:3>
Well said Naomi.

I am an angry white male, and I am not a misogynist, as this paper would have it.
I am fully aware of the appalling nature of Donald Trump.

On the other hand, I fully understand the bureaucratic nature of the Democrat Party, the embedded interests of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex in that bureaucracy, the dirty tricks that that bureaucratic machinery got up to in order to extinguish Bernie Sander's campaign.

I am aware of how that machinery has been ramping up a situation of global conflict, shamelessly recreating an aggressive Cold war Mk II situation with Russia and China, which is simply cover for the US racist colonial assumption that the world and its resources belongs to it in its sense of itself as an exceptional entity fulfilling its manifest destiny upon a global stage that belongs to its exceptional, wealthy and powerful elites.

And I am aware of how Hillary was so keen to service this reality and American image of itself. And to go beyond that, and bomb Libya for 6 months, killing thousands of civilians (Middle eastern unpeople) and, may I suggest, doing nothing whatsoever for the women of Libya. Quite the opposite!

Michael Moore, in a talk in which he predicted the victory of Trump before the election, notes how Trump went into an American car factory and told the executives of that company that if they relocated to Mexico, he would put a huge tax on their cars coming into America. Not all was misogyny in the vote for Trump. Whether he delivers on his threat or not, unlike the democrat bureaucratic machinery, he showed he was actually listening to working class Americans and that he was ;prepared to face up to company executives.

What has this paper got to say about Hillary and the Democrat Party's class bigotry – its demonstrable contempt for 10s of millions of Americans whose lives are worse now than in 1973, while productivity and wealth overall has skyrocketed over those 43 years.

What has this paper got to say about the lives of African American women, which have been devastated by Republican/Democrat bipartisan policy over the last 43 years?
What has Hadley Freeman got to say about Hillary's comment that President Mubarek of Egypt was "one of the family? A president whose security forces used physical and sexualised abuse of female demonstrators in the Arab Spring?

A feminist would need more than a peg on their nose to vote for Hillary – a feminist would need all the scented oils of Arabia. Perhaps Wahhabi funded Hillary can buy them up.

bunkl , 10 Nov 2016 10:1>
Great article, but Hilary was hardly responsible for privatization and austerity in the USA. She only had 2 terms in the senate (and was only one of 450+ in congress). She was in fact mildly center-left and at least nominally and aginst the TPPA. She could have led a progressive congress (as in the Johnson year) if her coattails were long enough.

I have never in my long life ever seen a politician so demonized... not by the mainstream media, but by the new media run mostly by the alt-right and funded by the likes of the Koch brothers. It worked.

The climate accord is now finished ..any movement towards single payer or paid parental leave, minimum wage increase ...gone. - military spending is now going up, and Trump is proposing tolls on all roads -all to be privatized to pay for tax cuts for the top earners. and this is tip of the iceberg...and not including the racist upswing.

That said, the DNC has a lot to answer for with its undemocratic superdelegates and documented undemining of Sanders...as did the media who either ignored him or unfairly lambasted him. The RealClearPolitics average from May 6-June 5 had Sanders at 49.7% to Trump's 39.3%, a 10.4-point cushion...polling that included independents. In that same time frame, Trump was polling close to Clinton and was even ahead in multiple polls. Most people were well aware of Sander's so-called "socialist" label since October the previous year, so I'm unclear if that would have been a factor in the general election.

Quiller , 10 Nov 2016 10:1>
An analysis of the media is long over due : It was remarkable to see the media, including American media, go into shock mode and scramble to reorganise the script and the thinking to run a perspective on what was happening on the night the votes were counted. The media had conditioned themselves to a Clinton win. Clearly the editors and the reporters were not out on the streets and in the hustings getting all the messages. The Guardian is in shock mode after the British Referendum and the American Presidential Election. The most politically dangerous person is a discontented voter with a ballot paper. How could the media have not spotted in advance what was happening ? I do not buy the lazy perspective that the voters deceived the media into their voting intentions. Personally, I think the media have got fat and lazy and need to come out from behind their editorial desks.
DaveLester FrankyJane , 10 Nov 2016 10:1>

This article is brilliant. Truth in spades.

Naomi, has omitted one very important detail: automation, i.e. the use of AI to replace jobs.

This absolutely requires us to restructure society to provide security and purpose to each every one of us who is not part of the super rich owners.

For example we will see driving jobs rapidly disappearing within the next five to ten years.

I also notice that where the worst effects of rampant capitalism are ameliorated there appear to be fewer issues. I'm thinking of many Western European nations where the issues do not yet seem to have the over fifty percent traction that they have in the US and the UK. If Australia were suffering a similar economic slow down it may well join the US and UK. But what's happening in Canada and New Zealand?

SlumVictim , 10 Nov 2016 09:2>
The problem with centre left parties throughout the western world is that they sold out to corporate capitalism, which forced people who rejected neoliberalism to go to the extremes to protest. The question is, once someone's loyalty has been broken, it is that much more difficult to win loyalty back, if it is possible at all.
empestteacup SlumVictim , 10 Nov 2016 11:5>
Good, concise post.

And you're right - the neoliberal capture of centre-left legacy parties from the Democrats to the German SPD and French Socialist Party has created an exceptionally unpromising landscape and public mood. Trust has been broken. Responsibilities betrayed. Intellectual traditions traduced, distorted, or simply cast aside.

In moments of humiliation or defeat - and make no mistake, this was both - there needs to be reflection and a willingness to return to first principles as well as evolving new strategies and insights appropriate to the present.

Economic realities shape cultural and social relations. The left should always listen to the experiences of people and build a consensus based on solidarity between groups and not the alienated support of different self-interested demographics. Exploitation is the corner-stone of capitalism when it is left to run unchecked. Without regulation, capitalism tends towards monopolies that end up subverting democracy itself.

These are the issues Bernie Sanders raised and the enthusiasm with which it was greeted is testimony to the fact that there are white working class voters hungry for a politics of positive, radical social change. Intoning with robotic piety that the people have never had it so good despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is a form of deceit; when it comes from the mouths of corporate Democrats, it is political obscenity.

zephirine tempestteacup , 10 Nov 2016 12:1>

In moments of humiliation or defeat - and make no mistake, this was both - there needs to be reflection and a willingness to return to first principles

I think what I've realised from the Brexit and Trump results is how desperate people are for something to believe in. What used to be called 'the vision thing'.

For decades we've had to choose between different forms of managerialism and variations on a theme of 'there is no alternative to rule by the market'. We just had to put up and shut up, there was nothing to get excited about. Nobody's ever jumped up and down shouting "What do want? Trickle-down economics! When do we want it? Now!"

The thing about demagogues is they offer that emotional release. What we need is principled political movements that also enable it.

tempestteacup zephirine , 10 Nov 2016 12:3>
Absolutely right. One of the by-products of There Is No Alternative, though, is that managerialism and wonkiness have been fetishised. Hillary Clinton's devastatingly uninspiring offer to the American people was hailed by some as a mark of her "maturity", "experience", and "competence". Bernie Sanders, by contrast, was attacked for firing people up, for inspiring them to believe change was possible - by implication, of course, such attacks rest on the belief that change is in fact not possible at all. It is a bleak nihilism that states the best that can be hoped or organised for is a slightly better management of existing structures.

There is a hypocrisy, too, when someone like Clinton derides Trump's economic plans as "Trumped-up trickle-down". In reality, they were arguing simply over who would offer the *bigger* tax cuts. The notion that there were alternative visions on the economy, on climate change, on racial equality or healthcare and education, not to mention foreign policies, was almost completely absent.

This is why I wrote that in some ways Hillary Clinton was the greater evil in this election. It is one thing to hark backwards to a mythical past, as Donald Trump did. It is quite another to put such tight constraints on the entire notion of what is possible in the future. Trump offered nostalgia. Clinton offered the tyranny of low expectations - forever.

But that is all in the past now - for the future, I agree with you that there needs to be a willingness to offer radical, inspirational and visionary alternatives to a system that has simply not worked for the majority of people who through no fault of their own find their quality of life, possibilities and security in decline while wealth flows ceaselessly upwards and into the pockets of those already insulated from the harm their favoured politicians unleash.

Bernie showed what can be done - he also showed that people are willing to finance such campaigns and thus liberate the political process from the death-grip of corporate donations. Personally, I am sceptical of whether the Democratic Party is an appropriate vehicle for such politics (I know that Bernie doesn't agree with me!) Regardless, his campaign should provide somewhat of a model for what can be done - and likewise his statement from today. Amidst the headlong rush - in this paper as well - to denigrate and smear voters for failing to advance bourgeois liberal interests, it is imperative that deprived, working class voters of all races are listened to properly and not labelled racists and bigots. A few no doubt are. But these are, in many instances, the same people that helped elect Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. They are crying out for something to organise around. Hillary Clinton failed because she was not and never has been a person capable of, even interested in, offering that.

eyelacesforyou , 10 Nov 2016 09:2>
This is a great article. Alas, I fear it is all too late.

Everyone knew what was wrong with Clinton and the whole rotten DNC operation, but they supported her anyway. When her flaws were pointed out, people kept saying 'but she's a woman.' As if that even mattered.

Fundamentally the left has to abandon its obsession with identity politics, embrace national identity and individual liberty. Then it will be able to get over its economic message and win the day.

[Nov 11, 2016] The Donald Trump victory is on the DNC establishment who rigged the primaries and eliminatd Sanders

Notable quotes:
"... Ironically, "respectability" is an intrinsically far-right notion in the first place. ..."
Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
flora November 10, 2016 at 3:18 pm

The Donald's victory is on the Dem estab who rigged the primaries. It's on the MSM who acted as Hillary's surrogate and cheerleader and who slandered Sanders' voters at every opportunity. And they're STILL slandering Sanders' voters. More important for the Dem estab to keep control of the party than to win against the GOP. Bernie would'a beat Trump, imo.

marym November 10, 2016 at 3:28 pm

would'a had some coat tails for House and Senate too, imo.

hunkerdown November 10, 2016 at 3:58 pm

But not "respectable" coat tails. Remember, the Democratic Party is the "respectable" left, not those hooligan socialists that want to make bosses and workmen peers (ew).

Ironically, "respectability" is an intrinsically far-right notion in the first place.

[Nov 11, 2016] The Democrats abandoned the only people that are paying the bills in this country - period! And the working class sent a message loud and clear.

Nov 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
sou812 3h ago 0 1 The Democrats abandoned the only people that are paying the bills in this country - period! And the working class sent a message loud and clear. The arrogance and ignorance of he left is astounding: focused on the novelty of getting a woman elected to the presidency even though she was the worst of choices. An arrogant, dishonest, bought and paid for Wall Street elitist like her husband, they thought that her experience was enough to seal her success. Ta!
The Dem's have lost it all and it will take two decades to recover, if ever.

[Nov 11, 2016] Betrayal is punished...

Nov 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com

garfield08

, 10 Nov 2016 12:4>
After 8 years of "no change" Obama, a president totally owned by the corporations, banks, big money etc. and the man who failed to do anything about that huge and ever widening wealth gap the Democrats were obviously out of favour with the poor working class. But the voters seem to have forgotten than Trump still stands for the Republicans and thats where he will enrol his cabinet from, he can not act alone. Those same weak, ineffective ultra right loonies that stood against Trump and made him look special will now stand with him in government. Its still money politics.

[Nov 11, 2016] Mutinous DNC Staffers Rage At Donna Brazile You Are Part Of The Problem... You Let This Happen

Nov 11, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

Mutinous DNC Staffers Rage At Donna Brazile: "You Are Part Of The Problem... You Let This Happen"

Tyler Durden Nov 11, 2016 2:55 PM 0 SHARES Liar, cheat, and fired CNN contributor Donna Brazile faced an angry crowd on Thursday night ... as Democratic Party officials held their first staff meeting since Hillary Clinton was crushed by the "least qualified candidate for President ever."

As The Huffington Post reports, Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one attendee described as "a rip-roaring speech" to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.

"Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?" he asked, according to two people in the room. "You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself."

Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.

"You are part of the problem," he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump's victory by siding with Clinton early on . "You and your friends will die of old age and I'm going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy."

Zach gathered his things and began to walk out. When Brazile called after him, asking where he was going, he told her to go outside and "tell people there" why she should be leading the party.

Two DNC staffers confirmed the exchange, and Brazile appeared to confirm the exchange also...

"As you can imagine, the individual involved is a member of the staff and I personally do not wish to discuss our internal meetings."

Brazile could move to stay on as chair after March, but Thursday's meeting shows at least some party officials want fresh blood at the top.

"The party is at a crossroads. They have been using the same playbook for decades, and now, they won't let anyone else come in and change it up," said one former longtime DNC staffer, who requested anonymity to speak freely.

"The fact that Democrats just sat through a devastating defeat and now have to trust the leadership that not only contributed to Clinton's loss, but the crushing 2014 midterm losses, well, what do they expect?"

Mutiny at the DNC? And where does Brazile go now? No TV network will hire a proven liar and cheat. There's no Democratic campaign for her to jump to like Wasserman-Schultz... So Brazile will probably find herself worling at The Clinton Foundation.

[Nov 11, 2016] The Democrats did a fine job of stomping out any enthusiasm by sabotaging Bernie Sanders

Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Paid Minion November 10, 2016 at 3:21 pm

The Democrats did a fine job of stomping out any enthusiasm by sabotaging Bernie Sanders.

The DNC became a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Family Inc. starting in about 2008. Control the rulemakers/money flow, and you can control who the nominee is. At least that is the conventional thinking, and Clinton Inc. is nothing if not conventional.

To buy the DNC, she chose to go to the Wall Street banksters, and others. Essentially an "up front" bribe. No smoking gun needed to be created. They knew what they were paying for, without it being said.

(I'm curious to see how many "donations" the Clinton Foundation receives, now that she's been pushed out on an ice floe.)

They never anticipated a challenger who didn't need the DNC, or it's cash.

They ignored the stats showing how many people wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstance. Just call them racist/sexist/dumbazz hicks, and call them "deplorables". Ask Mitt Romney how that worked out for him.

She lost an election to DONALD TRUMP. Even without the airwaves filled with Republican attack ads. (Lack of RNC enthusiasm for Trump? Or a recognition that Hillary's negatives couldn't be covered in a 30 second commercial?).

If it wasn't for the Clinton's collective ego, and lust for power/money (after all, we all now that in the current state of affairs, the moneyed class drives policy), we'd all (well, all of us who don't live in the rarefied air of the 1%ers/Banksters) be celebrating the upcoming inauguration of President Sanders.

[Nov 11, 2016] Keith Ellison, Howard Dean offered as possible DNC chairs as Democrats seek to regroup

Nov 11, 2016 | www.washingtonpost.com

In the wreckage of Hillary Clinton's unexpected loss, liberal lawmakers and advocacy groups have started plotting a major overhaul of the Democratic National Committee, with the aim of using the staid organization to reconnect the party with working-class voters it lost to President-elect Donald Trump.

Much of the talk since Tuesday's election has focused on selecting a new chairman, with the most frequently mentioned successor being Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who backed the primary bid of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

On Thursday afternoon, former Vermont governor Howard Dean (D) offered his service for a second tenure as DNC chairman, saying on Twitter: "The dems need organization and focus on the the young. Need a fifty State strategy and tech rehab. I am in for chairman again."

Evil Incarnate1956

I think the Republicans should get down on their knees and give thanks to God for Barack Obama. I'm serious.

He did great at getting himself elected, and he had some coattails when he was on the ballot. When he wasn't on the ballot, the Dems' election performance has been one unmitigated disaster after another- midterm epic-fails in 2010 and 2014, and Tuesday's election the frosting on the cake.

Where is the Democrats' bench strength? Where is their future? Besides Barack Obama, the face of their party today is Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Steny Hoyer.

Obama, by cramming Obamacare down people's throats against their will, and his executive order overreach, has taken a wrecking ball to the Democrat Party.

I hope the Democrats will adopt a strategy to continue the trend.

NewbieWaDoobie
Neat trick.....if you were to take the overtones of the media at large and the messaging coming from the HRC camp you can easily see why she lost the rust belt. I worked as a carpenter in South Bend, IN from about 2002-2008 and she was never going to win those people without a MESSAGE....when did she ELEVATE AND STUMP HARD for income equality and the platform....NEVER!!!! It was against her principles and the interests of the people who surrounded her and the DNC.....FOOLS!!!!!

Neoliberalism is DEAD....even the IMF, published a report on this back in June 2016....take a look at Glen Greenwald's piece while you're at it.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06...
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trum...

nealkaye, 8:46 PM EST


The GOP has the White House, the Senate and the House, the 33 state Governerships and, for the next 30 years, the US Supreme Court (once Trump picks the next 3 Justices).

Thank you Pres. Obama.

[Nov 09, 2016] Neoliberal stooge and argent Hillary supported Paul Krugman is upset

Nov 08, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

What we do know is that people like me, and probably like most readers of The New York Times, truly didn't understand the country we live in. We thought that our fellow citizens would not, in the end, vote for a candidate so manifestly unqualified for high office, so temperamentally unsound, so scary yet ludicrous.

We thought that the nation, while far from having transcended racial prejudice and misogyny, had become vastly more open and tolerant over time.

We thought that the great majority of Americans valued democratic norms and the rule of law.

It turns out that we were wrong. There turn out to be a huge number of people - white people, living mainly in rural areas - who don't share at all our idea of what America is about. For them, it is about blood and soil, about traditional patriarchy and racial hierarchy. And there were many other people who might not share those anti-democratic values, but who nonetheless were willing to vote for anyone bearing the Republican label.

I don't know how we go forward from here. Is America a failed state and society? It looks truly possible.

[Nov 07, 2016] No, Hillary Clinton is not less Evil than Trump One has Funny Hair, the Other Wears Trouser-suits Global Research - Centre

Nov 07, 2016 | www.globalresearch.ca
After all, Clinton is not going to make it into the Oval Office unless she can secure the votes of those who backed the far-more progressive Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries.

Clinton's camp have wielded various sticks to beat these voters into submission. Not least they have claimed that a refusal to vote for Clinton is an indication of one's misogyny . But it has not been an easy task. Actor Susan Sarandon, for example, has stated that she is not going to "vote with my vagina". As she notes, if the issue is simply about proving one is not anti-women, there is a much worthier candidate for president who also happens to be female: Jill Stein, of the Green Party.

Sarandon, who supported Sanders in the primaries, spoke for a vast swath of voters excluded by the two-party system when she told BBC Newsnight:

I am worried about the wars, I am worried about Syria, I am worried about all of these things that actually exist. TTP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] and I'm worried about fracking. I'm worrying about the environment. No matter who gets in they don't address these things because money has taken over our system.

Given that both Donald Trump and Clinton represent big money – and big money only – Clinton's supporters have been forced to find another stick. And that has been the "lesser evil" argument. Clinton may be bad, but Trump would be far worse. Voting for a non-evil candidate like Jill Stein – who has no hope of winning – would split the progressive camp and ensure Trump, the more evil candidate, triumphs. Therefore, there is a moral obligation on progressive voters to back Clinton, however bad her track record as a senator and as secretary of state.

There is nothing new about this argument. It had been around for decades, and has been corralling progressives into voting for Democratic presidents who have still advanced US neoconservative policy goals abroad and neoliberal ones at home.

America's pseudo-democracy

So is it true that Clinton is the lesser-evil candidate? To answer that question, we need to examine those "policy differences" with Trump.

On the negative side, Trump's platform poses a genuine threat to civil liberties. His bigoted, "blame the immigrants" style of politics will harm many families in the US in very tangible ways. Even if the inertia of the political system reins in his worst excesses, as is almost certain, his inflammatory rhetoric is sure to damage the façade of democratic discourse in the US – a development not to be dismissed lightly. Americans may be living in a pseudo-democracy, one run more like a plutocracy, but destroying the politics of respect, and civil discourse, could quickly result in the normalisation of political violence and intimidation.

On the plus side, Trump is an isolationist, with little appetite for foreign entanglements. Again, the Washington policy elites may force him to engage abroad in ways he would prefer not to, but his instincts to limit the projection of US military power on the international stage are likely to be an overall good for the world's population outside the US. Any diminishment of US imperialism is going to have real practical benefits for billions of people around the globe. His refusal to demonise Vladimir Putin, for example, may be significant enough to halt the gradual slide towards a nuclear confrontation with Russia, either in Ukraine or in the Middle East.

Clinton is the mirror image of Trump. Domestically, she largely abides by the rules of civil politics – not least because respectful discourse benefits her as the candidate with plenty of political experience. The US is likely to be a more stable, more predictable place under a Clinton presidency, even as the plutocratic elite entrenches its power and the wealth gap grows relentlessly.

Abroad, however, the picture looks worse under Clinton. She has been an enthusiastic supporter of all the many recent wars of aggression launched by the US, some declared and some covert. Personally, as secretary of state, she helped engineer the overthrow of Col Muammar Gaddafi. That policy led to an outcome – one that was entirely foreseeable – of Libya's reinvention as a failed state, with jihadists of every stripe sucked into the resulting vacuum. Large parts of Gadaffi's arsenal followed the jihadists as they exported their struggles across the Middle East, creating more bloodshed and heightening the refugee crisis. Now Clinton wants to intensify US involvement in Syria, including by imposing a no-fly zone – or rather, a US and allies-only fly zone – that would thrust the US into a direct confrontation with another nuclear-armed power, Russia.

In the cost-benefit calculus of who to vote for in a two-party contest, the answer seems to be: vote for Clinton if you are interested only in what happens in the narrow sphere of US domestic politics (assuming Clinton does not push the US into a nuclear war); while if you are a global citizen worried about the future of the planet, Trump may be the marginally better of two terribly evil choices. (Neither, of course, cares a jot about the most pressing problem facing mankind: runaway climate change.)

So even on the extremely blinkered logic of Clinton's supporters, Clinton might not be the winner in a lesser-evil presidential contest.

Mounting disillusion

But there is a second, more important reason to reject the lesser-evil argument as grounds for voting for Clinton.

Trump's popularity is a direct consequence of several decades of American progressives voting for the lesser-evil candidate. Most Americans have never heard of Jill Stein, or the other three candidates who are not running on behalf of the Republican and Democratic parties. These candidates have received no mainstream media coverage – or the chance to appear in the candidate debates – because their share of the vote is so minuscule. It remains minuscule precisely because progressives have spent decades voting for the lesser-evil candidate. And nothing is going to change so long as progressives keep responding to the electoral dog-whistle that they have to keep the Republican candidate out at all costs, even at the price of their own consciences.

Growing numbers of Americans understand that their country was "stolen from them", to use a popular slogan. They sense that the US no longer even aspires to its founding ideals, that it has become a society run for the exclusive benefit of a tiny wealthy elite. Many are looking for someone to articulate their frustration, their powerlessness, their hopelessness.

Two opposed antidotes for the mounting disillusionment with "normal politics" emerged during the presidential race: a progressive one, in the form of Sanders, who suggested he was ready to hold the plutocrats to account; and a populist one, in the form of Trump, determined to deflect anger away from the plutocrats towards easy targets like immigrants. As we now know from Wikileaks' release of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta's emails, the Democats worked hard to rig their own primaries to make sure the progressive option, Sanders, was eliminated. The Republicans, by contrast, were overwhelmed by the insurrection within their own party.

The wave of disaffection Sanders and Trump have been riding is not going away. In fact, a President Clinton, the embodiment of the self-serving, self-aggrandising politics of the plutocrats, will only fuel the disenchantment. The fixing of the Democratic primaries did not strengthen Clinton's moral authority, it fuelled the kind of doubts about the system that bolster Trump. Trump's accusations of a corrupt elite and a rigged political and media system are not merely figments of his imagination; they are rooted in the realities of US politics.

Trump, however, is not the man to offer solutions. His interests are too close aligned to those of the plutocrats for him to make meaningful changes.

Trump may lose this time, but someone like him will do better next time – unless ordinary Americans are exposed to a different kind of politician, one who can articulate progressive, rather regressive, remedies for the necrosis that is rotting the US body politic. Sanders began that process, but a progressive challenge to "politics as normal" has to be sustained and extended if Trump and his ilk are not to triumph eventually.

The battle cannot be delayed another few years, on the basis that one day a genuinely non-evil candidate will emerge from nowhere to fix this rotten system. It won't happen of its own. Unless progressive Americans show they are prepared to vote out of conviction, not out of necessity, the Democratic party will never have to take account of their views. It will keep throwing up leaders – in different colours and different sexes – to front the tiny elite that runs the US and seeks to rule the world.

It is time to say no – loudly – to Clinton, whether she is the slightly lesser-evil candidate or not. The original source of this article is Jonathan Cook Blog Copyright © Jonathan Cook , Jonathan Cook Blog , 2016

[Nov 07, 2016] 200PM Water Cooler 11-7-2016 naked capitalism

Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism is a kind of statecraft. It means organizing state policies by making them appear as if they are the consequences of depoliticized financial markets. ..."
"... It involves moving power from public institutions to private institutions, and allowing governance to happen through concentrated financial power. Actual open markets for goods and services tend to disappear in neoliberal societies. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is not faith in free markets. Neoliberalism is not free market capitalism. Neoliberalism is a specific form of statecraft that uses financial markets as a veil to disguise governing policies. ..."
"... The only consolation is that clearly a Dem or Repub president doesn't really matter, given the corporatocracy (or oligarchy, take your pick). So the bonus this year is that Drump destroyed the Bush dynasty and most of the RNC. And Clinton has burnt all her bridges and allies and the liberal MSM in getting to her (assumed) victory. ..."
"... remember whatever happens the world will go on and one US president or another will screw the serfs domestically and bomb Middle Eastern countries. ..."
"... Unless Hillary and the gung-ho neocons decide that we really should see just how far Putin can be pushed. ..."
"... I don't care which one wins, all I know is that the rest of us in the 90% will be screwed either way. But I will settle down in the evening, have a cuppa, and hope that TV will provide me with some schadenfreude. ..."
"... We cannot betray the ideal of a popular democracy by pretending this contrived political theater is free or fair or democratic. We cannot play their game. We cannot play by their rules. Our job is not to accommodate the corporate state…. ..."
"... "I do not, in the end, fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists." ..."
"... "It is not my job to support someone who makes for a better Republican than they can come up with themselves." ..."
"... I will never again vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. Did it once for Obama (against Sarah Palin). Never again. It just encourages more crapification. ..."
"... I've read exactly one compelling argument for voting Hillary, by Jim Kunstler, who thinks it best if the crew responsible for the mess is still holding the bag when things really go south. ..."
Nov 07, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
The Trail

Best pro-Trump piece I've seen: "The GOP's 'Ungrateful Bastard' Caucus" [ American Greatness ].

Best pro-Clinton piece remains: "Vote for the Lying Neoliberal Warmonger: It's Important" [ Common Dreams ].

The best reasons I can think of to vote for each candidate (as opposed to against the other candidates). In no particular order:

These reasons are, of course, entirely incommensurate.

"The American Conservative Presidential Symposium" [ The American Conservative ]. Michael Tracey: "Trump might be better than Hillary on foreign policy (my top issue), but he's far too volatile to conclude that with any certainty, and he may well end up being catastrophically worse. The Clintons' outrageous stoking of a war fervor over Russia is quite simply depraved and should disqualify them from reentering the White House…. Democrats deserve punishment for nominating a candidate with such severe legal problems, stifling a genuine populist insurgent in the most craven possible fashion (I supported Bernie Sanders but find his recent hectoring pro-Clinton conduct highly off-putting). Their shambolic, 'rigged' primary process can't be countenanced, nor can the 2016 electoral debacle as a whole, so I'll do my small part in rejecting this horror show by declining to vote."

Realignment

"America's Ruling Elite Has Failed and Deserves to Be Fired" [ Of Two Minds ]. "The last failed remnants of the state-cartel hierarchies left over from World War II must implode before we can move forward. Healthcare, defense, pharmaceuticals, higher education, the mainstream media and the systems of governance must all decay to the point that no one can be protected from the destructive consequences of their failure, and no paychecks can be issued by these failed systems." Tellingly, the author omits the FIRE sector. So I would say their definition of elite is odd.

"[E]ducation levels are a more significant factor this year. Obama won a majority of those with a high school diploma (or less) in 2012, while Romney won college-educated voters. This year the numbers are reversed. Among white voters with only a high school education, Trump leads by over 25 points. Among whites with a college degree, Clinton leads by about 10 percent. This is the first time since serious polling began in 1952 that this has happened [ RealClearPoltiics ]. And when I ask myself who sent the United States heading toward Third World status, it's not those without college degrees. In fact, it's Clinton's base.

"The Last Gasp of the American Dream" [ The Archdruid Report ].

[M]illions of Americans trudge through a bleak round of layoffs, wage cuts, part-time jobs at minimal pay, and system-wide dysfunction. The crisis hasn't hit yet, but those members of the political class who think that the people who used to be rock-solid American patriots will turn out en masse to keep today's apparatchiks secure in their comfortable lifestyles have, as the saying goes, another think coming. Nor is it irrelevant that most of the enlisted personnel in the armed forces, who are the US government's ultimate bulwark against popular unrest, come from the very classes that have lost faith most drastically in the American system. The one significant difference between the Soviet case and the American one at this stage of the game is that Soviet citizens had no choice but to accept the leaders the Communist Party of the USSR foisted off on them, from Brezhnev to Andropov to Chernenko to Gorbachev, until the system collapsed of its own weight…

If George W. Bush was our Leonid Brezhnev, as I'd suggest, and Barack Obama is our Yuri Andropov, Hillary Clinton is running for the position of Konstantin Chernenko; her running mate Tim Kaine, in turn, is waiting in the wings as a suitably idealistic and clueless Mikhail Gorbachev, under whom the whole shebang can promptly go to bits. While I don't seriously expect the trajectory of the United States to parallel that of the Soviet Union anything like as precisely as this satiric metaphor would suggest, the basic pattern of cascading dysfunction ending in political collapse is quite a common thing in history, and a galaxy of parallels suggests that the same thing could very easily happen here within the next decade or so. The serene conviction among the political class and their affluent hangers-on that nothing of the sort could possibly take place is just another factor making it more likely.

"Why Trump Is Different-and Must Be Repelled" [Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker ].

For the past months, and into this final week, as for much of the past year, many New Yorkers have been in a position that recalls parents with a colicky baby: you put the baby down at last, it seems safely asleep, grateful and unbelievably exhausted you return to bed-only to hear the small tell-tale cough or sob that guarantees another crying jag is on the way. The parents in this case, to fill in the metaphorical blanks, are liberal-minded folk; the baby's cries are any indicators that Donald Trump may not be out of the race for President-as he seemed to be even as recently as last week-and may actually have a real chance at being elected. Disbelief crowds exhaustion: this can't be happening. If the colicky baby is a metaphor too sweet for so infantile a figure as the orange menace, then let us think instead, perhaps, of the killer in a teen horror movie of the vintage kind: every time Freddy seemed dispatched and buried, there he was leaping up again, as the teens caught their breath and returned, too soon, to their teendom.

Of course, Gopnik - who should really stick to writing sweetly atmospheric pieces about Paris - is both passive-aggressive and infuriatingly smug. To "fill in the metaphorical blanks," but for realz, both the "colicky baby" and the teen horror movie villain are infantilized and displaced versions of a working class Other: The Trump voter that Eurostar-rider Gopnik hates and fears, because he's afraid they're going to come and kill him and take his stuff. In short, he has the guilty conscience of a classic liberal.

Democrat Email Hairball

"Dow surges 300 points as FBI clears Clinton on eve of election" [ USA Today ]. Hmm. Insiders go to HappyVille!

Our Famously Free Press

"Vox Scams Readers Into Thinking Prescient World Series Tweet Was A Scam [Update]" [ DeadSpin ].

Guillotine Watch

"Too Smug to Jail" [Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone ]. "As we reach the close of an election season marked by anger toward the unaccountable rich, The Economist has chimed in with a defense of the beleaguered white-collar criminal."

[T]his is the crucial passage:

"Most corporate crime is the result of collective action rather than individual wrongdoing-long chains of command that send (often half-understood) instructions, or corporate cultures that encourage individuals to take risky actions. The authorities have rightly adjusted to this reality by increasingly prosecuting companies rather than going after individual miscreants."

Yikes! This extraordinary argument is cousin to the Lieutenant Calley defense , i.e., that soldiers bear no responsibility for crimes they were ordered to execute. The Economist here would have you believe that there's no such thing as an individual crime in a corporate context.

Class Warfare

On neoliberalism [Matt Stoller, Facebook , via Atrios ].

Neoliberalism is a kind of statecraft. It means organizing state policies by making them appear as if they are the consequences of depoliticized financial markets.

It involves moving power from public institutions to private institutions, and allowing governance to happen through concentrated financial power. Actual open markets for goods and services tend to disappear in neoliberal societies.

Financial markets flourish, real markets morph into mass distribution middlemen like Walmart or Amazon.

Neoliberalism is not faith in free markets. Neoliberalism is not free market capitalism. Neoliberalism is a specific form of statecraft that uses financial markets as a veil to disguise governing policies.

What oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed. Stoller is paraphrasing his review of Greta Krippner's Capitalizing on Crisis , which sounds well worth a read.

"Uncovering Credit Disparities among Low- and Moderate-Income Areas" [ Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis ]. "Eggleston found that LMI [lower abd middle-income] neighborhoods with relatively better credit tend to be in metros with a larger percentage of white residents, and they are typically found in the East, West and parts of the upper Midwest. They also tend to be in metros that have lower poverty rates."

HopeLB November 7, 2016 at 4:15 pm

Look at reddit r/politics. Did Hillary/Brock stop paying to downvote all anti-Hill posts/comments? Reaction to the Daily Beast telling readers "YOU MUST VOTE HILLARY" was at 11,000. Maybe, Hillary and Co are trying to get a handle on real voter sentiment?
Or they don't care now that it is in the bag.

Pavel November 7, 2016 at 3:03 pm

LOL I was going to post (well, I guess I am doing so) that the finger I am counting down on is my middle finger, which I shall extend to the DNC, the RNC, the MSM, and the rest of the corrupt US oligarchy that brought us here. Especially the MSM - and note of course that it was Bill Clinton who deregulated the media so it went from one hundred or so to the SIX corporate behemoths that control 90%+ of the news that the average American consumes.

FU!

The only consolation is that clearly a Dem or Repub president doesn't really matter, given the corporatocracy (or oligarchy, take your pick). So the bonus this year is that Drump destroyed the Bush dynasty and most of the RNC. And Clinton has burnt all her bridges and allies and the liberal MSM in getting to her (assumed) victory.

My humble advice for tomorrow: have a case of beer, wine, whiskey, or green tea at hand, relax, play some good music, ignore the MSM, and remember whatever happens the world will go on and one US president or another will screw the serfs domestically and bomb Middle Eastern countries.

Norm November 7, 2016 at 3:31 pm

Unless Hillary and the gung-ho neocons decide that we really should see just how far Putin can be pushed.

OIFVet November 7, 2016 at 5:05 pm

Oh yeah, I will extend my own middle finger right back at them tomorrow. Voting for Stein will at least give me the inner peace and comfort of knowing that I did not vote for the "lesser evil" represented by Madame Secretary. I don't care which one wins, all I know is that the rest of us in the 90% will be screwed either way. But I will settle down in the evening, have a cuppa, and hope that TV will provide me with some schadenfreude.

frosty zoom November 7, 2016 at 2:58 pm

must be a glitch in putin's ipad.

RabidGandhi November 7, 2016 at 5:20 pm

He even changed all the clocks Saturday night. Is nothing sacred?

Kim Kaufman November 7, 2016 at 6:28 pm

A repost from a while ago that I saved and finally read over the weekend: Everything Is Broken https://medium.com/message/everything-is-broken-81e5f33a24e1#.voxbs0841

Ulysses November 7, 2016 at 2:59 pm

Thanks indeed!

I apologize if these concluding thoughts on an exhausting electoral season, by Chris Hedges, have already been posted:

"We cannot betray the ideal of a popular democracy by pretending this contrived political theater is free or fair or democratic. We cannot play their game. We cannot play by their rules. Our job is not to accommodate the corporate state….

The state seeks to control us through fear, propaganda, wholesale surveillance and violence. [This] is the only form of social control it has left. The lie of neoliberalism has been exposed. Its credibility has imploded. The moment we cease being afraid, the moment we use our collective strength as I saw in Eastern Europe in 1989 to make the rulers afraid of us, is the moment of the system's downfall.

Go into the voting booth on Tuesday. Do not be afraid. Vote with your conscience."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/defying_the_politics_of_fear_20161106

phred November 7, 2016 at 3:53 pm

Thank you for that link. I particularly liked the last sentences of Hedges' piece:

"I do not, in the end, fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists."

Yep.

BecauseTradition November 7, 2016 at 6:29 pm

Sounds too much like the Demos fighting for the people but never winning. Also a bit narcissistic. And is Hedges a foe of, say, the government insurance of privately created deposits – a fascist invention if ever there was?

cocomaan November 7, 2016 at 3:38 pm

Thanks for Correcting the Record! Glad that we can lump anyone who questions your narrative into four neat categories. There's no possible way someone could have an original thought.

Knifecatcher November 7, 2016 at 4:10 pm

Lifted verbatim from Deadspin. You'd think CTR could write their own propaganda rather than plagiarizing from a crappy sportswriter.

Carolinian November 7, 2016 at 2:48 pm

Gopnik/infuriatingly smug….lotta that going around. You hate what you fear?

Waldenpond November 7, 2016 at 5:16 pm

You only need to buy a plane etc. to hand out as favors, buy 4 or 5 dozen media personalities at mainstream outlets (a network is a must), get your sycophants in elections offices all over the country to purge your rival's voters and raise a billion dollars. Easy peasy.

Code Name D November 7, 2016 at 4:45 pm

Your assuming we don't get about a dozen Florida Hanging-chad scandals. If Trump wins the wrong states – this will land in court, and all end in tears.

nippersdad November 7, 2016 at 2:56 pm

That Reed column, "Vote for the lying neoliberal warmonger; it's important, has always struck me badly. His point that those who voted for a Democrat for President since '92 have done as badly or worse than they would in voting for Clinton is just false. No one in my memory has so slavishly supported finance capital and foreign wars. No one has made going to war with China, Russia or Iran a central plank in their candidacy.

I, personally, can't get over that. Republicans will do what they will do, it is not my job to support someone who makes for a better Republican than they can come up with themselves.

Ulysses November 7, 2016 at 3:04 pm

"It is not my job to support someone who makes for a better Republican than they can come up with themselves."

Very well said!!

nycTerrierist November 7, 2016 at 5:28 pm

+1

I will never again vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. Did it once for Obama (against Sarah Palin). Never again. It just encourages more crapification.

Escher November 7, 2016 at 7:30 pm

I've read exactly one compelling argument for voting Hillary, by Jim Kunstler, who thinks it best if the crew responsible for the mess is still holding the bag when things really go south.

I believe it was linked here when published.

aab November 7, 2016 at 7:53 pm

I'd be more inclined to value that possibility if it wasn't clear that the Executive Branch can now launch wars of choice at will. I have a draft age daughter.

Foppe November 7, 2016 at 3:14 pm

It's not a reference to Doing your Bit turning in family/friends/neighbors/coworkers who you "know" to be abusing the system, and thus Causing the Problem??

Pat November 7, 2016 at 3:19 pm

First violence is not the answer. Still that does make one want to find a way to march the people who came up with that along with the top management of Cigna to the stocks for some quality communing time with their customers. That there should also be a huge pile of rotten produce near the stocks would be merely coincidence.

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL November 7, 2016 at 4:27 pm

LOL and tomorrow a majority of Americans will vote back in the crowd that brought this down upon them. Wait til you see what they are gearing up to do to SocSec.

Maybe it's a deep-seated Calvinist/Protestant self-loathing? Catholic self-flaggelation? Stockholm Syndrome?

Joe Bageant wrote about the curious phenomenon of the Republican base voting year in and year out for candidates who acted in direct opposition to their own economic interests…maybe that's both "sides" of politics now?

jrs November 7, 2016 at 3:40 pm

I wish I had a benefit package :( Even a crappy one! They are throwing us on to some kind of exchange program this year. Things go from bad to worse …

Jeremy Grimm November 7, 2016 at 3:48 pm

An off-the-wall question - is your pseudonym related to Henrich Boll's story "Der Mann mit den Messern"?

Knifecatcher November 7, 2016 at 3:58 pm

Ha! Nope. Bought a house in 2009 and thought it was appropriate, and have been using it on finance / political forums ever since. Worked out OK for us, though.

Oregoncharles November 7, 2016 at 4:10 pm

that was good timing. We bought a duplex then, have done very well on it. A lot of work, though.

Jeremy Grimm November 7, 2016 at 6:30 pm

So you don't like to throw a knife over your head and catch it with a board over your head at the last minute?

frosty zoom November 7, 2016 at 3:07 pm

not only branding, but leeching as well.

frosty zoom November 7, 2016 at 3:08 pm

in response to "Knifecatcher".

Oregoncharles November 7, 2016 at 3:43 pm

" But lots of other states use electronic machines in some capacity" [Wired]. "

Much depends on exactly how. For an example, Oregon uses paper ballots marked by the voter, but, at least in my county, electronic counters. But the paper ballots are audited and stored for years, so it's easy to check up. Everything happens at the courthouse, so there's no transmission from precincts, and transmission to the SOS is probably in person by phone, followed up by email.

I'm confident in this system, not least because Oregon is a "clean" state. One county official has been caught cheating by filling in unvoted lines for Republicans, but went to jail. I can think of other ways for insiders to cheat, but it would be dangerous and pretty easy to catch.

I'm not concerned about the electronic counters as long as they aren't connected to the internet – no reason for them to be – and the results are properly audited, the biggest if. I wonder a bit about very small rural counties, where everybody knows everybody else's business and there isn't much money for safeguards.

In any case, from a national point of view Oregon's results are not in doubt. Now I have to do some campaign work for our Ranked Choice Voting initiative, and I look forward to finding out how it did in Maine.

John k November 7, 2016 at 3:45 pm

Trump had big mo, maybe until yesterday…
Today's Ibd puts T ahead by 2, best for some time… Plus generally favorable LATimes…
And blacks not turning out nearly as 08/12.
And Brexit and MI primary polls were far off because ungrateful deplorables.
Regardless, FL is must win for T. If he gets that, then the following swings might fall into place:
OH, NV, NC, IA, NM, (270), and maybe NH bonus.
If he misses FL he would need PA plus CO, likely hopeless.

I guess we deserve what we've got here… Vastly corrupt warmonger running for Obomber's third term vs loose racist/sexist cannon, albeit apparently the latter likes Putin and avoidsWWIII. Does seem harsh.

Jeremy Grimm November 7, 2016 at 3:55 pm

As I read the Archdruid's essay I could not but agree with everything he said about the soon past election.

Though I usually read him for how to deal with what comes after.

JSM November 7, 2016 at 4:01 pm

Re: Vox Scams Readers Into Thinking Prescient World Series Tweet Was A Scam [Update]

Time to correct the correction: 'This story was not up to our standards, and we deeply regret the error.'

What standards?

nobody November 7, 2016 at 4:03 pm

Regarding "Best pro-Trump piece I've seen," this one is better:

" Donald Trump and Empire: An Assessment ," by Max Forte.

LT November 7, 2016 at 4:10 pm

Dow surge…

Of course, if Hillary wins the bubble wins. Everyone with a 401k thinks they hit a triple, but they were walked to third. They won't make it to "home" (comfy retirement).

Meanwhile, Trump is of the 80s heyday of corporate raids…letting it fall and buying up cheap. Wall St knows.

Hillary wins – ride the bubble and pray you know when to dump (and you can't trust the MSM info – otherwise suckers would have seen 2008 coming).

Trump wins – being liquid rules the day.

Ché Pasa November 7, 2016 at 4:17 pm

The election will continue until the correct result is obtained.

That could happen tomorrow; it could just as well drag into January if the EC is tied or, say, the "Russians" interfere and we have to have a cyberwar or something. Wouldn't it be interesting if the House of Rs had to pick the prez? Maybe if the Supremes hadn't lawlessly intervened in the 2000 election, we wouldn't be in this pickle now. But they did. And we are.

The "correct result" one assumes is Hillary; one has assumed so since this morbid campaign began. As appealing as Bernie could be at times, there was no chance he would be allowed to stand as the Democratic nominee. And if the indications of chicanery are correct, he was actively prevented from becoming the nominee regardless of the "vote."

At no time did those who rule us ever consider Trump for the Big Chair. He's just too open and uncouth, don'tchaknow. Can't have that. Might give the game away. But he's a sop to the so-called populists, and man does he run a masterful con. All the slick and perfumed members of his class only wish they had his skill at suckering the rubes. Whoa. Dude.

Meanwhile, it's good to learn that there can be no corruption unless its name is Clinton (er, correction: "Clintoon") or can be linked somehow, if only tangentially, to the Clintoon Crime Syndicate, or it arises politically from the Democratic (er, correction: "Democrat") Party which is the ultimate source of all corruption, even that of the Clintoons.

Nothing the Democrat Party or the Clintoons do is defensible; defenses for Trump, on the other hand, well. "It's just business." Or my favorite: "At least he hasn't killed anybody (sotto voce: yet… that we know of ") So let's give him a chance!

Our Rulers are close to panicking because no matter who is ultimately selected, they fear there will be blood in the streets, and the unrest might get close to their compounds, lead to unpleasantness in their high-rises, interfere, perhaps, with some of their looting and destruction for pleasure.

This election has, for once, discommoded the comfortable.

I voted for Stein, the completely incorrect candidate, though I toyed with leaving the topline blank. Many people I know did that. But no, some of us feel the need to show solidarity with our leftish comrades. So few though, in the end.

We'll get through this, but it'll get uglier.

Tvc15 November 7, 2016 at 5:56 pm

I'm finally coming to the conclusion I'll vote for Stein too for a similar reason. Have thought about voting the following ways ranked by likelihood.

Leave the top of the ticket blank – not wanting to legitimize the charade
Write-in Stein
Write-in Bernie
Trump – if "they" hate him so much…

We are a 3 write-in family in Maine.
Spouse, Bernie
19 yr old male, Obama, I think absurist humor, but not certain.

marym November 7, 2016 at 6:01 pm

According to her website Stein is on the ballot in Maine.
http://www.jill2016.com/ballot_access

Tvc15 November 7, 2016 at 6:54 pm

Thanks, I'll find out tomorrow. My spouse received an absentee ballot and said Stein wasn't listed. Maybe she missed her.

marym November 7, 2016 at 7:11 pm

Also, if people are writing in a candidate to make a statement or as an act of personal conscience, that's their choice, but if they want the vote counted the rules vary by state. In most states, including Maine, the candidate has to file paperwork.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_Maine#Write-in_requirements

curlydan November 7, 2016 at 5:58 pm

What's your prediction of how many votes Stein will get nationwide? The Wiki god of knowledge says she got 470K in 2012. I'm going to say 3M in 2016 or about 2.5%.

cocomaan November 7, 2016 at 4:22 pm

Interesting line from the Gopnik article:

One need only track the past month's series of outrages, each quickly receding into the distance, to recall that he has done not one but almost innumerable things that in any previous election would have been, quaint word, "disqualifying."

I don't know if it would ever occur to Gopnik, but perhaps people are tired of idiotic gaffes and meaningless scandals sinking candidates. Maybe, for a sizable portion of the country, the sex scandal has been overused as some kind of indicator for someone's ability to govern, or, even though Gopnik doesn't understand this, it isn't a reflection on their ability to speak about policies that mean something to them.

Talking with Trump supporters I know, they are all very much influenced by: 1) his embracing of nationalism, 2) rejection of trade deals, 3) ideas about reforming government finance. Of course, their distrust for Hillary is just as strong.

I haven't met any trump supporters saying, "Gee, I really think his misogyny lets me free my own inherent sexism." But then again, when identity politics is what you rely on to make your vote, anyone opposed to your candidate is part of a vast linked chain of ignorant brains and invisible connections that only they can see or appreciate.

Also loved his closing line:

For, as Shakespeare would have grasped at once, there is no explaining Trump.

Isn't that your job, Adam? Put your keyboard down if you're unable to do it and spare us the columns.

timbers November 7, 2016 at 4:28 pm

The slightest bit of self-discipline on Trump's part, and Clinton is suddenly in the race of her life. Shows her extreme weakness as a candidate, and the decadence of the Democrat nomenklatura that forced her nomination through, not to mention the decadence of the political class…

If Clinton wins by any margin that doesn't keep her up all night, will not be surprised if she and Team Blue will act as if this is the most awesome-est triumph ever because they are the most awesome-est ever. First women first couple both being Presidents etc etc. They don't seem to have any sense of just how weak and disliked she/they are, and why. They will arrogantly proceed to govern as if they received a powerful mandate and not give an inch anywhere on policy, confident that the methods they used to get elected will work again in 4 years. It will be their way or the highway.

The increased volatility you predict makes sense.

hamstak November 7, 2016 at 5:36 pm

A cynic might also view another first in this election: the first time that a "charitable" foundation has been elected to the office! But perhaps I am being somewhat unfair in questioning the esteemed institution's charity, as it has indeed been charitable towards some.

GMoore November 7, 2016 at 5:39 pm

Taxable Donations to the Clinton Foundation could pay off the national debt – says Charles Ortel, should a Trump administration request a grand jury to assess the many many deficiencies and out and out crimes of that sham charity.

That is the spit and glue that binds the never Trump coalition. There are billions and billions at stake. Wall St, foreign governments, world leaders and the Gates Foundation, Bezos, Slim, Geithner, Paulson - all the big boys. Ortel does a splendid job on you tube explaining how strict the rules are for charitable foundations.

The FBI has the goods on the Clinton's and their phony baloney "foundation".

All they need is a courageous and honest Atty General – state or federal – willing to literally risk life, limb, children, dogs, cats and extended family members should they file charges on the Royals and fail.

"The onus is on the charity" – says Ortel, to prove their innocence, once charges are filed. And the Clinton Foundation has never EVER filed the proper paper work to do ANY of their activities. AGAIN, the rules state you may not raise money for AIDS, unless your charter was filed to do so. the Clintons have never filed the necessary paperwork. There is a 19 page expose on their failure to file or provide the necessary forms.

Hundreds of billions in taxable penalties and interest will be due, should Trump prevail and ask for a grand jury. He doesn't have to threaten them. THEY KNOW

When you see George Will, LInsay Graham, Bill Kristol and the Bush crime family pulling out all the stops to end this revolution – it's because of EXPOSURE.

The Clinton Foundation is the GOLD MINE. Watch and listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiFQkCSEUGE

hreik November 7, 2016 at 7:30 pm

thank you thank you thank you

Waldenpond November 7, 2016 at 7:51 pm

Media will call states early. They will have to call CA. Our numbers take too long to count.

John Merryman November 7, 2016 at 4:56 pm

Looking at the market today, the adage; "Buy the rumor, sell the news," comes to mind.

Jim Haygood November 7, 2016 at 5:02 pm

It's over …

Hillary Clinton's planned celebratory election night fireworks display over the Hudson River has been canceled, it was revealed Monday.

"They do have a permit for fireworks, but at this point we believe the fireworks is canceled," NYPD chief of intelligence Tommy Galati said at a city press conference on Election Day security with Mayor Bill de Blasio and Police Commissioner James O'Neill.

When asked by a reporter why the fireworks were canceled, Galati responded, "I cannot tell you that."

Clinton was planning aerial detonations for her potential victory that would last for two minutes starting as early at 9:30 p.m. - a half-hour after the polls close in New York.

http://nypost.com/2016/11/07/clinton-calls-off-election-night-fireworks/

Since when does the chief of intelligence get involved in a fireworks permit?

Pat November 7, 2016 at 5:08 pm

New York City is going to be a mess tomorrow. I do see that Clinton has messed up Philadelphia.

Unfortunately after tomorrow there will just be a different form of awful….no matter who wins.

UserFriendly November 7, 2016 at 5:35 pm

Since Latino Turnout has been up and AA down Trumps best shot is hoping that the Philly transit strike and Rain in Detroit and most of PA on tuesday suppress less enthusiastic Clinton voters. Both have low early voting. Then he has to cross his fingers for NC and NH.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/EXyOo

Waldenpond November 7, 2016 at 5:45 pm

Transit strike is over as reported in links.

UserFriendly November 7, 2016 at 5:56 pm

crud. Well maybe the rainstorm will blow in a little sooner then it is predicted, even then it will only hit Pittsburgh though. But it will hit Detroit all day.

UserFriendly November 7, 2016 at 5:52 pm

Otherwise he needs to hold FL. Then it comes down to PA, NC, NV, and NH.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/DOgzk

He can lose PA and win the rest,
http://www.270towin.com/maps/kmP8J

Or he can win PA and any 1 other and win (NH would be a tie)
http://www.270towin.com/maps/Ne9dp

UserFriendly November 7, 2016 at 6:05 pm

Basically he needs either PA & Michigan or FL. Michigan is a stretch, even with the rain, and PA is a long shot without the strike. So it looks like his best hope is what I predicted ages ago.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/09/thanks-for-vacation-coverage.html#comment-2667883

http://www.270towin.com/maps/0AZYR

UserFriendly November 7, 2016 at 6:36 pm

We'll know at 7pm, unless he wins both FL and NH at 7 my money is on him going down.

ewmayer November 7, 2016 at 5:41 pm

Gallup US Consumer Spending Measure, October 2016: " In October, Americans' daily self-reports of spending averaged $93, similar to September's $91 average. However, it is among the highest for the month of October in the survey's nine-year trend" [Econoday] - Was it too much to hope for an economists-trying-to-sound-smart subtitle along the lines of "Economists cite effect of Halloween falling in October this year" on this?

(And I wonder how that yuuge $2 rise compares to the error bars on the survey. Also whether any portion can be attributed to all those new improved health insurance rates showering their blessings on the country.)

Dave November 7, 2016 at 6:02 pm

What about the idea that if we elect Trump, Americans' anger will be diffused and most people will be happy?
If Clinton gets it, everyone, except her financiers will be unhappy, sooner or later.

Four years of Hillary, continuing economic stagnation and more wars may usher in and elect a candidate in 2020 who will make Trump look like a meek-mannered gentleman.

Will it really be worth it to the elite to elect Hillary and end up having to live behind locked gates and only venture out in public with a cadre of bodyguards? Will the wealthy see their Teslas and luxury cars stoned and trashed when they park them in public?

Or, should they just live with Trump and like it? If I were an elite, I'd vote for Trump for that very reason.

Karl Kolchack November 7, 2016 at 6:29 pm

Electing Trump will not defuse the anger–it will just mean that for a little while at least the half of the population who owns most of the guns will be happier. That will give us a year or so until they realize that he was never serious about helping them, and lacks the political skills or even attention span to do so. By 2018, we'd be right back to the starting point–just in time to start the whole stupid cycle all over again.

Yves Smith November 7, 2016 at 7:54 pm

No, a lot of things would change. Clinton winning would be seen as validation of the status quo. Trump winning would be destabilizing. To pretend that the two outcomes are the same is wrongheaded.

Trump winning would break the hold of the Clintons on the Democratic party, and since they've made the party overly concerned with the Presidency, at the expense of building a bench or capturing down-ticket races (all down the list, Congress, governorships, important state level posts), the damage to the party would be profound. They were already expected to lose the Senate in 2018 even if they recover it tomorrow.

Trump winning would also throw a wrench into the Republicans, although not to quite as profound a degree, since him getting this far has already put them in disarray. It would put the orthodox corporate types and many of the evangelicals in a tizzy. The lineup that Trump wants to bring in as his team are either outsiders or not well like by the mainstream of the party. So you can expect Trump to have to fight with much of his own party, as well as the Dems keen to re-establish themselves in the face of their loss.

If nothing else, Trump can do a lot on the trade front without Congress, based on the analyses I've seen so far. How far he would get in trying to wind down our over-involvement in the Middle East is questionable, but it does appear that he would at least stop further escalation with Russia. He also appears to have the ability to get INS rules enforced more strictly (Obama has deported more people than is widely acknowledged).

In other words, the President has a fair bit of power to act unilaterally. That does not require "political skills" since you don't need to get Congress to go along. I agree Trump would have little success with Congress, based on the precedent of Jimmy Carter, who had been a governor and had a House and Senate that were both solidly Democratic, and thus in theory should have gotten some cooperation, but brought in a team of outsiders and acted as if being post-Watergate meant he could do things differently.

John Steinbach November 7, 2016 at 6:51 pm

I'm probably voting for Trump only because of TPP. Thanks to the trade traitors, fast track passage made it much easier to pass TPP with a simple majority during the lame duck session. Clinton will let it ride, but Trump will probably kill it, or at least try to.

Otherwise I'd cast a feel good vote for Stein.

Jeremy Grimm November 7, 2016 at 6:54 pm

If DARPA's robotics program will only come up with some cool enough robots we might send a bot or two to closes down the flow of gated sewer lines or stop the flow of gated water - or add a little something.

I never never even made these suggestions - a Russian spy working for PUTIN took over my keyboard.

JustAnObserver November 7, 2016 at 7:12 pm

After Hillary comes the Intifada of the "deplorables" ?

Kim Kaufman November 7, 2016 at 6:43 pm

I have absolutely no evidence that there's any manipulating of the polling data going on, or how that would work if it were, but it seems to me that this down to the wire close and flip-flopping polling data is hugely in the media's $$ interest. Gazillion$$ are being dumped into late media buys especially for senate races. I can't see how they could manipulate it but if the media could it's certainly in their $$ interest to do so.

Fiver November 7, 2016 at 6:49 pm

I raised this yesterday as a comment, but would like to re-phrase as a question. Bearing in mind that the Clinton 'team' had possession of all of her e-mails for 2 years prior to the original request for the records re the Benghazi investigation, and that the Admin was kind enough to allow Clinton's lawyers to be the ones who determined which e-mails were 'work-related' and which 'personal', and further bearing in mind that the focus has been on whether or not any of the 'personal' e-mails were classified or not, I'd like to ask everyone this:

Did the FBI audit all of the e-mails that Clinton lawyers put in the 'work-related' basket? Given State is full of Clinton 'friendlies' would it not be possible that incriminating 'personal' e-mails were improperly slotted as 'work-related' to hide them with State until it all blows over? Alternately, was the FBI granted access to all Clinton's State Department '.gov' account messages, and those on the systems often referenced by Clinton and others that was used for all important, classified, secret stuff? Further, did FBI have access to all Clinton's (or others') communications using State Department (or other Government) systems that may have been sent to the Foundation, or to any of her usual suspects (Podesta, Mills, Abedin, Clinton lawyers, etc.)?

Two years is a long time for someone to think about what to do with a pile of incriminating stuff – something a bit more selective than Podesta's 'dump it'.

oho November 7, 2016 at 7:48 pm

Comey to be fired post-election? (written by Edward Klein, author of "Blood Feud")

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914340/Senior-adviser-Valerie-Jarrett-convinced-President-Obama-FIRE-FBI-director-James-Comey-election.html

allan November 7, 2016 at 7:50 pm

Truly terrible NPR coverage of the start of the Dylann Roof trial in Charlestown on
both the morning and evening shows.

No mention of the fact that a charismatic black state senator, Clementa Pinckney, was assassinated.
Pinckney is referred to, and not by name, only as the pastor of the Mother Emanuel A.M.E. Church.

No breathless speculations or leaks from anonymous LE sources about how Roof was radicalized
or who else might have been involved in the plot.

No use of the phrase `domestic terrorism', which apparently is off limits in such cases.

Oh those tote bag liberals.

[Nov 07, 2016] Hillary Loses the Left

Nov 07, 2016 | www.legitgov.org

November 7, 2016 by legitgov

Share Close

Hillary Loses the Left | 06 Nov 2016 | While Donald Trump has been consolidating his base of support, the opposite appears to be happening for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who seems to be hemorrhaging supporters from her progressive base...[I]n the closing days of the 2016 campaign, the rift has been laid bare through a combination of WikiLeaks revelations, a series of high-profile endorsements for Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein from progressives like Marc Lamont Hill, Cornel West, and Susan Sarandon, as well as polling data that suggests Trump's broad populist messaging is resonating with Democrat-leaning voters. v Contrary to the narrative perpetuated by corporate media, many prominent liberals are now expressing their belief that installing Hillary Clinton, a " corporatist hawk ," in the White House is " the true danger " and would be " more dangerous " for progressive values, the well-being of the nation, and the stability of the world than would four years of a Donald Trump presidency.

[Nov 07, 2016] Bernie Sanders was a Con Artist, had an 'Agreement' with Hillary Clinton – Wikileaks

www.eutimes.net

According to a new Wikileaks email, Bernie Sanders was just a Manchurian candidate and a Clinton puppet all along. We finally have confirmation of what we have suspected since Bernie said "people are sick of hearing about your damn emails" all the way back in 2015 during one debate. That was a big give-away and a huge red flag which many have raised back then but now we finally have irrefutable proof that Bernie Sanders was just a SCAM candidate and a con artist.

[Nov 07, 2016] Sanders had non-aggression pact with Clinton who had leverage to enforce it. He basically handed her this nomination.

Nov 07, 2016 | twitter.com

WikiLeaks  Verified account
‏@wikileaks

Sanders had non-aggression pact with Clinton who had "leverage" to enforce it Robby Mook ("re47") email reveals https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397#efmAAAAB2 …

Robert. ‏@robbiemakestees · Nov 4

@wikileaks the plot thickens. He basically handed her this nomination. What did he honestly think was gonna happen?

[Nov 06, 2016] Trump vs. the REAL Nuts -- the GOP Uniparty Establishment

Notable quotes:
"... An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty." ..."
"... There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians. ..."
"... Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. ..."
"... To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. ..."
"... Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment. ..."
Oct 29, 2016 | www.unz.com
54 Comments Credit: VDare.com.

A couple of remarks in Professor Susan McWillams' recent Modern Age piece celebrating the 25th anniversary of Christopher Lasch's 1991 book The True and Only Heaven , which analyzed the cult of progress in its American manifestation, have stuck in my mind. Here's the first one:

In the most recent American National Election Studies survey, only 19 percent of Americans agreed with the idea that the government, "is run for the benefit of all the people." [ The True and Only Lasch: On The True and Only Heaven, 25 Years Later , Fall 2016]

McWilliams adds a footnote to that: The 19 percent figure is from 2012, she says. Then she tells us that in 1964, 64 percent of Americans agreed with the same statement.

Wow. You have to think that those two numbers, from 64 percent down to 19 percent in two generations, tell us something important and disturbing about our political life.

Second McWilliams quote:

In 2016 if you type the words "Democrats and Republicans" or "Republicans and Democrats" into Google, the algorithms predict your next words will be "are the same".

I just tried this, and she's right. These guesses are of course based on the frequency with which complete sentences show up all over the internet. An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty."

There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians.

Which leads me to a different lady commentator: Peggy Noonan, in her October 20th Wall Street Journal column.

The title of Peggy's piece was: Imagine a Sane Donald Trump . [ Alternate link ]Its gravamen: Donald Trump has shown up the Republican Party Establishment as totally out of touch with their base, which is good; but that he's bat-poop crazy, which is bad. If a sane Donald Trump had done the good thing, the showing-up, we'd be on course to a major beneficial correction in our national politics.

It's a good clever piece. A couple of months ago on Radio Derb I offered up one and a half cheers for Peggy, who gets a lot right in spite of being a longtime Establishment Insider. So it was here. Sample of what she got right last week:

Mr. Trump's great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its own base really thinks about the big issues. The party's leaders didn't know! They were shocked, so much that they indulged in sheer denial and made believe it wasn't happening.

The party's leaders accept more or less open borders and like big trade deals. Half the base does not! It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn't want to, not right now! Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses. When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he'd opposed the Iraq invasion, the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn't want to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.

I'll just pause to note Peggy's use of Steve Sailer' s great encapsulation of Bush-style NeoConnery: "Invade the world, invite the world." Either Peggy's been reading Steve on the sly, or she's read my book We Are Doomed , which borrows that phrase. I credited Steve with it, though, so in either case she knows its provenance, and should likewise have credited Steve.

End of pause. OK, so Peggy got some things right there. She got a lot wrong, though

Start with the notion that Trump is crazy. He's a nut, she says, five times. His brain is "a TV funhouse."

Well, Trump has some colorful quirks of personality, to be sure, as we all do. But he's no nut. A nut can't be as successful in business as Trump has been.

I spent 32 years as an employee or contractor, mostly in private businesses but for two years in a government department. Private businesses are intensely rational, as human affairs go-much more rational than government departments. The price of irrationality in business is immediate and plainly financial. Sanity-wise, Trump is a better bet than most people in high government positions.

Sure, politicians talk a good rational game. They present as sober and thoughtful on the Sunday morning shows.

Look at the stuff they believe, though. Was it rational to respond to the collapse of the U.S.S.R. by moving NATO right up to Russia's borders? Was it rational to expect that post-Saddam Iraq would turn into a constitutional democracy? Was it rational to order insurance companies to sell healthcare policies to people who are already sick? Was the Vietnam War a rational enterprise? Was it rational to respond to the 9/11 attacks by massively increasing Muslim immigration?

Make your own list.

Donald Trump displays good healthy patriotic instincts. I'll take that, with the personality quirks and all, over some earnest, careful, sober-sided guy whose head contains fantasies of putting the world to rights, or flooding our country with unassimilable foreigners.

I'd add the point, made by many commentators, that belongs under the general heading: "You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps." If Donald Trump was not so very different from run-of-the-mill politicians-which I suspect is a big part of what Peggy means by calling him a nut-would he have entered into the political adventure he's on?

Thor Heyerdahl sailed across the Pacific on a hand-built wooden raft to prove a point, which is not the kind of thing your average ethnographer would do. Was he crazy? No, he wasn't. It was only that some feature of his personality drove him to use that way to prove the point he hoped to prove.

And then there is Peggy's assertion that the Republican Party's leaders didn't know that half the party's base were at odds with them.

Did they really not? Didn't they get a clue when the GOP lost in 2012, mainly because millions of Republican voters didn't turn out for Mitt Romney? Didn't they, come to think of it, get the glimmering of a clue back in 1996, when Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary?

Pat Buchanan is in fact a living counter-argument to Peggy's thesis-the "sane Donald Trump" that she claims would win the hearts of GOP managers. Pat is Trump without the personality quirks. How has the Republican Party treated him ?

Our own Brad Griffin , here at VDARE.com on October 24th, offered a couple more "sane Donald Trumps": Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. How did they fare with the GOP Establishment?

Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. Probably he's less well-informed about the world than the average pol. I doubt he could tell you what the capital of Burkina Faso is. That's secondary, though. A President has people to look up that stuff for him. The question that's been asked more than any other about Donald Trump is not, pace Peggy Noonan, "Is he nuts?" but, " Is he conservative? "

I'm sure he is. But my definition of "conservative" is temperamental, not political. My touchstone here is the sketch of the conservative temperament given to us by the English political philosopher Michael Oakeshott :

To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.

Rationalism in Politics and other essays (1962)

That fits Trump better than it fits any liberal you can think of-better also than many senior Republicans.

For example, it was one of George W. Bush's senior associates-probably Karl Rove-who scoffed at opponents of Bush's delusional foreign policy as "the reality-based community." It would be hard to think of a more un -Oakeshottian turn of phrase.

Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment.

I thank him for that, and look forward to his Presidency.

[Nov 06, 2016] The Podesta Emails - Undeniable proof that the lobbyists wanted to put Bernie out

Notable quotes:
"... WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. ..."
"... if President Obama signs this terrible legislation that blatantly validates Bernie's entire campaign message about Wall Street running our government, this will give Bernie a huge boost and 10,000 -20,000 outraged citizens (who WILL turn up because they will be so angry at the President for preemption vt) will be marching on the Mall with Bernie as their keynote speaker. " ..."
"... But Hirshberg does not stop here. In order to persuade Podesta about the seriousness of the matter, he claims that " It will be terrible to hand Sanders this advantage at such a fragile time when we really need to save our $$$ for the Trump fight. " ..."
Nov 06, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.

An email from Gary Hirshberg, chairman and former president and CEO of Stonyfield Farm , to John Podesta on March 13, 2016, confirms why the lobbyists strongly opposed Bernie Sanders.

Hirshberg writes to a familiar person, as he was mentioned at the time as a possible 2008 Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, requesting Obama should not pass the Roberts bill because " if President Obama signs this terrible legislation that blatantly validates Bernie's entire campaign message about Wall Street running our government, this will give Bernie a huge boost and 10,000 -20,000 outraged citizens (who WILL turn up because they will be so angry at the President for preemption vt) will be marching on the Mall with Bernie as their keynote speaker. "

But Hirshberg does not stop here. In order to persuade Podesta about the seriousness of the matter, he claims that " It will be terrible to hand Sanders this advantage at such a fragile time when we really need to save our $$$ for the Trump fight. "

[Nov 05, 2016] Susan Sarandon DNC is completely corrupt

Nov 05, 2016 | thehill.com
Actress Susan Sarandon on Thursday tore into the Democratic National Committee (DNC), calling it "completely corrupt." "After my experience in the primary, it's very clear to me the DNC is gone," she told CNN's Carol Costello .

"Every superdelegate is a lobbyist. The way that the system is set up in terms of trying of having superdelegates - you could win a state and not get the delegates. It's crazy."

Sarandon backed Sen. Bernie Sanders Bernie Sanders Dem elector says he won't vote for Clinton A field guide to third-party prospects Susan Sarandon on refusing to back Clinton: 'I don't vote with my vagina' MORE (I-Vt.) for the Democratic nomination. She said she still respects Sanders even though he endorsed Hillary Clinton Hillary Rodham Clinton Trump seeks uptick in race's final days Trump touts 'contract' in GOP weekly address Beyonce, Jay Z rally young voters at Clinton concert MORE for president.

"Look, Bernie has said 'don't ever listen to me if I tell you how to vote,' " she said.

"What [Sanders] did is show people that they counted. He brought them hope. He's supporting a lot of candidates. It's very important to go and vote down the ticket."

Sarandon predicted a surge in third-party support on Election Day, calling Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump Donald Trump Trump seeks uptick in race's final days Trump touts 'contract' in GOP weekly address Report: National Enquirer withheld story about Trump affair MORE "untrustable."

"I think we've been voting the lesser of two evils for too long. The good news is everybody's so frustrated that at least we're awake."

Sarandon on Monday endorsed Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

"It's clear a third-party is necessary and viable at this time," she said in a letter posted on Stein's campaign website. "And this is the first step in accomplishing that end."

Stein has about 2 percent support nationally, according to a RealClearPolitics average of polls . iv>

[Nov 04, 2016] the Podesta emails show compete corruption of democratic party

Notable quotes:
"... The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. ..."
Nov 04, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. They are last week's scandal in a year running over with scandals, but in truth their significance goes far beyond mere scandal: they are a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers.

The class to which I refer is not rising in angry protest; they are by and large pretty satisfied, pretty contented. Nobody takes road trips to exotic West Virginia to see what the members of this class looks like or how they live; on the contrary, they are the ones for whom such stories are written. This bunch doesn't have to make do with a comb-over TV mountebank for a leader; for this class, the choices are always pretty good, and this year they happen to be excellent.

They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.

[Nov 03, 2016] And Now For Some Comic Relief by Jonathan V. Last

Nov 03, 2016 | www.weeklystandard.com
Presenting...the Clinton IT Department! This has not been an especially ennobling election. Or a rewarding one. Or even entertaining. Pretty much everything about 2016 has been boorish and grotesque. But finally it is time to laugh.

This has not been an especially ennobling election. Or a rewarding one. Or even entertaining. Pretty much everything about 2016 has been boorish and grotesque. But finally it is time to laugh.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present the Clinton IT department.

Over the weekend we finally found out how Clinton campaign honcho John Podesta's emails were hacked. But first a couple disclaimers:

1) Yes, it's unpleasant to munch on the fruit of the poisoned tree. But this isn't a court of law and you can't just ignore information that's dragged into the public domain.

2) We're all vulnerable to hackers. Even if you're a security nut who uses VPNs and special email encryption protocols, you can be hacked. The only real security is the anonymity of the herd. Once a hacker targets you, specifically, you're toast.

I'm a pretty tech-savvy guy and if the Chinese decided to hack my emails tonight, you'd have everything I've ever written posted to Wikileaks before the sun was up tomorrow.

But that is … not John Podesta's situation.

What happened was this: On March 19, Podesta got what looked--kind of, sort of--like an email from Google's Gmail team. The email claimed that someone from the Ukraine had tried to hack into Podesta's Gmail account and that he needed to change his password immediately.

This is what's called a "phishing" scam, where hackers send legitimate-looking emails that, when you click on the links inside them, actually take you someplace dangerous. In Podesta's case, there was a link that the email told him to click in order to change his password.

This was not an especially good bit of phishing. Go have a look yourself. The email calls Podesta by his first name. It uses bit.ly as a link shortener. Heck, the subject line is the preposterous "*someone has your password*". Why would Google say "someone has your password?" They wouldn't. They'd say that there had been log-in attempts that failed two-step authentication, maybe. Or that the account had been compromised, perhaps. If you've spent any time using email over the last decade, you know exactly how these account security emails are worded.

And what's more, you know that you never click on the link in the email. If you get a notice from your email provider or your bank or anyone who holds sensitive information of yours saying that your account has been compromised, you leave the email, open your web browser, type in the URL of the website, and then manually open your account information. Again, let me emphasize: You never click on the link in the email!

But what makes this story so priceless isn't that John Podesta got fooled by an fourth-rate phishing scam. After all, he's just the guy who's going to be running Hillary Clinton's administration. What does he know about tech? And Podesta, to his credit, knew what he didn't know: He emailed the Clinton IT help desk and said, Hey, is this email legit?

And the Clinton tech team's response was: Hell yes!

No, really. Here's what they said: One member of the team responded to Podesta by saying "The gmail one is REAL." Another answered by saying "This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately."

It's like the Clinton IT department is run by 90-year-old grandmothers. I half-expect the next Wikileaks dump to have an email from one Clinton techie to another asking for help setting their VCR clock.

As the other guy likes to say, "only the best people."

[Nov 03, 2016] John Podesta and Mook conspiring to commit money laundering

Nov 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

oho November 3, 2016 at 3:03 pm

John Podesta + Mook conspiring to commit money laundering. Not hyperbole.

https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794236216681992192/photo/1

Portia November 3, 2016 at 3:06 pm

3k/mo ok for you?

why yes

[Nov 03, 2016] Robin's Reactionary Mind In The New Yorker – The Book That Didn't Predict Not-Trump

Notable quotes:
"... The outcome of the election remains in doubt despite one candidate's collapsing support. There are a number here who have been making similar arguments about the inefficacy of left-right labels. ..."
"... The prospect of a gutting of the Democratic party seems far more likely to me, if Brent Baier is to be believed, and that is a big 'if,' I concede. We should see the donor class candidate triumph as we normally do. ..."
"... The constituency that supports Trump is utterly indifferent to the Frums of the world, and even the Limbaughs. They are pissed-off, non-ideological, and highly-motivated. ..."
"... electoral politics in this country has come to such a pass but the Left (or what passes for it in the US) is as much to blame as the Right in that they haven't offered real substantive alternatives to the NeoLib/NeoCon orthodoxy that seems to dominate US policymaking. ..."
Crooked Timber

kidneystones 11.03.16 at 12:15 pm

Corey does deserve credit for all the reasons jh notes. The outcome of the election remains in doubt despite one candidate's collapsing support. There are a number here who have been making similar arguments about the inefficacy of left-right labels.

... ... ...

The prospect of a gutting of the Democratic party seems far more likely to me, if Brent Baier is to be believed, and that is a big 'if,' I concede. We should see the donor class candidate triumph as we normally do. My basic read has not changed, however. The constituency that supports Trump is utterly indifferent to the Frums of the world, and even the Limbaughs. They are pissed-off, non-ideological, and highly-motivated.

Frum still hasn't figured out that he's just as likely to find himself the target of their hostility as any Dem. And right now Trump supporters outnumber the Frums of the world by far from inconsequential numbers.

I still say Trump edges it.

DMC 11.03.16 at 7:27 pm

There's just too many people in this country for whom "more of the same and harder" is a deal breaker. They'll go with the guy who tells them "one more throw of the dice" and who apparently scares the snot out of the Establishment types.

The ruder he is, the more they like it. The more the "grown-ups" say this is going to be bad for the country, the better it sounds to people picking up cans off the road to make ends meet. Its utterly hateful that electoral politics in this country has come to such a pass but the Left (or what passes for it in the US) is as much to blame as the Right in that they haven't offered real substantive alternatives to the NeoLib/NeoCon orthodoxy that seems to dominate US policymaking.

[Nov 03, 2016] If Trump wins, all the Democratic party elites should be given their pink slips and never allowed to run the DNC again.

Notable quotes:
"... Holding on to the White House in 2016 is extremely important. We can't afford to let party elites jeopardize that by ignoring the will of the voters. Join me and DFA in telling superdelegates to pledge to support the popularly-elected winner of the nomination now. ..."
"... If Trump wins, all the Democratic party elites should be given their pink slips and never allowed to run the DNC again ..."
Nov 03, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com

nonsensefactory, 1h ago 3 4

Recall this warning to the Democratic Party after Bernie Sander's landslide win in New Hampshire? Shockingly, all the superdelegates went over to Hillary Clinton:

Holding on to the White House in 2016 is extremely important. We can't afford to let party elites jeopardize that by ignoring the will of the voters. Join me and DFA in telling superdelegates to pledge to support the popularly-elected winner of the nomination now.


If Trump wins, all the Democratic party elites should be given their pink slips and never allowed to run the DNC again.

[Nov 03, 2016] A Divided US Sociologist Arlie Hochschild on the 2016 Presidential Election

Nov 03, 2016 | www.truth-out.org

...they felt that mainstream America had left them and had gone by, didn't see them, didn't recognize who they were and neither political party spoke to their feelings and interests. In this sense, they felt like strangers in their own land.

I'll give you an example of that. One woman I spoke to said, "I'm really glad you've come to interview us, because we are the fly-over-state and people think of the South that we're ignorant, backward, that we have old-fashioned attitudes, that we're pro-family, pro-life and that many people think we're racist when we're not, and so they write us off, they call us rednecks, so thanks for coming to see who we really are." You've said that, "The conservatives of yesterday seem moderate or liberal today" in the US. Can you elaborate on this move to the right in American politics?

In 1968, Barry Goldwater was the first really radical anti-government national candidate for the Republican presidency. His wife was a founder of Planned Parenthood. Today, Republicans and the Tea Party want to defund Planned Parenthood, which offers contraception, abortion, cancer screening and other very important things.

Again, former Republican President Richard Nixon brought us the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and now Republicans are calling for the end of the EPA.

Yet again, former Republican President Eisenhower called for a minimum wage; now Republicans oppose this. Eisenhower called for investments in public infrastructure, now it's opposed. Today, the Republicans of the '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s look liberal. That's how far right we've become.

[Nov 03, 2016] Off The Record dinner at Podestas with reporters covering Clinton

Notable quotes:
"... Hillary wouldn't even be close if the press weren't in the tank for her ..."
Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

JackMeOff Nov 3, 2016 9:37 AM

Off The Record dinner at Podesta's with reporters covering Clinton:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43604

The goals of the dinner include:

(1) Getting to know the reporters most closely c overing HRC and getting them comfortable with team HRC

(2) Setting expectations for the announcement and launch period

(3) Framing the HRC message and framing the race

(4) Demystifying key players on HRC's campaign team

(5) Having fun and enjoying good cooking

I am a Man I am... JackMeOff Nov 3, 2016 10:01 AM ,
REPORTERS RSVP (28) 1. ABC – Liz Kreutz 2. AP – Julie Pace 3. AP - Ken Thomas 4. AP - Lisa Lerer 5. Bloomberg - Jennifer Epstein 6. Buzzfeed - Ruby Cramer 7. CBS – Steve Chagaris 8. CNBC - John Harwood 9. CNN - Dan Merica 10. Huffington Post - Amanda Terkel 11. LAT - Evan Handler 12. McClatchy - Anita Kumar 13. MSNBC - Alex Seitz-Wald 14. National Journal - Emily Schultheis 15. NBC – Mark Murray 16. NPR - Mara Liassion 17. NPR – Tamara Keith 18. NYT - Amy Chozik 19. NYT - Maggie Haberman 20. Politico - Annie Karni 21. Politico - Gabe Debenedetti 22. Politico - Glenn Thrush 23. Reuters - Amanda Becker 24. Washington Post - Anne Gearan 25. Washington Post – Phil Rucker 26. WSJ - Colleen McCain Nelson 27. WSJ - Laura Meckler 28. WSJ - Peter Nicholas

Pigeon •Nov 3, 2016 9:49 AM

It bothers me these stories are constantly prefaced with the idea that Wikileaks is saving Trump's bacon. Hillary wouldn't even be close if the press weren't in the tank for her. How about Wikileaks evening the playing field with REAL STORIES AND FACTS?

[Nov 02, 2016] Donald Trump is no outsider: he mirrors our political culture by George Monbiot

Trump mirrors resentment with the current political culture. Unfortunately very few readers in this forum understand that the emergence of Trump as a viable candidate in the current race, the candidate who withstand 24x7 air bombarment by corrupt neoliberabl MSM (like Guardian ;-) signify deep crisis of neoliberalsm and neoliberal globalization.
Notable quotes:
"... "What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless of its size." ..."
"... That's it – finance and sophisticated lobbying. And you can add to that mass brainwashing at election campaigns by means of choice language and orchestration as advised by cognitive scientists who are expressly recruited for this purpose. Voters remain largely unaware of the mind control they are undergoing. And of course the essential prerequisite for all of this is financial power. ..."
"... Now read again in this light Gore Vidal's famous pronouncement… "Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically by definition be disqualified from ever doing so." ..."
"... Worse still, the political spectrum runs from right to right. To all intents and purposes, one single party, the US Neoliberal party, with 2 factions catering for power and privilege. Anything to the left of that is simply not an available choice for voters. ..."
"... Americans have wakened up to the fact that they badly need a government which caters for the needs of the average citizen. In their desperation some will still vote for Trump warts and all. This for the same sorts of reasons that Italians voted for Berlusconi, whose winning slogan was basically 'I am not a politician'. ..."
"... The right choice was Bernie Sanders. Sadly, not powerful enough. So Americans missed the boat there. But at least there was a boat to miss this time around. You can be sure that similar future boats will be sunk well in advance. Corporate power has learnt its lesson and the art of election rigging has now become an exact science. ..."
"... Donald Trump, Brexit and Le Pen are all in their separate ways rejections of the dogma of liberalism, social and economic, that has dominated the West for the past three decades. ..."
"... In 2010, Chomsky wrote : ..."
"... The United States is extremely lucky.....if somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. ..."
"... Dangerous times. The beauty of democracy is we get what we deserve ..."
"... The worst thing about Donald Trump is that he's the man in the mirror. ..."
"... He is the distillation of all that we have been induced to desire and admire. ..."
"... I thought that he is the mirror image, the reverse, of the current liberal consensus. A consensus driven by worthy ideals but driven too far, gradually losing acceptance and with no self correcting awareness. ..."
"... Trump is awful - but by speaking freely he challenges the excesses of those who would limit free speech. Trump is awful - but by demonising minorities he challenges those who would excuse minorities of all responsibility. Trump is awful - but by flaunting his wealth he challenges those who keep their connections and wealth hidden for the sake of appearances. ..."
"... Trump is awful because the system is out of balance. He is a consequence, not a cause. ..."
"... Voting for Trump is voting for peace. Voting for Clinton is voting for WW3. ..."
"... It's quite clearly because Hillary as President is an utterly terrifying prospect. When half the population would rather have Trump than her, it must be conceded that she has some serious reputational issues. ..."
"... Personally, I'd take Trump over Hillary if I was a US citizen. He may be a buffoon but she is profoundly dangerous, probably a genuine psychopath and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Presidency. Sanders is the man America needs now, though, barring one of Hillary's many crimes finally toppling her, it's not going to happen... ..."
"... The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal ..."
"... And the shame is we seem to be becoming desensitized to scandal. We cannot be said to live in democracies when our political class are so obviously bought by the vastly rich. ..."
"... One of the things it says is that people are so sick of Identity Politics from the Left and believe the Left are not very true to the ideals of what should be the Left. ..."
"... When the people who are supposed to care about the poor and working joes and janes prefer to care about the minorities whose vote they can rely on, the poor and the working joes and janes will show their frustration by supporting someone who will come along and tell it as it is, even if he is part of how it got that way. ..."
"... People throughout the world have awoken to the Left being Right Light but with a more nauseating moral superiority complex. ..."
"... he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics ..."
"... 'Encouraged by the corporate media, the Republicans have been waging a full-spectrum assault on empathy, altruism and the decencies we owe to other people. Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.' ..."
"... Many years ago in the British Military, those with the right connections and enough money could buy an officer's commission and rise up the system to be an incompetent General. As a result, many battles were mismanaged and many lives wasted due to the incompetent (wealthy privileged few) buying their way to the top. American politics today works on exactly the same system of wealthy patronage and privilege for the incompetent, read Clinton and Trump. Until the best candidates are able to rise up through the political system without buying their way there then the whole corrupt farce will continue and we will be no different to the all the other tin pot republics of the world. ..."
"... There's the "culture wars" aspect. Many people don't like being told they are "deplorable" for opposing illegal (or even legal) immigration. They don't like being called "racist" for disagreeing with an ideology. ..."
"... I like the phrase Monbiot ends with - "He is our system, stripped of its pretences" - it reminds me of a phrase in the Communist Manifesto - but I don't think it's true. "Our" system is more than capitalism, it's culture. And Clinton is a far more "perfect representation" of the increasingly censorious, narrow [neo]liberal culture which dominates the Western world. ..."
"... Finally, Monbiot misses the chance to contrast Clinton's and Trump's apparent differences with regard to confronting nuclear-armed Russia over the skies of Syria. It could be like 1964 all over again - except in this election, the Democrat is the nearest thing to Barry Goldwater. ..."
"... As a life-long despiser of all things Trump, I cannot believe that I am saying this: Trump is good for world peace. ..."
"... I fully agree with Monbiot, American democracy is a sham - the lobby system has embedded corruption right in the heart of its body politic. Lets be clear here though, whatever is the problem with American democracy can in theory at least be fixed, but Trump simply can not and moreover he is not the answer ..."
"... His opponent, war child and Wall Street darling can count her lucky stars that the media leaves her alone (with husband Bill, hands firmly in his pockets, nodding approvingly) and concentrates on their feeding frenzy attacking Trump on sexual allegations of abusing women, giving Hillery, Yes, likely to tell lies, ( mendacious, remember when she claimed to be under enemy fire in Bosnia? remember how evasive she was on the Benghazi attack on the embassy) Yes Trump is a dangerous man running against an also extremely dangerous woman. ..."
"... Extremely interesting reference to the Madison paper, but the issue is less about the size of the electorate, and more about the power that the election provides to the victor. ..."
"... Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt? ..."
"... When you look at speeches and conversations and debates with the so-called bogeyman, Putin, he is not at all in a league as low and vile as portrayed and says many more sensible things than anybody cares to listen to, because we're all brainwashed. We are complicit in wars (now in Syria) and cannot see why we have to connive with terrorists, tens of thousands of them, and they get supported by the war machine and friends like Saudis and Turkey which traded for years with ISIS. ..."
"... Clinton the war hawk, and shows us we are only capable of seeing one side and project all nastiness outward while we can feel good about ourselves by hating the other. ..."
"... It fits the Decline of an Empire image as it did in other Falls of Civilizations. ..."
"... Trump spoke to the executives at Ford like no one before ever has. He told them if they moved production to Mexico (as they plan to do) that he would slap huge tariffs on their cars in America and no one would buy them. ..."
"... What happens in Syria could be important to us all. Clinton doesn't hide her ambition to drive Assad from power and give Russia a kicking. It's actually very unpopular although the media doesn't like to say so; it prefers to lambast Spain for re-fueling Russian war ships off to fight the crazed Jihadists as if we supported the religious fanatics that want to slaughter all Infidels! There is an enormous gulf between what ordinary people want and the power crazy Generals in the Pentagon and NATO. ..."
"... USA has got itself in an unholy mess . It's politicians no longer work for the people . Their paymasters care not if life in Idaho resembles Dantes inferno . Trump has many faults but being "not Hilary" is not one of them. The very fact he is disliked by all the vested interests should make you take another look. And remember , the American constitution has many checks and balances , a President has a lot less power than most people imagine. ..."
"... Like many on the right, the left have unthinkingly accepted a narrative of an organized, conspiratorial system run by an elite of politicians and plutocrats. The problem with this narrative is it suggests politics and politicians are inherently nefarious, in turn suggesting there are no political solutions to be sought to problems, or anything people can do to challenge a global system of power. As Monbiot asks: "You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?" Well, what indeed? ..."
"... I don't think you need to believe in an organised conspiracy and I don't see any real evidence that George Monbiot does. The trouble is that the corporate and political interests align in a way that absorbs any attempt to challenge them and the narrative has been written that of course politics is all about economics and of course we need mighty corporations to sustain us. ..."
"... Not long after the start of the presidential campaign I began to reflect that in Trump we are seeing materializing before us the logical result of the neoliberal project ..."
"... The Republican party essentially offered their base nothing – that was the problem. ..."
"... They couldn't offer all the things that ordinary Americans want – better and wider Medicaid, better and wider social security, tax increases on the rich, an end to pointless foreign wars and the American empire. ..."
"... The Democrats have largely the same funding base, but they at least deliver crumbs – at least a nod to the needs of ordinary people through half-hearted social programmes. ..."
"... Trump is imperfect because he wants normal relations rather than war with Russia. No, Hillary Clinton is the ultimate representation of the system that is abusing us. What will occur when Goldman Sachs and the military-industrial complex coalition get their, what is it, 5th term in office would be a great subject of many Guardian opinion pieces, actually. But that will have to wait till after November 8. ..."
"... And, of course, we also have Hillary's Wall Street speeches -- thanks to Wikileaks we have the complete transcripts, in case Guardian readers are unaware. They expose the real thinking and 'private positions' of the central character in the next episode of 'Rule by Plutocracy'. ..."
"... The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that they somehow representing the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies and hypocrisy and manipulating the working class everyday through their power over the media. Their function is to appease the working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party. ..."
"... In what concerns foreign politics, Trump some times seems more reasonable than Clinton and the establishment. Clinton is the best coached politician of all times. She doesn't know that she's coached. She just followed the most radical groups and isn't able to question anything at all. The only thing that the coaches didn't fix until now is her laughing which is considered even by her coaches as a sign of weirdness. ..."
"... Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming force. ..."
"... "Trump personifies the traits promoted by the media and corporate worlds he affects to revile; the worlds that created him. He is the fetishisation of wealth, power and image in a nation where extrinsic values are championed throughout public discourse. His conspicuous consumption, self-amplification and towering (if fragile) ego are in tune with the dominant narratives of our age." ..."
"... Yes, they don't care any more if we see the full extent of their corruption as we've given up our power to do anything about it. ..."
"... It was once very common to see Democratic politicians as neighbors attending every community event. They were Teamsters, pipe fitters, and electricians. And they were coaches and ushers and pallbearers. Now they are academics and lawyers and NGO employees and managers who pop up during campaigns. The typical income of the elected Democrats outside their government check is north of $100,000. They don't live in, or even wander through, the poorer neighborhoods. So they are essentially clueless that government services like busses are run to suit government and not actual customers. ..."
"... Yea, 15 years of constant wars of empire with no end in sight has pretty much ran this country in the ground. ..."
"... We all talk about how much money is wasted by the federal government on unimportant endeavors like human services and education, but don't even bat an eye about the sieve of money that is the Pentagon. ..."
"... Half a trillion dollars for aircraft carriers we don't need and are already obsolete. China is on the verge of developing wickedly effective anti-ship missiles designed specifically to target these Gerald R. Ford-class vessels. You might as well paint a huge bull's-eye on these ships' 4-1/2 acre flight deck. ..."
"... There are plenty more examples of this crap and this doesn't even include the nearly TWO trillion dollars we've spent this past decade-and-a-half on stomping flat the Middle East and large swaths of the Indian subcontinent. ..."
"... And all this time, our nation's infrastructure is crumbling literally right out from underneath us and millions upon millions of children and their families experience a daily struggle just to eat. Eat?! In the "greatest," wealthiest nation on earth and we prefer to kill people at weddings with drones than feed our own children. ..."
"... I'd like to read an unbiased piece about why the media narrative doesn't match the reality of the Trump phenomenon. He is getting enormous crowds attend his rallies but hardly any coverage of that in the filtered news outlets. Hillary, is struggling to get anyone turn up without paying them. There is no real enthusiasm. ..."
"... The buzzwords and tired old catch phrases and cliches used by the left to suppress any alternative discussion, and divert from their own misdemeanors are fooling no one but themselves. Trump supporters simply don't care any more how Hillary supporters explain that she lied about dodging sniper fire. Or the numerous other times she and her cohorts have been caught out telling fibs. ..."
"... Very true. Throughout history the rich, the powerful, the landed, ennobled interest and their friends in the Law and money changing houses have sought to control governments and have usually succeeded. ..."
"... In the Media today the rich are fawned over by sycophantic journalists and programme makers. These are the people who make the political weather and create the prevailing narratives. ..."
"... Working class people fancied themselves to above the common herd and thought themselves part of some elite. ..."
"... It's quite disturbing the lengths this paper will go to in order to slur and discredit Trump, labelling him dangerous and alluding to the sexual assault allegations. This even goes so far to a very lengthy article regarding Trumps lack of knowledge on the Rumbelows Cup 25 years ago. ..."
"... Whereas very little examination is made into Hillary Clinton's background which includes serious allegation of fraud and involvement in assisting in covering up her husband's alleged series of rapes. There are also issues in the wikileaks emails that merit analysis as well as undercover tapes of seioau issues with her campaign team. ..."
"... One of the most important characteristics of the so-called neoliberalism is its negative selection. While mostly successfully camouflaged, that negative selection is more than obvious this time, in two US presidential candidates. It's hard to imagine lower than those two. ..."
"... Well, OK George. Tell me: if Trump's such an establishment candidate, then why does the whole of the establishment unanimously reject him? Is it normal for Republicans (such as the Bushes and the neocons) to endorse Democrats? Why does even the Speaker of the House (a Republican) and even, on occasion, Trump's own Vice-Presidential nominee seem to be trying to undermine his campaign? If Trump is really just more of the same as all that came before, why is he being treated different by the MSM and the political establishment? ..."
"... Obviously, there's something flawed about your assumption. ..."
"... Trump has exposed the corruption of the political system and the media and has promised to put a stop to it. By contrast, Clinton is financed by the very banks, corporates and financial elites who are responsible for the corruption. This Trump speech is explicit on what we all suspected is going on. Everybody should watch it, irrespective of whether they support him or not! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tab5vvo0TJw ..."
"... "I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don't necessarily agree with him. They're not racist or redneck, they're actually pretty decent people and so after talking to a number of them I wanted to write this. ..."
"... Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said "if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy them." It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the "Brexit" states. ..."
"... Mrs Clinton is also the product of our political culture. A feminist who owes everything to her husband and men in the Democratic Party. A Democrat who started her political career as a Republican; a civil right activist who worked for Gerry Goldwater, one of last openly racist/segregationist politicians. A Secretary of State who has no clue about, or training in, foreign policy, and who received her position as compensation for losing the election. A pacifist, who has never had a gun in her hands, but supported every war in the last twenty years. A humanist who rejoiced over Qaddafi's death ("we came, we won, he is dead!") like a sadist. ..."
"... One thing that far right politics offers the ordinary white disaffected voter is 'pay back', it is a promised revenge-fest, putting up walls, getting rid of foreigners, punishing employers of foreigners, etc., etc. All the stuff that far right groups have wet dreams about. ..."
"... Because neoliberal politics has left a hell of a lot of people feeling pissed off, the far right capitalizes on this, whilst belonging to the same neoliberal dystopia so ultimately not being able to make good on their promises. Their promises address a lot of people's anger, which of course isn't really about foreigners at all, that is simply the decoy, but cutting through all the crap to make that clear is no easy task, not really sure how it can be done, certainly no political leader in the western hemisphere has the ability to do so. ..."
"... Wrong as always. Trump *is* an outsider. He's an unabashed nationalist who's set him up against the *actual* caste that governs our politics: Neo-liberal internationalists with socially trendy left-liberal politics (but not so left that they don't hire good tax lawyers to avoid paying a fraction of what they are legally obliged to). ..."
"... Best represented in the Goldman Sachs executives who are donating millions to Hillary Clinton because they are worried about Trump's opposition to free trade, and they know she will give them *everything* they want. ..."
"... Trumps the closest thing we're gotten to a genuine threat to the system in a long, long time, so of course George Monbiot and the rest of the Guardian writers has set themselves against him, because if you're gonna be wrong about the EU, wrong about New Labour, wrong about social liberalism, wrong about immigration, why change the habit of a lifetime? ..."
"... Lies: Emails, policy changes based on polls showing a complete lack of conviction, corporate collusion, Bosnia, Clinton Foundation, war mongering, etc. Racist stereotypes: Super predators. Misogyny: Aside from her laughing away her pedophile case and allegedly threatening the women who came out against Bill, you've also got this sexist gem "Women are the primary victims of war". ..."
"... Alleged gropings: Well she's killed people by texting. So unless your moral compass is so out of whack that somehow a man JOKING about his player status in private is worse than Clinton's actions throughout her political career, then I guess you could make the case that Clinton at least doesn't have this skeleton in her closet. ..."
"... Refusal to accept democratic outcomes: No. He's speaking out against the media's collusion with the democratic party favoring Clinton over every other nominee, including Bernie Sanders. He's talking about what was revealed in the DNC leaks and the O'Keefe tapes that show how dirty the tactics have been in order to legally persuade the voting public into electing one person or the other. ..."
"... When do the conspiracy theories about the criminality of his opponent no longer count as conspiracies? When we have a plethora of emails confirming there is indeed fire next to that smoke, corruption fire, collusion fire, fire of contempt for the electorate. When we have emails confirming the Saudi Arabians are actually funding terrorist schools across the globe, emails where Hilary herself admits it, but will not say anything publicly about terrorism and Saudi Arabia, what's conspiracy and what's reality? ..."
"... Is it because Saudi Arabia funded her foundation with $23 million, or because it doesn't fit with her great 'internationalists' global agenda? ..."
"... Yep trump is a buffoon, but the failure of all media to deliver serious debate means the US is about to elect someone probably more dangerous than trump, how the hell can that be ..."
"... Nothing wrong with a liberal internationalist utopia, it sounds rather good and worth striving for. It's just that what they've been pushing is actually a neoliberal globalist nirvana for the 1 per cent ..."
"... The problem is the left this paper represents were bought off with the small change by neoliberalism, and they expect the rest of us to suck it up so the elites from both sides can continue the game ..."
"... we near the end of the neoliberal model. That the USA has a choice between two 'demopublicans' is no choice at all. ..."
"... This is the culmination of living in a post-truth political world. Lies and smears, ably supported by the corporate media and Murdoch in particular means that the average person who doesn't closely follow politics is being misinformed. ..."
"... The complete failure of right wing economic 'theories' means they only have lies, smears and the old 'divide and conquer' left in their arsenal. 'Free speech' is their attempt to get lies and smears equal billing with the truth. All truth on the other hand must be suppressed. All experts and scientists who don't regurgitate the meaningless slogans of the right will be ignored, traduced, defunded, disbanded or silenced by law. ..."
"... Not so much an article about Trump as much as a rant. George Monbiot writes with the utter conviction of one who mistakenly believes that his readers share his bigotry. When he talks about the 'alleged gropings' or the 'alleged refusal to accept democratic outcomes', that is exactly what they are 'alleged'. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has been dredging up porn-stars and wannabe models who now make claims that Trump tried to 'kiss them without asking'. ..."
"... The press also ignored the tapes of the DNC paying thugs to cause violence at Trump rallies, the bribes paid to the Clintons for political favours and the stealing of the election from Bernie Sanders. Trump is quite right to think the 'democratic outcome' is being fixed. Not only were the votes for Sanders manipulated, but Al Gore's votes were also altered and manipulated to ensure a win for Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The same interests who engineered the 2000 election have switched from supporting the Republican Party to supporting Clinton. ..."
"... Great article. The neoliberals have been able to control the narrative and in doing so have managed to scapegoat all manner of minority groups, building anger among those disaffected with modern politics. Easy targets - minorities, immigrants, the poor, the disadvantaged and the low-paid workers. ..."
"... The real enemy here are those sitting atop the corporate tree, but with the media controlled by them, the truth is never revealed. ..."
www.theguardian.com

America's fourth president, James Madison, envisaged the United States constitution as representation tempered by competition between factions. In the 10th federalist paper, written in 1787, he argued that large republics were better insulated from corruption than small, or "pure" democracies, as the greater number of citizens would make it "more difficult for unworthy candidates to practise with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried". A large electorate would protect the system against oppressive interest groups. Politics practised on a grand scale would be more likely to select people of "enlightened views and virtuous sentiments".

Instead, the US – in common with many other nations – now suffers the worst of both worlds: a large electorate dominated by a tiny faction. Instead of republics being governed, as Madison feared, by "the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority", they are beholden to the not-so-secret wishes of an unjust and interested minority. What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless of its size.

For every representative, Republican or Democrat, who retains a trace element of independence, there are three sitting in the breast pocket of corporate capital. Since the supreme court decided that there should be no effective limits on campaign finance, and, to a lesser extent, long before, candidates have been reduced to tongue-tied automata, incapable of responding to those in need of help, incapable of regulating those in need of restraint, for fear of upsetting their funders.

Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt? Turn to the demagogue who rages into this political vacuum, denouncing the forces he exemplifies. The problem is not, as Trump claims, that the election will be stolen by ballot rigging. It is that the entire electoral process is stolen from the American people before they get anywhere near casting their votes. When Trump claims that the little guy is being screwed by the system, he's right. The only problem is that he is the system.

The political constitution of the United States is not, as Madison envisaged, representation tempered by competition between factions. The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal. In other words, all that impedes the absolute power of money is the occasional exposure of the excesses of the wealthy.

greatapedescendant 26 Oct 2016 4:11

A good read thanks. Nothing I really disagree with there. Just a few things to add and restate.

"What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless of its size."

That's it – finance and sophisticated lobbying. And you can add to that mass brainwashing at election campaigns by means of choice language and orchestration as advised by cognitive scientists who are expressly recruited for this purpose. Voters remain largely unaware of the mind control they are undergoing. And of course the essential prerequisite for all of this is financial power.

Now read again in this light Gore Vidal's famous pronouncement… "Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically by definition be disqualified from ever doing so."

Which recalls Madison over 200 years before… "The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."

What the US has is in effect is not a democracy but a plutocracy run by a polyarchy. Which conserves some democratic elements. To which the US president is largely an obedient and subservient puppet. And which openly fails to consider the needs of the average US citizen.

Worse still, the political spectrum runs from right to right. To all intents and purposes, one single party, the US Neoliberal party, with 2 factions catering for power and privilege. Anything to the left of that is simply not an available choice for voters.

Americans have wakened up to the fact that they badly need a government which caters for the needs of the average citizen. In their desperation some will still vote for Trump warts and all. This for the same sorts of reasons that Italians voted for Berlusconi, whose winning slogan was basically 'I am not a politician'. Though that didn't work out too well. No longer able to stomach more of the same, voters reach the stage of being willing to back anyone who might bring about a break with the status quo. Even Trump.

The right choice was Bernie Sanders. Sadly, not powerful enough. So Americans missed the boat there. But at least there was a boat to miss this time around. You can be sure that similar future boats will be sunk well in advance. Corporate power has learnt its lesson and the art of election rigging has now become an exact science.

UltraLightBeam 26 Oct 2016 4:11

Donald Trump, Brexit and Le Pen are all in their separate ways rejections of the dogma of liberalism, social and economic, that has dominated the West for the past three decades.

The Guardian, among others, laments the loss of 'tolerance' and 'openness' as defining qualities of our societies. But what's always left unsaid is: tolerance of what? Openness to what? Anything? Everything?

Is it beyond the pale to critically assess some of the values brought by immigration, and to reject them? Will only limitless, unthinking 'tolerance' and 'openness' do?

Once self-described 'progressives' engage with this topic, then maybe we'll see a reversal in the momentum that Trump and the rest of the right wing demagogues have built up.

petercookwithahook 26 Oct 2016 4:14

In 2010, Chomsky wrote:

The United States is extremely lucky.....if somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response.

Dangerous times. The beauty of democracy is we get what we deserve.

DiscoveredJoys -> morelightlessheat 26 Oct 2016 6:11

The most telling part for me was:

The worst thing about Donald Trump is that he's the man in the mirror.

Except that instead of

He is the distillation of all that we have been induced to desire and admire.

I thought that he is the mirror image, the reverse, of the current liberal consensus. A consensus driven by worthy ideals but driven too far, gradually losing acceptance and with no self correcting awareness.

Trump is awful - but by speaking freely he challenges the excesses of those who would limit free speech. Trump is awful - but by demonising minorities he challenges those who would excuse minorities of all responsibility. Trump is awful - but by flaunting his wealth he challenges those who keep their connections and wealth hidden for the sake of appearances.

Trump is awful because the system is out of balance. He is a consequence, not a cause.


Gman13 26 Oct 2016 4:25

Voting for Trump is voting for peace. Voting for Clinton is voting for WW3.

These events will unfold if Hillary wins:

1. No fly zone imposed in Syria to help "moderate opposition" on pretence of protecting civilians.

2. Syrian government nonetheless continues defending their country as terrorists shell Western Aleppo.

3. Hillary's planes attack Syrian government planes and the Russians.

4. Russia and Syria respond as the war escalates. America intensifies arming of "moderate opposition" and Saudis.

5. America arms "rebels" in various Russian regions who "fight for democracy" but this struggle is somehow hijacked by terrorists, only they are not called terrorists but "opposition"

6. Ukranian government is encouraged to restart the war.

7. Iran enters the war openly against Saudi Arabia

8. Israel bombs Iran

9. Cornered Russia targets mainland US with nuclear weapons

10. Etc.


snakebrain -> Andthenandthen 26 Oct 2016 6:54

It's quite clearly because Hillary as President is an utterly terrifying prospect. When half the population would rather have Trump than her, it must be conceded that she has some serious reputational issues.

If Hillary and the DNC hadn't fixed the primaries, we'd now be looking at a Sanders-Trump race, and a certain Democrat victory. As it is, it's on a knife edge as to whether we get Trump or Hillary.

Personally, I'd take Trump over Hillary if I was a US citizen. He may be a buffoon but she is profoundly dangerous, probably a genuine psychopath and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Presidency. Sanders is the man America needs now, though, barring one of Hillary's many crimes finally toppling her, it's not going to happen...

jessthecrip 26 Oct 2016 4:29

Well said George.

The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal

And the shame is we seem to be becoming desensitized to scandal. We cannot be said to live in democracies when our political class are so obviously bought by the vastly rich.

Remko1 -> UnevenSurface 26 Oct 2016 7:43

You're mixing up your powers. legislative, executive and judicial are the powers of law. Money and business are some of the keys to stay in command of a country. (there's also military, electorate, bureaucracy etc.)

And if money is not on your side, it's against you, which gets quite nasty if your main tv-stations are not state-run.

For example if the EU would (theoretically of course) set rules that make corruption more difficult you would see that commercial media all over the EU and notoriously corrupted politicians would start making propaganda to leave the EU. ;)

yamialwaysright chilledoutbeardie 26 Oct 2016 4:38

One of the things it says is that people are so sick of Identity Politics from the Left and believe the Left are not very true to the ideals of what should be the Left.

When the people who are supposed to care about the poor and working joes and janes prefer to care about the minorities whose vote they can rely on, the poor and the working joes and janes will show their frustration by supporting someone who will come along and tell it as it is, even if he is part of how it got that way.

People throughout the world have awoken to the Left being Right Light but with a more nauseating moral superiority complex.

Danny Sheahan -> chilledoutbeardie 26 Oct 2016 5:25
That many people are so desperate for change that even being a billionaire but someone outside the political elite is going to appeal to them.

Tom1Wright 26 Oct 2016 4:32

I find this line of thinking unjust and repulsive: the implication that Trump is a product of the political establishment, and not an outsider, is to tar the entire Republican party and its supporters with a great big flag marked 'racist'. That is a gross over simplification and a total distortion.

UnevenSurface -> Tom1Wright 26 Oct 2016 5:05

But that's not what the article said at all: I quote:

he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics

No mention of the GOP.

Tom1Wright -> UnevenSurface 26 Oct 2016 5:14

and I quote

'Encouraged by the corporate media, the Republicans have been waging a full-spectrum assault on empathy, altruism and the decencies we owe to other people. Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.'

HindsightMe 26 Oct 2016 4:33
the truth is there is an anti establishment movement and trump just got caught up in the ride. He didnt start the movement but latched on to it. While we are still fixated on character flaws the undercurrent of dissatisfaction by the public is still there. Hillary is going to have a tough time in trying to bring together a divided nation
leadale 26 Oct 2016 4:37
Many years ago in the British Military, those with the right connections and enough money could buy an officer's commission and rise up the system to be an incompetent General. As a result, many battles were mismanaged and many lives wasted due to the incompetent (wealthy privileged few) buying their way to the top. American politics today works on exactly the same system of wealthy patronage and privilege for the incompetent, read Clinton and Trump. Until the best candidates are able to rise up through the political system without buying their way there then the whole corrupt farce will continue and we will be no different to the all the other tin pot republics of the world.
arkley leadale 26 Oct 2016 5:48
As Wellington once said on reading the list of officers being sent out to him,
"My hope is that when the enemy reads these names he trembles as I do"
Some would argue however that the British system of bought commissions actually made the army more effective in part because many competent officers had to stay in the field roles of platoon and company commanders rather than get staff jobs and through the fact that promotion on merit did exist for non-commissioned officers but there was a block on rising above sergeant.

Some would argue that the British class system ensured that during the Industrial Revolution charge hands and foremen were appointed from the best workers but there was no way forward from that, the result being that the best practices were applied through having the best practitioners in charge at the sharp end.

rodmclaughlin 26 Oct 2016 4:37
"he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics."

Obviously, Donald Trump is not an "outsider" in the economic sense. Trump definitely belongs to the ruling "caste", or rather, "class". But he is by no means the perfect representative of it. "The global economy", or rather, "capitalism", thrives better with the free movement of (cheap) labour than without it. Economically, poor Americans would be better off with more immigration control.

And there's more too it than economics. There's the "culture wars" aspect. Many people don't like being told they are "deplorable" for opposing illegal (or even legal) immigration. They don't like being called "racist" for disagreeing with an ideology.

I like the phrase Monbiot ends with - "He is our system, stripped of its pretences" - it reminds me of a phrase in the Communist Manifesto - but I don't think it's true. "Our" system is more than capitalism, it's culture. And Clinton is a far more "perfect representation" of the increasingly censorious, narrow [neo]liberal culture which dominates the Western world.

Finally, Monbiot misses the chance to contrast Clinton's and Trump's apparent differences with regard to confronting nuclear-armed Russia over the skies of Syria. It could be like 1964 all over again - except in this election, the Democrat is the nearest thing to Barry Goldwater.

nishville 26 Oct 2016 4:40
As a life-long despiser of all things Trump, I cannot believe that I am saying this: Trump is good for world peace. He might be crap for everything else but I for one will sleep much better if he is elected POTUS.
dylan37 26 Oct 2016 4:40
Agree, for once, with a piece by George. Trump is nothing new - we've seen his kind of faux-outsider thing before, but he's amplifying it with the skills of a carnival barker and the "what me?" shrug of the everyman - when we all know he's not. The election result can't be rigged because the game is fixed from the start. A potential president needs millions of dollars behind them to even think about running, and then needs to repay those bought favours once in office. Trump may just win this one though - despite the polls, poor human qualities and negative press - simply because he's possibly tapped into a rich seam of anti-politics and a growing desire for anything different, even if it's distasteful and deplorable. It's that difference that might make the difference, even when it's actually just more of the same. It's all in the packaging.
greenwichite 26 Oct 2016 4:41
Donald Trump is a clumsy, nasty opportunist who has got one thing right - people don't want globalisation.

What people want, is clean, high-tech industries in their own countries, that automate the processes we are currently offshoring. They would rather their clothes were made by robots in Rochdale than a sweat-shop in India.

Same goes for energy imports: we want clean, local renewables.

What people don't want is large, unpleasant multinational corporations negotiating themselves tax cuts and "free trade" with corrupt politicians like Hillary Clinton.

Just my opinion, of course...

TheSandbag -> greenwichite 26 Oct 2016 4:50
Your right about globalisation, but I think wrong about the automation bit. People want Jobs because its the only way to survive currently and they see them being shipped to the country with the easiest to exploit workforce. I don't think many of them realize that those jobs are never coming back. The socioeconomic system we exist in doesn't work for 90% of the population who are surplus to requirements for sustaining the other 10%.
Shadenfraude 26 Oct 2016 4:43
I fully agree with Monbiot, American democracy is a sham - the lobby system has embedded corruption right in the heart of its body politic. Lets be clear here though, whatever is the problem with American democracy can in theory at least be fixed, but Trump simply can not and moreover he is not the answer.

... ... ...


oddballs 26 Oct 2016 5:24

Trump threatened Ford that if they closed down US car plants and moved them to Mexico he would put huge import tariffs on their products making them to expensive.

Export of jobs to low wage countries, how do you think Americans feel when they buy 'sports wear, sweater, t-shirts shoes that cost say 3 $ to import into the US and then get sold for20 or 50 times as much, by the same US companies that moved production out of the country.

The anger many Americans feel how their lively-hoods have been outsourced, is the lake of discontent Trump is fishing for votes.

His opponent, war child and Wall Street darling can count her lucky stars that the media leaves her alone (with husband Bill, hands firmly in his pockets, nodding approvingly) and concentrates on their feeding frenzy attacking Trump on sexual allegations of abusing women, giving Hillery, Yes, likely to tell lies, ( mendacious, remember when she claimed to be under enemy fire in Bosnia? remember how evasive she was on the Benghazi attack on the embassy)
Yes Trump is a dangerous man running against an also extremely dangerous woman.

onepieceman 26 Oct 2016 5:31

Extremely interesting reference to the Madison paper, but the issue is less about the size of the electorate, and more about the power that the election provides to the victor.

One positive outcome that I hope will come of all of this is that people might think a little more carefully about how much power an incoming president (or any politician) should be given. The complacent assumption about a permanently benign government is overdue for a shakeup.

peccadillo -> Dean Alexander 26 Oct 2016 5:43

Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?

Having missed that bit, I wonder if you actually read the article.

tater 26 Oct 2016 5:46
The sad thing is that the victims of the corrupt economic and political processes are the small town folk who try to see Trump as their saviour. The globalisation that the US promoted to expand its hegemony had no safeguards to protect local economies from mega retail and finance corporations that were left at liberty to strip wealth from localities. The Federal transfer payments that might have helped compensate have been too small and were either corrupted pork barrel payments or shameful social security payments. For a culture that prides itself on independent initiative and self sufficiency this was always painful and that has made it all the easier for the lobbyists to argue against increased transfer payments and the federal taxes they require. So more money for the Trumps of this world.

And to the future. The US is facing the serious risk of a military take over. Already its foreign policy emanates from the military and the corruption brings it ever closer to the corporations. If the people don't demand better the coup will come.


MrMopp 26 Oct 2016 6:12


There's a reason turnout for presidential elections is barely above 50%.

Wised up, fed up Americans have long known their only choice is between a Coke or Pepsi President.

Well, this time they've got a Dr. Pepper candidate but they still know their democracy is just a commodity to be bought and sold, traded and paraded; their elections an almost perpetual presidential circus.

That a grotesque like Trump can emerge and still be within touching distance of the Whitehouse isn't entirely down to the Democrats disastrous decision to market New Clinton Coke. Although that's helped.

The unpalatable truth is, like Brexit, many Americans simply want to shake things up and shake them up bigly, even if it means a very messy, sticky outcome.

Anyone with Netflix can watch the classic film, "Network" at the moment. And it is a film of the moment.

"I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth. Banks are going bust. Shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be.

We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is: 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.'

Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get MAD! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman, because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. [shouting] You've got to say: 'I'm a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!'

So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell: I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!

I want you to get up right now. Sit up. Go to your windows. Open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!...You've got to say, I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE! Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first, get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

And that was in 1976. A whole lot of shit has happened since then but essentially, Coke is still Coke and Pepsi is still Pepsi.

Forty years later, millions are going to get out of their chairs. They are going to vote. For millions of Americans of every stripe, Trump is the "I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE", candidate.

And he's in with a shout.


André De Koning 26 Oct 2016 6:13

Trump is indeed the embodiment of our collective Shadow (As Jung called this unconscious side of our Self). It does reflect the degeneration of the culture we live in where politics has turned into a travesty; where all projections of this side are on the Other, the usual other who we can collectively dislike. All the wars initiated by the US have started with a huge propaganda programme to hate and project our own Shadow on to this other. Often these were first friends, whether in Iran or Iraq, Libya: as soon as the oil was not for ""us" , they were depicted as monsters who needed action: regime change through direct invasion and enormous numbers of war crimes or through CIA programmed regime change, it all went according to shady plans and manipulation and lies lapped up by the masses.

When you look at speeches and conversations and debates with the so-called bogeyman, Putin, he is not at all in a league as low and vile as portrayed and says many more sensible things than anybody cares to listen to, because we're all brainwashed. We are complicit in wars (now in Syria) and cannot see why we have to connive with terrorists, tens of thousands of them, and they get supported by the war machine and friends like Saudis and Turkey which traded for years with ISIS.

The Western culture has become more vile than we could have imagined and slowly, like the frog in increasingly hot water, we have become used to neglecting most of the population of Syria and focusing on the rebel held areas, totally unaware of what has happened to the many thousands who have lived under the occupation by terrorists who come from abroad ad fight the proxy war for the US (and Saudi and the EU). Trump dares to embody all this, as does Clinton the war hawk, and shows us we are only capable of seeing one side and project all nastiness outward while we can feel good about ourselves by hating the other.

It fits the Decline of an Empire image as it did in other Falls of Civilizations.


tashe222 26 Oct 2016 6:28

Lots of virtue signalling from Mr. M.

Trump spoke to the executives at Ford like no one before ever has. He told them if they moved production to Mexico (as they plan to do) that he would slap huge tariffs on their cars in America and no one would buy them.

Trump has said many stupid things in this campaign, but he has some independence and is not totally beholden to vested interests, and so there is at least a 'glimmer' of hope for the future with him as Potus.


DomesticExtremist 26 Oct 2016 6:28

I never tire of posting this link:

Donald Trump and the Politics of Resentment

Lindsay Went DomesticExtremist 26 Oct 2016 6:58

Yes, when the Archdruid first posted that it helped me understand some of the forces that were driving Trump's successes. I disagree with the idea that voting for Trump is a good idea because it will bring change to a moribund system. Change is not a panacea and the type of change he is likely to bring is not going to be pleasant.


Hanwell123 -> ArseButter 26 Oct 2016 6:59

What happens in Syria could be important to us all. Clinton doesn't hide her ambition to drive Assad from power and give Russia a kicking. It's actually very unpopular although the media doesn't like to say so; it prefers to lambast Spain for re-fueling Russian war ships off to fight the crazed Jihadists as if we supported the religious fanatics that want to slaughter all Infidels! There is an enormous gulf between what ordinary people want and the power crazy Generals in the Pentagon and NATO.

unsubscriber 26 Oct 2016 6:43
George always writes so beautifully and so tellingly. My favourite sentence from this column is:
Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.
Cadmium 26 Oct 2016 6:51
Trump is not a misogynist, look the word up. He may be crude but that's not the same thing. He also represents a lot more people than a tiny faction. He is also advocating coming down on lobbying, which is good. He may be a climate change denier but that's because a lot of his supporters are, he'd probably change if they did. The way to deal with it is with rational argument, character assassination is counterproductive even if he himself does it. Although he seems to do it as a reaction rather than as an attack. He probably has a lot higher chance of winning than most people think since a lot of people outside the polls will feel represented by him and a lot of those included in the polls may not vote for Hilary.
ID4755061 26 Oct 2016 6:52
George Monbiot is right. Trump is a conduit for primal stuff that has always been there and never gone away. All the work that has been done to try to change values and attitudes, to make societies more tolerant and accepting and sharing, to get rid of xenophobia and racism and the rest, has merely supressed all these things. Also, while times were good (that hasn't been so for a long time) most of this subterranean stuff got glossed over most of the time by some kind of feel good factor and hope for a better future.

But once the protections have gone, if there is nothing to feel good about or there is little hope left, the primitive fear of other and strange and different kicks back in. It's a basic survival instinct from a time when everything around the human species was a threat and it is a fundamental part of us and Trump and Palin at al before him have got this, even if they don't articulate it this way, and it works and it will always work. It's a pure emotional response to threat that we can't avoid, the only way out of it, whihc many of use use, is to use our intellects to challenge the kick of emotion and see it for what it is and to understand the consequences of giving it free reign. It's this last bit that Trump, Palin, Farage and their ilk just don't get and never will, we aill always be fighting this fight.

PotholeKid 26 Oct 2016 6:56
Political culture includes the Clintons and Bushes, the Democratic party and Republican party. exploring that culture using the DNC and Podesta leaks as reference, paints a much better picture of the depth of depravity this culture represents..Trump is a symptom and no matter how much the press focuses on maligning his character. The Clintons share a huge responsibility for the corruption of the system. Mr. Monbiot would serve us well by looking at solutions for cleaning up the mess, what Trumps likes to call "Draining the swamp"
lonelysoul72 26 Oct 2016 6:59
Trump for me , he is horrendous but Clinton is worse.

nooriginalthought 26 Oct 2016 7:06

"Democracy in the U.S. is so corrupted by money it is no longer recognisable as democracy." Sounds like a quote from Frank Underwood. To catch a thief sometimes you need the services of a thief. With a fair degree of certainty we can be sure a Clinton administration will offer us continuity .

Your probably going to vote Trump. Looking forward to a long list of articles here in November prophecies of Armageddon a la brexit. You liberal lefties , you'll never learn. If you want to know what people are thinking , you got to get out of the echochamber.


nooriginalthought -> aurlius 26 Oct 2016 7:45

Sorry , hate having to explain myself to the dim witted.

USA has got itself in an unholy mess . It's politicians no longer work for the people . Their paymasters care not if life in Idaho resembles Dantes inferno .
Trump has many faults but being "not Hilary" is not one of them. The very fact he is disliked by all the vested interests should make you take another look.
And remember , the American constitution has many checks and balances , a President has a lot less power than most people imagine.

Pinkie123 26 Oct 2016 7:21

While it is impossible to credibly disagree with the general thrust of this, some of Monbiot's assumptions exemplify problems with left-wing thinking at the moment.

But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics. He is our system, stripped of its pretences.

Like many on the right, the left have unthinkingly accepted a narrative of an organized, conspiratorial system run by an elite of politicians and plutocrats. The problem with this narrative is it suggests politics and politicians are inherently nefarious, in turn suggesting there are no political solutions to be sought to problems, or anything people can do to challenge a global system of power. As Monbiot asks: "You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?" Well, what indeed?

I think Monbiot a principled, intelligent left-wing commentator, but at the same time he epitomises a left-wing retreat into pessimism in the face of a putatively global network of power and inevitable environmental catastrophe. In reality, while there is no shortage of perfidious, corrupt corporate interests dominating global economies, there is no organized system or shadowy establishment - only a chaotic mess rooted in complex political problems. Once you accept that reality, then it becomes possible to imagine political solutions to the quandaries confronting us. Rather than just railing against realities, you can envision a new world to replace them. And a new kind of world is something you very rarely get from the left these days. Unlike the utopian socialists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there is little optimism or imagination - just anger, pessimism and online echo chambers of 'clictivists'.

Like the documentarian Adam Curtis says, once you conclude that all politics is corrupt then all you can do is sit there impotently and say: 'Oh dear'.

deltajones -> Pinkie123 26 Oct 2016 8:12

I don't think you need to believe in an organised conspiracy and I don't see any real evidence that George Monbiot does. The trouble is that the corporate and political interests align in a way that absorbs any attempt to challenge them and the narrative has been written that of course politics is all about economics and of course we need mighty corporations to sustain us.

Even the left has largely taken on that narrative and it's seen as common sense. Challenging this belief system is the toughest job that there is and we see that in the howling indignation hurled at Jeremy Corbyn if he makes the slightest suggestion of nationalisation of the railways, for instance.

ianfraser3 26 Oct 2016 7:29

Not long after the start of the presidential campaign I began to reflect that in Trump we are seeing materializing before us the logical result of the neoliberal project, the ultimate shopping spree, buy an election.

furiouspurpose -> IllusionOfFairness 26 Oct 2016 8:08

The Republican party essentially offered their base nothing – that was the problem.

They couldn't offer all the things that ordinary Americans want – better and wider Medicaid, better and wider social security, tax increases on the rich, an end to pointless foreign wars and the American empire. None of these things were acceptable to their funders so that only left emotional issues – anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-god, pro-gun. And all of the emotional issues are on the wrong side of history as the US naturally grows more politically progressive. So the Republican party couldn't even deliver on the emotionally driven agenda. I think their base realised that they were being offered nothing – and that's why they turned to Trump. Perhaps a fascist blowhard could bulldoze the system to deliver on the emotional side of the offer. That's why Trump broke through

The Democrats have largely the same funding base, but they at least deliver crumbs – at least a nod to the needs of ordinary people through half-hearted social programmes. In the end the African Americans decided that Hillary could be relied upon to deliver some crumbs – so they settled for that. That's why Sanders couldn't break through.

fairleft 26 Oct 2016 7:55

Trump is imperfect because he wants normal relations rather than war with Russia. No, Hillary Clinton is the ultimate representation of the system that is abusing us. What will occur when Goldman Sachs and the military-industrial complex coalition get their, what is it, 5th term in office would be a great subject of many Guardian opinion pieces, actually. But that will have to wait till after November 8.

Such commentary would be greatly aided the Podesta emails, which enlighten us as to the mind and 'zeitgeist' of the HIllary team. And, of course, we also have Hillary's Wall Street speeches -- thanks to Wikileaks we have the complete transcripts, in case Guardian readers are unaware. They expose the real thinking and 'private positions' of the central character in the next episode of 'Rule by Plutocracy'.

But, of course, opinion columns and think pieces on the Real Hillary and the Podesta emails will have to wait ... forever.

toffee1 26 Oct 2016 7:58

Trump shows the true face of the ruling class with no hypocrisy. He is telling us the truth. If we have a democracy, we should have a party representing the interests of the business class, why not. The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that they somehow representing the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies and hypocrisy and manipulating the working class everyday through their power over the media. Their function is to appease the working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party.

Kikinaskald Cadmium 26 Oct 2016 8:39
In fact presidents don't usually have much affect, they're prey to their advisors. Generally true. But Obama was able to show that he was able to distance himself up to a certain point from what was around him. He was aware of the power of the establishment and of their bias. So, when the wave against Iran was as strong as never before, he made a deal with Iran. He also didn't want to intervene more actively in Syria and even in what concerns Russia, he seems to have moderate positions.

In what concerns foreign politics, Trump some times seems more reasonable than Clinton and the establishment. Clinton is the best coached politician of all times. She doesn't know that she's coached. She just followed the most radical groups and isn't able to question anything at all. The only thing that the coaches didn't fix until now is her laughing which is considered even by her coaches as a sign of weirdness.


Kikinaskald -> J.K. Stevens 26 Oct 2016 9:09

She is considered to be highly aggressive, she pushed for the bombing of a few countries and intervening everywhere..

Chris Williams 26 Oct 2016 8:20

Unfortunately all politics in the west is based on a similar model with our own domestic landscape perhaps most closely resembling that in the US. We've always been peddled convenient lies of course, but perhaps as society itself becomes more polarised [in terms of distribution of wealth and the social consequences of that], the dissonance with the manufactured version of reality becomes ever sharper. It is deeply problematic because traditional popular media is dominated by the wealthy elite and the reality it depicts is as much a reflection of the consensual outlook of that elite as it is deliberate, organised mendacity [although there's plenty of that too].

Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming force.

Meanwhile the electorate is become increasingly disaffected by this mainstream of politics who they [rightly] sense is no longer truly representative of their interests in any substantive way. To this backdrop the media has made notable blunders in securing the status quo. It has revealed the corruption and self-seeking of many in politics and promoted the widespread distrust of mainstream politicians for a variety of reasons. While the corruption is real and endemic, howls of protest against political 'outsiders' from this same press is met with with the view that the political establishment cannot be trusted engendered by the same sources.

The narrative for Brexit is somewhat similar. For many years the EU was the whipping boy for all our ills and the idea that it is fundamentally undemocratic in contrast to our own system, so unchallenged that it is taken for fact, even by the reasonably educated. Whilst I'm personally deflated and not a little worried by our exit, it comes as little surprise that a distorted perspective on the EU has led to a revolt against it.

There are of course now very many alternative narratives to those which are the preserve of monied media magnates, but they're disparate, fractured and unfocused.

Only the malaise has any sort of consistency about it and it is bitterly ironic that figures like Trump and Farage can so effectively plug into that in the guise of outsiders, to offer spurious alternatives to that which is so desperately needed. It's gloomy stuff.

Winstons1 Chris Williams 26 Oct 2016 9:27

Very well written .

Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming force.

I have been an advocate of this point for a long time.There is a saying in politics in America that'' the only difference between a Democrat and a Republican is the speed at which they drop to their knees when big business walks into the room''.

How it is going to be stopped or indeed if there is the will to do so,I do not know. The proponents and those who have most to lose have been incredibly successful in propagating the myth that 'you to can have what I have'and have convinced a sizeable minority that there is no alternative.
Until that changes and is exposed for the illusion that it is ,we are I fear heading for something far worse than we have now.

trp981 26 Oct 2016 8:20 2 3

"Trump personifies the traits promoted by the media and corporate worlds he affects to revile; the worlds that created him. He is the fetishisation of wealth, power and image in a nation where extrinsic values are championed throughout public discourse. His conspicuous consumption, self-amplification and towering (if fragile) ego are in tune with the dominant narratives of our age."

Because this is who we are and this is how we role. We got on rickety ships and braved the cowardly waters to reach these shores, with tremendous realworld uncertainty and absolute religious zeal. We are the manly men and womanly women who manifested our destiny, endured the cruel nature naturing, and civilized the wild wild west, at the same time preserving our own wildness and rugged individualism. Why should we go all soft and namby-pamby with this social safety nonsense? Let the roadkills expire with dignified indignity on the margins of the social order. We will bequeath a glorious legacy to the Randian ubermenschen who will inherit this land from us. They will live in Thielian compounds wearing the trendiest Lululemons. They will regularly admonish their worses with chants of: "Do you want to live? Pay, pal". If we go soft, if we falter, how will we ever be able to look in the eye the ghosts of John Wayne, Marion Morrison, Curtis LeMay, Chuck Heston, Chuck Norris, and the Great Great Ronnie Himself? Gut-check time folks, suck it up and get on with the program.

"The political constitution of the United States is not, as Madison envisaged, representation tempered by competition between factions. The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal."

The Founders had a wicked sense of humor. They set up the structure of various branches so as to allow for the possibility of a future take-over by the Funders. That leaves room for the exorbitant influence of corporations and wealthy individuals and the rise of the Trumps, leading to the eventual fall into a Mad Max world.

"Yes, [Trump] is a shallow, mendacious, boorish and extremely dangerous man. But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics. He is our system, stripped of its pretences."

It is irrelevant if everyone sees the emperor/system has no clothes, it quite enjoys walking around naked now that it has absolute power.

Lopedeloslobos -> trp981 26 Oct 2016 9:02

'It is irrelevant if everyone sees the emperor/system has no clothes, it quite enjoys walking around naked now that it has absolute power.'

Yes, they don't care any more if we see the full extent of their corruption as we've given up our power to do anything about it.


chiefwiley -> Luftwaffe 26 Oct 2016 9:31

It was once very common to see Democratic politicians as neighbors attending every community event. They were Teamsters, pipe fitters, and electricians. And they were coaches and ushers and pallbearers. Now they are academics and lawyers and NGO employees and managers who pop up during campaigns.
The typical income of the elected Democrats outside their government check is north of $100,000. They don't live in, or even wander through, the poorer neighborhoods. So they are essentially clueless that government services like busses are run to suit government and not actual customers.

It's sort of nice to have somebody looking after our interests in theory, but it would be at least polite if they deemed to ask us what we think our best interests are. Notice the nasty names and attributes being hurled at political "dissidents," especially around here, and there should be little wonder why many think the benevolent and somewhat single minded and authoritarian left is at least part of their problems.


ghstwrtrx7 -> allblues 26 Oct 2016 14:02

Yea, 15 years of constant wars of empire with no end in sight has pretty much ran this country in the ground.

We all talk about how much money is wasted by the federal government on unimportant endeavors like human services and education, but don't even bat an eye about the sieve of money that is the Pentagon.

Half a trillion dollars for aircraft carriers we don't need and are already obsolete. China is on the verge of developing wickedly effective anti-ship missiles designed specifically to target these Gerald R. Ford-class vessels. You might as well paint a huge bull's-eye on these ships' 4-1/2 acre flight deck.

And then there there's the most egregious waste of money our historically over-bloated defense budget has ever seen: The Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter. Quite a mouthful, isn't? When you hear how much this boondoggle costs the American taxpayer, you'll choke: $1.5 Trillion, with a t. What's even more retching is that aside from already being obsolete, it doesn't even work.

There are plenty more examples of this crap and this doesn't even include the nearly TWO trillion dollars we've spent this past decade-and-a-half on stomping flat the Middle East and large swaths of the Indian subcontinent.
And all this time, our nation's infrastructure is crumbling literally right out from underneath us and millions upon millions of children and their families experience a daily struggle just to eat. Eat?! In the "greatest," wealthiest nation on earth and we prefer to kill people at weddings with drones than feed our own children.

I can't speak for anyone else other than myself, but that, boys and girls, has a decided miasma of evil about it.

transplendent 26 Oct 2016 9:49

I'd like to read an unbiased piece about why the media narrative doesn't match the reality of the Trump phenomenon. He is getting enormous crowds attend his rallies but hardly any coverage of that in the filtered news outlets. Hillary, is struggling to get anyone turn up without paying them. There is no real enthusiasm.

If Hillary doesn't win by a major landslide (and I mean BIGLY) as the MSM would lead us to believe she is going to, it could be curtains for the media, as what little credibility that is not already swirling around the plughole will disappear down it once and for all.

The buzzwords and tired old catch phrases and cliches used by the left to suppress any alternative discussion, and divert from their own misdemeanors are fooling no one but themselves. Trump supporters simply don't care any more how Hillary supporters explain that she lied about dodging sniper fire. Or the numerous other times she and her cohorts have been caught out telling fibs.

leftofstalin 26 Oct 2016 10:06

Sorry George YOU and the chattering classes you represent are the reason for the rise of the far right blinded by the false promises of new labour and it's ilk the working classes have been demonized as striking troublemakers benefit frauds racists uneducated bigots etc etc and going by the comments on these threads from remainders you STILL don't understand the psyche of the working class

Gary Ruddock 26 Oct 2016 10:07

When Obama humiliated Trump at that dinner back in 2011 he may have set a course for his own destruction. Lately, Obama does not appear anywhere near as confident as he once did.

Perhaps Trump has seen the light, seen the error of his ways, maybe he realizes if he doesn't stand up against the system, then no one will.


transplendent 26 Oct 2016 10:38

Trump's only crime, is he buys into the idea of national identity and statehood (along with every other nation state in the world mind you), and Hillary wants to kick down the doors and hand over the US to Saudi Arabia and any international vested interest who can drop a few dollars into the foundation coffers. I can't see Saudi Arabia throwing open the doors any day soon, unless it is onto a one way street.

N.B. The Russians are not behind it.

gjjwatson 26 Oct 2016 11:10

Very true. Throughout history the rich, the powerful, the landed, ennobled interest and their friends in the Law and money changing houses have sought to control governments and have usually succeeded.

In the Media today the rich are fawned over by sycophantic journalists and programme makers. These are the people who make the political weather and create the prevailing narratives.

I remember when President Reagan railed against government whilst he was in office, he said the worst words a citizen could hear were "I`m from the government, I`m here to help you".

Working class people fancied themselves to above the common herd and thought themselves part of some elite.

All of this chimes of course with American history and it`s constitution written by slave owning colonists who proclaimed that "all men are created equal".

bonhiver 26 Oct 2016 12:10

It's quite disturbing the lengths this paper will go to in order to slur and discredit Trump, labelling him dangerous and alluding to the sexual assault allegations. This even goes so far to a very lengthy article regarding Trumps lack of knowledge on the Rumbelows Cup 25 years ago.

Whereas very little examination is made into Hillary Clinton's background which includes serious allegation of fraud and involvement in assisting in covering up her husband's alleged series of rapes. There are also issues in the wikileaks emails that merit analysis as well as undercover tapes of seioau issues with her campaign team.

Whereas it is fair to criticise Trump for a lot of stuff it does appear that there is no attempt at balance as Clinton's faults appear to get covered up om this paper.

Whereas I can not vote in the US elections and therefore the partisan reporting has no substantive effect on how I may vote or act it is troubling that a UK newspaper does not provide the reader with an objective as possible reporting on the presidential race.

It suggests biased reporting elsewhere.

thevisitor2015 26 Oct 2016 12:46

One of the most important characteristics of the so-called neoliberalism is its negative selection. While mostly successfully camouflaged, that negative selection is more than obvious this time, in two US presidential candidates. It's hard to imagine lower than those two.

seamuspadraig 26 Oct 2016 13:37

Well, OK George. Tell me: if Trump's such an establishment candidate, then why does the whole of the establishment unanimously reject him? Is it normal for Republicans (such as the Bushes and the neocons) to endorse Democrats? Why does even the Speaker of the House (a Republican) and even, on occasion, Trump's own Vice-Presidential nominee seem to be trying to undermine his campaign? If Trump is really just more of the same as all that came before, why is he being treated different by the MSM and the political establishment?

Obviously, there's something flawed about your assumption.


CharlesPDXOr -> seamuspadraig 26 Oct 2016 13:58

I think the answer to your question is in the article: because Trump has brought the truth of the monied class into the open. He is a perfect example of all that class is and tries to pretend it is not. And when the commoners see this in front of them, a whole lot of them are disgusted by it. That doesn't sit well back in the country club and the boardroom, where they work so hard to keep all of that behind closed doors. They hate him because he is one of them and is spilling the beans on all of them.

bill9651 26 Oct 2016 13:01

Trump has exposed the corruption of the political system and the media and has promised to put a stop to it. By contrast, Clinton is financed by the very banks, corporates and financial elites who are responsible for the corruption. This Trump speech is explicit on what we all suspected is going on. Everybody should watch it, irrespective of whether they support him or not!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tab5vvo0TJw


Frances56 26 Oct 2016 13:54

Michael Moore explaining why a lot of people like him


"I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don't necessarily agree with him. They're not racist or redneck, they're actually pretty decent people and so after talking to a number of them I wanted to write this.

Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said "if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy them." It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the "Brexit" states.

You live here in Ohio, you know what I'm talking about. Whether Trump means it or not, is kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump. He is the human Molotov Cocktail that they've been waiting for; the human hand grande that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them. And on November 8, although they lost their jobs, although they've been foreclose on by the bank, next came the divorce and now the wife and kids are gone, the car's been repoed, they haven't had a real vacation in years, they're stuck with the shitty Obamacare bronze plan where you can't even get a fucking percocet, they've essentially lost everything they had except one thing - the one thing that doesn't cost them a cent and is guaranteed to them by the American constitution: the right to vote.
They might be penniless, they might be homeless, they might be fucked over and fucked up it doesn't matter, because it's equalized on that day - a millionaire has the same number of votes as the person without a job: one. And there's more of the former middle class than there are in the millionaire class. So on November 8 the dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot, close the curtain, and take that lever or felt pen or touchscreen and put a big fucking X in the box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system that has ruined their lives: Donald J Trump.

They see that the elite who ruined their lives hate Trump. Corporate America hates Trump. Wall Street hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hates Trump, after they loved him and created him, and now hate. Thank you media: the enemy of my enemy is who I'm voting for on November 8.

Yes, on November 8, you Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, all the Blows get to go and blow up the whole goddamn system because it's your right. Trump's election is going to be the biggest fuck you ever recorded in human history and it will feel good."

Michael Moore


Debreceni 26 Oct 2016 14:15

Mrs Clinton is also the product of our political culture. A feminist who owes everything to her husband and men in the Democratic Party. A Democrat who started her political career as a Republican; a civil right activist who worked for Gerry Goldwater, one of last openly racist/segregationist politicians. A Secretary of State who has no clue about, or training in, foreign policy, and who received her position as compensation for losing the election. A pacifist, who has never had a gun in her hands, but supported every war in the last twenty years. A humanist who rejoiced over Qaddafi's death ("we came, we won, he is dead!") like a sadist.

Both candidates have serious weaknesses. Yet Trump is very much an American character, his vices and weaknesses are either overlooked, or widely shared, secretively respected and even admired (even by those who vote against him). Clinton's arrogance, elitism and hypocrisy, coupled with her lack of talent, charisma and personality, make her an aberration in American politics.


BabylonianSheDevil03 26 Oct 2016 15:26

One thing that far right politics offers the ordinary white disaffected voter is 'pay back', it is a promised revenge-fest, putting up walls, getting rid of foreigners, punishing employers of foreigners, etc., etc. All the stuff that far right groups have wet dreams about.

Farage used the same tactics in the UK. Le Pen is the same.

Because neoliberal politics has left a hell of a lot of people feeling pissed off, the far right capitalizes on this, whilst belonging to the same neoliberal dystopia so ultimately not being able to make good on their promises. Their promises address a lot of people's anger, which of course isn't really about foreigners at all, that is simply the decoy, but cutting through all the crap to make that clear is no easy task, not really sure how it can be done, certainly no political leader in the western hemisphere has the ability to do so.

ProseBeforeHos 26 Oct 2016 15:45

"But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics."

Wrong as always. Trump *is* an outsider. He's an unabashed nationalist who's set him up against the *actual* caste that governs our politics: Neo-liberal internationalists with socially trendy left-liberal politics (but not so left that they don't hire good tax lawyers to avoid paying a fraction of what they are legally obliged to).

Best represented in the Goldman Sachs executives who are donating millions to Hillary Clinton because they are worried about Trump's opposition to free trade, and they know she will give them *everything* they want.

Trumps the closest thing we're gotten to a genuine threat to the system in a long, long time, so of course George Monbiot and the rest of the Guardian writers has set themselves against him, because if you're gonna be wrong about the EU, wrong about New Labour, wrong about social liberalism, wrong about immigration, why change the habit of a lifetime?

aofeia1224 26 Oct 2016 16:09

"What is the worst thing about Donald Trump? The lies? The racist stereotypes? The misogyny? The alleged gropings? The apparent refusal to accept democratic outcomes?"

Lies: Emails, policy changes based on polls showing a complete lack of conviction, corporate collusion, Bosnia, Clinton Foundation, war mongering, etc.
Racist stereotypes: Super predators. Misogyny: Aside from her laughing away her pedophile case and allegedly threatening the women who came out against Bill, you've also got this sexist gem "Women are the primary victims of war".

Alleged gropings: Well she's killed people by texting. So unless your moral compass is so out of whack that somehow a man JOKING about his player status in private is worse than Clinton's actions throughout her political career, then I guess you could make the case that Clinton at least doesn't have this skeleton in her closet.

Refusal to accept democratic outcomes: No. He's speaking out against the media's collusion with the democratic party favoring Clinton over every other nominee, including Bernie Sanders. He's talking about what was revealed in the DNC leaks and the O'Keefe tapes that show how dirty the tactics have been in order to legally persuade the voting public into electing one person or the other.

Besides that, who cares about his "refusal" to accept the outcome? The American people protested when Bush won in 2000 saying it was rigged. Same goes with Obama saying the same "anti democratic" shit back in 2008 in regards to the Bush Administration.

Pot call kettle black

caravanserai 26 Oct 2016 16:16

Republicans are crazy and their policies make little sense. Neo-conservatism? Trickle down economics? Getting the poor to pay for the mess created by the bankers in 2008? Trump knows what sells to his party's base. He throws them red meat. However, the Democrats are not much better. They started to sell out when Bill Clinton was president. They pretend to still be the party of the New Deal, but they don't want to offend Wall Street. US democracy is in trouble.

rooolf 26 Oct 2016 16:24

When do the conspiracy theories about the criminality of his opponent no longer count as conspiracies? When we have a plethora of emails confirming there is indeed fire next to that smoke, corruption fire, collusion fire, fire of contempt for the electorate. When we have emails confirming the Saudi Arabians are actually funding terrorist schools across the globe, emails where Hilary herself admits it, but will not say anything publicly about terrorism and Saudi Arabia, what's conspiracy and what's reality?

Is it because Saudi Arabia funded her foundation with $23 million, or because it doesn't fit with her great 'internationalists' global agenda?

Either way there seems to be some conspiring of some sort

When is it no longer theory? And where does the guardian fit into this corrupted corporate media idea?

Yep trump is a buffoon, but the failure of all media to deliver serious debate means the US is about to elect someone probably more dangerous than trump, how the hell can that be

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/the-election-of-hillary-clinton-promises-a-more-dangerous-world/7966336

rooolf 26 Oct 2016 16:35

What the author overlooks is the media's own complicity in allowing this to develop

Unfortunately the corruption of the system is so entrenched it takes an abnormality like trump to challenge it

Hard to believe, but trump is a once in a lifetime opportunity to shake shit up, not a pleasant one, in fact a damn ugly opportunity, but the media shut him down, got all caught up in self preservation and missed the opportunity

it what comes next that is scary


BScHons -> rooolf 26 Oct 2016 17:09

Nothing wrong with a liberal internationalist utopia, it sounds rather good and worth striving for. It's just that what they've been pushing is actually a neoliberal globalist nirvana for the 1 per cent

rooolf BScHons 26 Oct 2016 17:17

Totally agree

The problem is the left this paper represents were bought off with the small change by neoliberalism, and they expect the rest of us to suck it up so the elites from both sides can continue the game

Talking about the environment and diversity doesn't cut it

mrjonno 26 Oct 2016 17:02

Well said as ever George. Humanity is in a total mess as we near the end of the neoliberal model. That the USA has a choice between two 'demopublicans' is no choice at all.

I would go further in your analysis - media controlled by these sociopaths has ensured that our society shares the same values - we are a bankrupt species as is.

As long as you are here to provide sensible analysis, along with Peter Joseph, I have hope that we can pull out of the nosedive that we are currently on a trajectory for.

Thank you for your sane input into an otherwise insane world. Thank you Mr Monbiot.


annedemontmorency 26 Oct 2016 19:08

We'll ignore the part about the inability to accept democratic outcomes since that afflicts so many people and organisations - Brexit , anyone?

More to the point is how the summit of US politics produces candidates like Trump and Clinton.

Clinton is suffering the same damage the LibDems received during their coalition with the Tories .Proximity to power exposed their inadequacies and hypocrisy in both cases.

Trump - unbelievably - remains a viable candidate but only because Hillary Clinton reeks of graft and self interest.
The obvious media campaign against Trump could also backfire - voters know a hatchet job when they see one - they watch House of Cards.

But politics is odd around the whole world.
The Guardian is running a piece about the Pirate party in Iceland.

Why go so far? - the most remarkable coup in recent politics was UKIP forcing a vote on the EU which it not only won it did so in spite of only ever having ONE MP out of 630.

Trump may be America's UKIP - he resembles them in so many ways.

ID6209069 26 Oct 2016 20:35

It's possible that something like this was inevitable, in a nation which is populated by "consumers" rather than as citizens. There are "valuable demographics" versus those that aren't worthy of the attention of the constant bombardment of advertising. I jokingly said last year that as I was turning 55 last year, I am no longer in the 'coveted 29-54 demo'. My worth as a consumer has been changed merely by reaching a certain age, so I now see fewer ads about cars and electronics and more about prescription medicines. The product of our media is eyeballs, not programs or articles. The advertising is the money maker, the content merely a means of luring people in for a sales pitch, not to educate or inform. If that structure sells us a hideous caricature of a successful person and gives him political power, as long as the ad dollars keep rolling in.

GreyBags 26 Oct 2016 21:19

This is the culmination of living in a post-truth political world. Lies and smears, ably supported by the corporate media and Murdoch in particular means that the average person who doesn't closely follow politics is being misinformed.

The complete failure of right wing economic 'theories' means they only have lies, smears and the old 'divide and conquer' left in their arsenal. 'Free speech' is their attempt to get lies and smears equal billing with the truth. All truth on the other hand must be suppressed. All experts and scientists who don't regurgitate the meaningless slogans of the right will be ignored, traduced, defunded, disbanded or silenced by law.

We see the same corrupted philosophy in Australia as well.


JamesCameron 7d ago

Yet Trump, the "misogynist, racist and bigot"' has more women in executive and managerial positions than any comparable company, pays these women the same or more than their male counterparts and fought the West Palm Beach City Council to be allowed to open his newly purchased club to blacks and Jews who had been banned until then. I suspect his views do chime with Americans fed up with political correctness gone mad as well as the venality of the administration of Barak Obama, a machine politician with dodgy bagmen from Chicago – the historically corrupt city in Illinois, the most corrupt state in the Union. Finally, unlike The Hilary, he has actually held down a job, worked hard and achieved success and perhaps they are more offended by what she does than what he says.

aucourant 7d ago

Not so much an article about Trump as much as a rant. George Monbiot writes with the utter conviction of one who mistakenly believes that his readers share his bigotry. When he talks about the 'alleged gropings' or the 'alleged refusal to accept democratic outcomes', that is exactly what they are 'alleged'.

The Democratic Party has been dredging up porn-stars and wannabe models who now make claims that Trump tried to 'kiss them without asking'. This has become the nightly fare of the mainstream media in the USA. At the same time the media ignores the destruction of Clinton's emails, the bribing of top FBI officials who are investigating the destroyed tapes and the giving of immunity to all those who aided Clinton in hiding and destroying subpoenaed evidence.

The press also ignored the tapes of the DNC paying thugs to cause violence at Trump rallies, the bribes paid to the Clintons for political favours and the stealing of the election from Bernie Sanders. Trump is quite right to think the 'democratic outcome' is being fixed. Not only were the votes for Sanders manipulated, but Al Gore's votes were also altered and manipulated to ensure a win for Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The same interests who engineered the 2000 election have switched from supporting the Republican Party to supporting Clinton.

Anomander64 6d ago

Great article. The neoliberals have been able to control the narrative and in doing so have managed to scapegoat all manner of minority groups, building anger among those disaffected with modern politics. Easy targets - minorities, immigrants, the poor, the disadvantaged and the low-paid workers.

The real enemy here are those sitting atop the corporate tree, but with the media controlled by them, the truth is never revealed.

mochilero7687 5d ago

Perhaps next week George will write in detail about all the scandals Hildabeast has caused and been involved in over the past 40 years - which have cost the US govt tens of millions of dollars and millions of man hours - but I won't be holding my breath.

[Nov 02, 2016] The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party

Nov 02, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

toffee1 26 Oct 2016 7:58

Trump shows the true face of the ruling class with no hypocrisy. He is telling us the truth. If we have a democracy, we should have a party representing the interests of the business class, why not. The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that they somehow representing the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies and hypocrisy and manipulating the working class everyday through their power over the media. Their function is to appease the working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party.

[Oct 31, 2016] As Hillary Clintons Campaign Falters, Progressive Presidential Nominee Jill Stein Has Opening to Rise - Breitbart

Oct 31, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
Jill Stein to win over the hearts of some progressives and jump start her far-left " people-powered " movement.

"This is Jill Stein's moment," said longtime Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor Pat Caddell.

"There are many Clinton voters who would rather vote their conscience than vote for a major party. According to the latest Breitbart/Gravis poll, when given the choice of whether you should vote for a major party candidate or vote your conscience, 44% of Clinton voters said you should vote your conscience," Caddell explained.

Even before the FBI director's dramatic announcement on Friday, the ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll indicated that "loosely affiliated or reluctant Clinton supporters"- which includes white women and young voters under the age of 30- seem to be floating off and "look less likely to vote."

Caddell explained that the polling data suggests "there are many people who are ambivalent about Clinton who don't want to vote for Trump. Given these new revelations from WikiLeaks and the re-intensity of the concern regarding the corruption of her emails, these ambivalent voters need a place to go and Jill Stein-being not only a progressive woman, but an honest progressive woman-is the obvious choice for so many of these voters, particularly for those who supported Bernie Sanders."

Indeed, nearly 60 percent of voters- including 43 percent of Democrats- believe America needs a third major political party, according to a Gallup poll released late last month.

As one former Bernie Sanders supporter told Breitbart News, "It's come to this: voting for Hillary Clinton is voting for the lesser of two evils. But voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, and I'm tired of voting for evil. That's why I'm voting for Jill Stein. "

This sentiment has been echoed by Stein herself who has argued, "it's time to reject the lesser of two evils and stand up for the greater good."

Stein seems ready to capitalize on the FBI's announcement as well as the steady stream of WikiLeaks revelations that have exposed, what Stein has characterized as, the Clinton camp's "hostility" to progressives.

"The FBI has re-opened the Clinton investigation. Will the American people rise up and vote for honest change?" Stein asked on Friday, via Twitter.

... ... ...

Clinton's strained relationship with progressives has been well documented and could present Stein– who has demonstrated a remarkable ability to articulately prosecute the progressive case against Clinton– with an opening, especially as polling reveals a significant chunk of Clinton voters believe voting their conscience ought to trump voting for a major political party.

As Politico reported in a piece titled "WikiLeaks poisons Hillary's relationship with left" :

Some of the left's most influential voices and groups are taking offense at the way they and their causes were discussed behind their backs by Clinton and some of her closest advisers in the emails, which swipe liberal heroes and causes as "puritanical," "pompous", "naive", "radical" and "dumb," calling some "freaks," who need to "get a life." […] among progressive operatives, goodwill for Clinton - and confidence in key advisers featured in the emails including John Podesta, Neera Tanden and Jake Sullivan - is eroding…

Even before the FBI's announcement, many noted that it was becoming increasingly difficult to view a vote for Clinton as anything other than a vote to continue the worst aspects of political corruption.

As columnist Kim Strassel recently wrote , the one thing in this election of which one can be certain is that "a Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law." As such, "anyone who pulls the lever for Mrs. Clinton takes responsibility for setting up the nation for all the blatant corruption that will follow," Strassel concludes . "She just doesn't have a whole lot of integrity," said far-left progressive Cornel West.

West endorsed Stein over Clinton explaining Stein is "the only progressive woman in the race."

"The Clinton train- [of] Wall Street, security surveillance, militaristic- is not going in the same direction I'm going," West told Bill Maher earlier this year.

She's a neoliberal… [I] believe neoliberalism is a disaster when it comes to poor people and when it comes to people in other parts of the world dealing with U.S. foreign policy and militarism. Oh, absolutely. Ask the people in Libya about that. Ask the people in the West Bank about that.

West has separately explained that Clinton's "militarism makes the world a less safe place" and that her globalist agenda created the "right-wing populism" that has fueled Trump's rise.

Clinton policies of the 1990s generated inequality, mass incarceration, privatization of schools and Wall Street domination. There is also a sense that the Clinton policies helped produce the right-wing populism that we're seeing now in the country. And we think she's going to come to the rescue? That's not going to happen.

"It's too easy to view him [Trump] as an isolated individual and bash him," West told Maher. "He's speaking to the pain in the country because white, working class brothers have been overlooked by globalization, by these trade deals"– trade deals which Stein also opposes.

Stein has railed against the passage of TPP, which she and her party have described as "NAFTA on steroids" that would "enrich wealthy corporations by exporting jobs and pushing down wages." They have argued that the deal essentially amounts to a "global corporate coup" that "would give corporations more power than nations" by letting them "challenge our laws".

#ImVoting4JillBecause she is the only positive choice for our children's future #votegreen #Election2016 #JillStein @DrJillStein pic.twitter.com/ui1RsqQyrz

- Beebz the Squirrel (@SquirrelBeebz) October 25, 2016

Stein is against the "massive expanding wars," "the meltdown of the climate," "the massive Wall Street bailouts," and "the offshoring of our jobs."

Pointing to Clinton's "dangerous and immoral" militarism, Stein has warned that "a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war" and has explained how under a Clinton presidency, "we could very quickly slide into nuclear war" or could start an air-war with Russia.

"No matter how her staff tries to rebrand her" Clinton is "not a progressive," Stein has said -rather Clinton is a "corporatist hawk" that " surrounds herself with people who are hostile progressives" such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz "after she sabotaged Bernie [Sanders]." Stein has warned progressives that the role of corporate Democrats like Clinton is to "prevent progressives from defying corporate rule."

#ImVoting4JillBecause pic.twitter.com/bg05RTdHI9

- Canary Coalminer (@BigTinyBird) October 23, 2016

Stein has made a point to highlight the fact that "we're now seeing many Republican leaders join Hillary Clinton in a neoliberal uni-party that will fuel right-wing extremism," by continuing to push its "neoliberal agenda [of] globalization, privatization, deregulation, [and] austerity for the rest of us."

In contrast to Clinton's corporatist "uni-party", Stein and her party have explained that their campaign represents a "people's party with a populist progressive agenda" that-unlike Democrats and Republicans- is not "funded by big corporate interests including Wall St. Banks, fossil fuel giants, & war profiteer."

Stein is a Harvard Medical School graduate, a mother to two sons, and a practicing physician, who became an environmental-health activist and organizer in the late 1990s. As the Green Party's 2012 presidential candidate, Stein already holds the record for the most votes ever received by a female candidate for president in a general election.

In Jill Stein, her party writes, "progressives have a peace candidate not beholden to the billionaire class."

[Oct 31, 2016] Hillary Clinton took money from and supported nations that she KNEW funded ISIS and terrorists

Notable quotes:
"... "…the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region." ..."
"... "Clintons should know better than to raise money from folks whose primary concern has been supporting the NIAC, a notorious supporter of the Radical Islamic Mullahs. "The Clinton's have thrown principle out the window in exchange for cold hard cash…putting money ahead of principle." ..."
"... If these revelations don't completely terminate Hillary Clinton's candidacy, certainly four straight years of Congressional Emailgate hearings will, should she outright steal the election from Donald Trump on November 8th, or shortly thereafter. ..."
Oct 31, 2016 | stateofthenation2012.com

_ _ _

If these revelations don't completely terminate Hillary Clinton's candidacy, certainly four straight years of Congressional Emailgate hearings will, should she outright steal the election from Donald Trump on November 8th, or shortly thereafter.

[Oct 31, 2016] Trump Id Get Electric Chair for Cheating Debates Like Hillary

Oct 31, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
Trump was commenting on the revelation by Wikileaks on Monday that CNN commentator Donna Brazile, who is now the chair of the Democratic National Committee, had been caught again passing debate questions from the network to the Clinton campaign during the Democratic primary.

Brazile had been exposed earlier doing the same - passing a question to the Clinton campaign in advance of a town hall debate against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

At the time, Brazile was not yet DNC chair, but was a regular CNN contributor.

CNN fired Brazile on Monday, releasing a statement: ""We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor."

[Oct 30, 2016] Anatol Lieven reviews 'The New American Militarism' by Andrew Bacevich

Amazingly insightful review !!!
Notable quotes:
"... A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. ..."
"... The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and the country. ..."
"... The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent answer to any number of problems. ..."
"... Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US. ..."
"... And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'. ..."
"... The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. ..."
"... To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension. ..."
"... They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. ..."
"... Red Storm Rising ..."
"... Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus. ..."
"... Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society. ..."
"... British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority, small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America. ..."
"... As Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. ..."
"... Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years to do so. ..."
"... The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy. ..."
Oct 20, 2005 | LRB

The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War by Andrew Bacevich
Oxford, 270 pp, Ł16.99, August 2005, ISBN 0 19 517338 4

A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. Yet, as Andrew Bacevich points out in one of the most acute analyses of America to have appeared in recent years, the United States itself is in many ways a militaristic country, and becoming more so:

at the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. The skepticism about arms and armies that informed the original Wilsonian vision, indeed, that pervaded the American experiment from its founding, vanished. Political leaders, liberals and conservatives alike, became enamoured with military might.

The ensuing affair had, and continues to have, a heedless, Gatsby-like aspect, a passion pursued in utter disregard of any consequences that might ensue.

The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and the country. Compared to German and other past militarisms, however, the contemporary American variant is extremely complex, and the forces that have generated it have very diverse origins and widely differing motives:

The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent answer to any number of problems.

Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US.

And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'.

The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage also ensure the support of much of the Congress, which often authorizes defense spending on weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group of senators and congressmen in whose home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension.

That's not the same, however, as having an actual desire for war, least of all for a major conflict which might ruin the international economy. US ground forces have bitter memories of Vietnam, and no wish to wage an aggressive war: Rumsfeld and his political appointees had to override the objections of the senior generals, in particular those of the army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, before the attack on Iraq. The navy and air force do not have to fight insurgents in hell-holes like Fallujah, and so naturally have a more relaxed attitude.

To understand how the Bush administration was able to manipulate the public into supporting the Iraq war one has to look for deeper explanations. They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world. This leads to a genuine belief that American soldiers can do no real wrong because they are spreading 'freedom'. Also of great importance – at least until the Iraqi insurgency rubbed American noses in the horrors of war – has been the development of an aesthetic that sees war as waged by the US as technological, clean and antiseptic; and thanks to its supremacy in weaponry, painlessly victorious. Victory over the Iraqi army in 2003 led to a new flowering of megalomania in militarist quarters. The amazing Max Boot of the Wall Street Journal – an armchair commentator, not a frontline journalist – declared that the US victory had made 'fabled generals such as Erwin Rommel and Heinz Guderian seem positively incompetent by comparison'. Nor was this kind of talk restricted to Republicans. More than two years into the Iraq quagmire, strategic thinkers from the Democratic establishment were still declaring that 'American military power in today's world is practically unlimited.'

Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. Take Bacevich on the popular novelist Tom Clancy:

In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash with heavily armed and implacably determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men and women of America's uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats. The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honor, extraordinary technological aptitude and sheer decency of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to enter a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one reviewer noted. 'All the Americans are paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.' Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated that nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.

Such attitudes go beyond simply glorying in violence, military might and technological prowess. They reflect a belief – genuine or assumed – in what the Germans used to call Soldatentum: the pre-eminent value of the military virtues of courage, discipline and sacrifice, and explicitly or implicitly the superiority of these virtues to those of a hedonistic, contemptible and untrustworthy civilian society and political class. In the words of Thomas Friedman, the ostensibly liberal foreign affairs commentator of the ostensibly liberal New York Times, 'we do not deserve these people. They are so much better than the country they are fighting for.' Such sentiments have a sinister pedigree in modern history.

In the run-up to the last election, even a general as undistinguished as Wesley Clark could see his past generalship alone as qualifying him for the presidency – and gain the support of leading liberal intellectuals. Not that this was new: the first president was a general and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries both generals and more junior officers ran for the presidency on the strength of their military records. And yet, as Bacevich points out, this does not mean that the uniformed military have real power over policy-making, even in matters of war. General Tommy Franks may have regarded Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, as 'the stupidest fucking guy on the planet', but he took Feith's orders, and those of the civilians standing behind him: Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the president himself. Their combination of militarism and contempt for military advice recalls Clemenceau and Churchill – or Hitler and Stalin.

Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus.

Its symbols may be often childish and its methods brutish, but American belief in 'freedom' is a real and living force. This cuts two ways. On the one hand, the adherence of many leading intellectuals in the Democratic Party to a belief in muscular democratization has had a disastrous effect on the party's ability to put up a strong resistance to the policies of the administration. Bush's messianic language of 'freedom' – supported by the specifically Israeli agenda of Natan Sharansky and his allies in the US – has been all too successful in winning over much of the opposition. On the other hand, the fact that a belief in freedom and democracy lies at the heart of civic nationalism places certain limits on American imperialism – weak no doubt, but nonetheless real. It is not possible for the US, unlike previous empires, to pursue a strategy of absolutely unconstrained Machtpolitik. This has been demonstrated recently in the breach between the Bush administration and the Karimov tyranny in Uzbekistan.

The most important contradiction, however, is between the near worship of the military in much of American culture and the equally widespread unwillingness of most Americans – elites and masses alike – to serve in the armed forces. If people like Friedman accompanied their stated admiration for the military with a real desire to abandon their contemptible civilian lives and join the armed services, then American power in the world really might be practically unlimited. But as Bacevich notes,

having thus made plain his personal disdain for crass vulgarity and support for moral rectitude, Friedman in the course of a single paragraph drops the military and moves on to other pursuits. His many readers, meanwhile, having availed themselves of the opportunity to indulge, ever so briefly, in self-loathing, put down their newspapers and themselves move on to other things. Nothing has changed, but columnist and readers alike feel better for the cathartic effect of this oblique, reassuring encounter with an alien world.

Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society.

This combination of a theoretical adulation with a profound desire not to serve is not of course new. It characterized most of British society in the 19th century, when, just as with the US today, the overwhelming rejection of conscription – until 1916 – meant that, appearances to the contrary, British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority, small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America.

Despite spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and despite enjoying overwhelming technological superiority, American military power is actually quite limited. As Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. As for invading and occupying a country the size of Iran, this is coming to seem as unlikely as an invasion of mainland China.

In other words, when it comes to actually applying military power the US is pretty much where it has been for several decades. Another war of occupation like Iraq would necessitate the restoration of conscription: an idea which, with Vietnam in mind, the military detests, and which politicians are well aware would probably make them unelectable. It is just possible that another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 might lead to a new draft, but that would bring the end of the US military empire several steps closer. Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years to do so.

Facing these dangers squarely, Bacevich proposes refocusing American strategy away from empire and towards genuine national security. It is a measure of the degree to which imperial thinking now dominates US politics that these moderate and commonsensical proposals would seem nothing short of revolutionary to the average member of the Washington establishment.

They include a renunciation of messianic dreams of improving the world through military force, except where a solid international consensus exists in support of US action; a recovery by Congress of its power over peace and war, as laid down in the constitution but shamefully surrendered in recent years; the adoption of a strategic doctrine explicitly making war a matter of last resort; and a decision that the military should focus on the defense of the nation, not the projection of US power. As a means of keeping military expenditure in some relationship to actual needs, Bacevich suggests pegging it to the combined annual expenditure of the next ten countries, just as in the 19th century the size of the British navy was pegged to that of the next two largest fleets – it is an index of the budgetary elephantiasis of recent years that this would lead to very considerable spending reductions.

This book is important not only for the acuteness of its perceptions, but also for the identity of its author. Colonel Bacevich's views on the military, on US strategy and on world affairs were profoundly shaped by his service in Vietnam. His year there 'fell in the conflict's bleak latter stages long after an odor of failure had begun to envelop the entire enterprise'. The book is dedicated to his brother-in-law, 'a casualty of a misbegotten war'.

Just as Vietnam shaped his view of how the US and the US military should not intervene in the outside world, so the Cold War in Europe helped define his beliefs about the proper role of the military. For Bacevich and his fellow officers in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, defending the West from possible Soviet aggression, 'not conquest, regime change, preventive war or imperial policing', was 'the American soldier's true and honorable calling'.

In terms of cultural and political background, this former soldier remains a self-described Catholic conservative, and intensely patriotic. During the 1990s Bacevich wrote for right-wing journals, and still situates himself culturally on the right:

As long as we shared in the common cause of denouncing the foolishness and hypocrisies of the Clinton years, my relationship with modern American conservatism remained a mutually agreeable one But my disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the Bush administration and its groupies, is just about absolute. Fiscal irresponsibility, a buccaneering foreign policy, a disregard for the constitution, the barest lip service as a response to profound moral controversies: these do not qualify as authentically conservative values.

On this score my views have come to coincide with the critique long offered by the radical left: it is the mainstream itself, the professional liberals as well as the professional conservatives, who define the problem The Republican and Democratic Parties may not be identical, but they produce nearly identical results.

Bacevich, in other words, is skeptical of the naive belief that replacing the present administration with a Democrat one would lead to serious changes in the US approach to the world. Formal party allegiances are becoming increasingly irrelevant as far as thinking about foreign and security policy is concerned.

Bacevich also makes plain the private anger of much of the US uniformed military at the way in which it has been sacrificed, and its institutions damaged, by chickenhawk civilian chauvinists who have taken good care never to see action themselves; and the deep private concern of senior officers that they might be ordered into further wars that would wreck the army altogether. Now, as never before, American progressives have the chance to overcome the knee-jerk hostility to the uniformed military that has characterized the left since Vietnam, and to reach out not only to the soldiers in uniform but also to the social, cultural and regional worlds from which they are drawn. For if the American left is once again to become an effective political force, it must return to some of its own military traditions, founded on the distinguished service of men like George McGovern, on the old idea of the citizen soldier, and on a real identification with that soldier's interests and values. With this in mind, Bacevich calls for moves to bind the military more closely into American society, including compulsory education for all officers at a civilian university, not only at the start of their careers but at intervals throughout them.

Or to put it another way, the left must fight imperialism in the name of patriotism. Barring a revolutionary and highly unlikely transformation of American mass culture, any political party that wishes to win majority support will have to demonstrate its commitment to the defense of the country. The Bush administration has used the accusation of weakness in security policy to undermine its opponents, and then used this advantage to pursue reckless strategies that have themselves drastically weakened the US. The left needs to heed Bacevich and draw up a tough, realistic and convincing alternative. It will also have to demonstrate its identification with the respectable aspects of military culture. The Bush administration and the US establishment in general may have grossly mismanaged the threats facing us, but the threats are real, and some at least may well need at some stage to be addressed by military force. And any effective military force also requires the backing of a distinctive military ethic embracing loyalty, discipline and a capacity for both sacrifice and ruthlessness.

In the terrible story of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, one of the most morally disgusting moments took place at a Senate Committee hearing on 29 April 2004, when Paul Wolfowitz – another warmonger who has never served himself – mistook, by a margin of hundreds, how many US soldiers had died in a war for which he was largely responsible. If an official in a Democratic administration had made a public mistake like that, the Republican opposition would have exploited it ruthlessly, unceasingly, to win the next election. The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy.

Because they are the ones who pay the price for reckless warmongering and geopolitical megalomania, soldiers and veterans of the army and marine corps could become valuable allies in the struggle to curb American imperialism, and return America's relationship with its military to the old limited, rational form. For this to happen, however, the soldiers have to believe that campaigns against the Iraq war, and against current US strategy, are anti-militarist, but not anti-military. We have needed the military desperately on occasions in the past; we will definitely need them again.


Vol. 27 No. 20 · 20 October 2005 " Anatol Lieven " We do not deserve these people
pages 11-12 | 3337 words

[Oct 30, 2016] Speaking also of Pedesta email it is interesting that it was Podesta who make mistake of assessing phishing email link, probably accidentally

turcopolier.typepad.com

mistah charley, ph.d. said... 30 October 2016 at 09:13 AM

Speaking also of Podesta's email, not Huma's, the following is interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/phishing-email-hack-john-podesta-hillary-clinton-wikileaks/index.html

Briefly, it seems Podesta received an email "You need to change your password", asked for professional advice from his staff if it was legit, was told "Yes, you DO need to change your password", but then clicked on the link in the original email, which was sent him with malicious intent, as he suspected at first and then was inappropriately reassured about - rather than on the link sent him by the IT staffer.

Result - the "phishing" email got his password info, and the world now gets to see all his emails.

Personally, my hope is that Huma and HRC will be pardoned for all their crimes, by Obama, before he leaves office.

Then I hope that Huma's divorce will go through, and that once Hillary is sworn in she will at last be courageous enough to divorce Bill (who actually performed the Huma-Anthony Weiner nuptials - you don't have to make these things up).

Then it could happen that the first same-sex marriage will be performed in the White House, probably by the minister of DC's Foundry United Methodist Church, which has a policy of LBGQT equality. Or maybe Hillary, cautious and middle-of-the-road as usual, will go to Foundry UMC sanctuary for the ceremony, recognizing that some Americans' sensibilities would be offended by having the rite in the White House.

As Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan wrote, "Love is all there is, it makes the world go round, love and only love, it can't be denied. No matter what you think about it, you just can't live without it, take a tip from one who's tried."

[Oct 30, 2016] Anatol Lieven · The Push for War The Threat from America

[Oct 29, 2016] Sometimes Bill And Hillary Have The Worst Judgment Wikileaks Releases Part 22 Of Podesta File

Notable quotes:
"... and concludes by saying that " Sometimes HRC/WJC have the worst judgement ." In retrospect, she is right. ..."
Oct 29, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
In the aftermath of one of the most memorable (c)october shocks in presidential campaign history, Wikileaks continues its ongoing broadside attack against the Clinton campaign with the relentless Podesta dump, by unveiling another 596 emails in the latest Part 22 of its Podesta release, bringing the total emails released so far to exactly 36,190, leaving less than 30% of the total dump left to go.

RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 22 #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails22 #HillaryClinton https://t.co/wzxeh70oUm pic.twitter.com/QnWewcpPbf

- WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 29, 2016

As usual we will go parse through the disclosure and bring you some of the more notable ones.

* * *

In a February 2012 email from Chelsea Clinton's NYU alias, [email protected] , to Podesta and Mills, Bill and Hillary's frustrated daughter once again points out the "frustration and confusion" among Clinton Foundation clients in the aftermath of the previously noted scandals plaguing the Clinton consultancy, Teneo:

Over the past few days a few people from the Foundation have reached out to me frustrated or upset about _____ (fill in the blank largely derived meetings Friday or Monday). I've responded to all w/ essentially the following (ie disintermediating myself, again, emphatically) below. I also called my Dad last night to tell him of my explicit non-involvement and pushing all back to you both and to him as I think that is indeed the right answer. Thanks

Sample: Please share any and all concerns, with examples, without pulling punches, with John and Cheryl as appropriate and also if you feel very strongly with my Dad directly. Transitions are always challenging and to get to the right answer its critical that voices are heard and understood, and in the most direct way - ie to them without intermediation. Particularly in an effort to move more toward a professionalism and efficiency at the Foundation and for my father - and they're the decision-makers, my Dad most of all

* * *

A February 2015 email from Neera Tanden lashes out at David Brock of the Bonner Group, profiled in this post: " Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicated ." As a reminder, the Bonner Group, as we showed last month, may be a money laundering front involving various SuperPACs and non-profit institutions:

In the email Tanden says that:

"Brock/Bonner are a nightmare: Really, Suzie Buell isn't giving to the superpac? I wonder how that got in this story " Big donors holding off making pledges to pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC ",

and concludes by saying that " Sometimes HRC/WJC have the worst judgement ." In retrospect, she is right.

* * *

Speaking of "donor advisor" Mary Pat Bonner , the following email from March 2009 hints at potential impropriety in shifting money from one democratic donor group to another, the Center for American Progress :

I have moved all the sussman money from unity '09 to cap and am reviewing the others . I will assess it and keep you informed

Something else for the DOJ to look into after the elections, perhaps?

* * *

And then there is this email from August 2015 in which German politician Michael Werz advises John Podesta that Turkish president Erdogan "is making substantial investments in U.S. to counter opposition (CHP, Kurds, Gulenists etc.) outreach to policymakers" and the US Government.

John, heard this second hand but more than once. Seems Erdogan faction is making substantial investments in U.S. to counter opposition (CHP, Kurds, Gulenists etc.) outreach to policymakers and USG. Am told that the Erdogan crew also tries to make inroads via donations to Democratic candidates, including yours. Two names that you should be aware of are *Mehmet Celebi* and *Ali Cinar*. Happy to elaborate on the phone, provided you are not shopping at the liquor store.

The email :

This should perhaps explain why the US has so far done absolutely nothing to halt Erdogan's unprecedented crackdown on "coup plotters" which has seen as many as 100,000 workers lose their jobs, be arrested, or otherwise removed from Erdogan's political opposition.

[Oct 29, 2016] More journalists to add to the presstitutes list. They were all obvious Clinton hacks though.

Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

More journalists to add to the shit list. They were all obvious Clinton hacks though.
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/792026046191300608

Lambert Strether Post author October 29, 2016 at 1:45 am

Why, it's Neera Tanden to John Podesta :

when bloomberg was having problems w the times he called Arthur schulzburger and asked for coffee. He made the case that they were treating him like a billionaire dilettante instead of Third term mayor. It changed the coverage moderately but also aired the issues in the newsroom so people were more conscious of it. But Arthur is a pretty big wuss so he's not going to do a lot more than that.

Hillary would have to be the one to call.

He also thinks the brown and women pundits can shame the times and others on social media. So cultivating Joan Walsh, Yglesias, Allen, perry bacon, Greg Sargent , to defend her is helpful. They can be emboldened. Fwiw - I pushed pir to do this a yr ago.

"brown and women pundits". Neera so woke.

aab October 29, 2016 at 3:08 am

I'm guessing Harvard graduate Matt Yglesias is thrilled to find out that Clintonland views his usefulness primary through the prism of his skin color, particularly given that his family background not actually all that "brown."

[Oct 26, 2016] Over-sampling issue in Podesta emails

Notable quotes:
"... The simplest explanation is usually best. All the indicators, especially the support of the donor class, elites of all kinds etc. points towards a Democratic victory, perhaps a very strong victory if the poll numbers last weekend translate into electoral college numbers. ..."
crookedtimber.org

kidneystones 10.25.16 at 11:07 am ( 55 )

I stopped by to check if my comment had cleared moderation. What follows is a more thorough examination (not my own, entirely) on Corey's point 1, and some data that may point towards a much narrower race than we're led to believe.

The leaked emails from one Democratic super-pac, the over-sampling I cited at zerohedge (@13o) is part of a two-step process involving over-sampling of Democrats in polls combined with high frequency polling. The point being to encourage media to promote the idea that the race is already over. We saw quite a bit of this last weekend. Let's say the leaked emails are reliable.

This suggests to me two things: first – the obvious, the race is much closer than the polls indicated, certainly the poll cited by Corey in the OP. Corey questioned the validity of this poll, at least obliquely. Second, at least one super-pac working with the campaign sees the need to depress Trump turn-out. The first point is the clearest and the most important – the polls, some at least, are intentionally tilted to support a 'Hillary wins easily' narrative. The second allows for some possibly useful speculation regarding the Clinton campaigns confidence in their own GOTV success.

The simplest explanation is usually best. All the indicators, especially the support of the donor class, elites of all kinds etc. points towards a Democratic victory, perhaps a very strong victory if the poll numbers last weekend translate into electoral college numbers.

That's a big if. I suggest Hillary continues to lead but by much smaller margins in key states. It's also useful to point out that Trump's support in traditionally GOP states may well be equally shaky.

And that really is it from me on this topic barring a double digit swing to Hillary in the LA Times poll that has the race at dead even.

Layman 10.25.16 at 11:31 am

kidneystones:

"The leaked emails from one Democratic super-pac, the over-sampling I cited at zerohedge (@13o) is part of a two-step process involving over-sampling of Democrats in polls combined with high frequency polling."

Excellent analysis, only the email in question is eight years old. And it refers to a request for internal polling done by the campaign. And it suggests over-sampling of particular demographics so the campaign could better assess attitudes among those demographics.

And this is a completely normal practice which has nothing to do with the polling carried out by independent third parties (e.g. Gallup, Ipsos, etc) for the purposes of gauging and reporting to the public the state of the race.

And when pollsters to over-sample, the over-sampling is used for analysis but is not reflected in the top-line poll results.

[Oct 25, 2016] Trump supporters no longer believe or trust the Republican elite who they see as corrupt which is partly true

Notable quotes:
"... My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders. ..."
"... Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude. ..."
"... Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to me. ..."
"... In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and double dealing are still too fresh. ..."
"... We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise. That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks. ..."
economistsview.typepad.com

Peter K. -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 11:48 AM

"That's not untrue, but it seems to me to be getting worse."

Because of economic stagnation and anxiety among lower class Republicans. Trump blames immigration and trade unlike traditional elite Republicans. These are economic issues.

Trump supporters no longer believe or trust the Republican elite who they see as corrupt which is partly true. They've been backing Nixon, Reagan, Bush etc and things are just getting worse. They've been played.

Granted it's complicated and partly they see their side as losing and so are doubling down on the conservatism, racism, sexism etc. But Trump *brags* that he was against the Iraq war. That's not an elite Republican opinion.

likbez -> DrDick... , -1
My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders.

Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude.

Looks like they have found were to go this election cycle and this loss of the base is probably was the biggest surprise for neoliberal Democrats.

Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to me.

Some data suggest that among unions which endorsed Hillary 3 out of 4 members will vote against her. And that are data from union brass. Lower middle class might also demonstrate the same pattern this election cycle.

In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and double dealing are still too fresh.

We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise. That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks.

likbez : , October 24, 2016 at 12:00 PM
My impression is that that key issue is as following: a vote for Hillary is a vote for the War Party and is incompatible with democratic principles.

She is way too militant, and is not that different in this respect from Senator McCain. That creates a real danger of unleashing the war with Russia.

Trump with all his warts gives us a chance to get some kind of détente with Russia.

In other words no real Democrat can vote for Hillary.

[Oct 24, 2016] Dont Repeat That To Anybody - Hillary Clinton And Donna Brazile Personally Implicated In Latest Project Veritas Video

Oct 24, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
Last week, Jame O'keefe and Project Veritas Action potentially altered the course of the U.S. election, or at a minimum raised serious doubts about the practices of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, after releasing two undercover videos that revealed efforts of democrat operatives to incite violence at republican rallies and commit "mass voter fraud." While democrats have vehemently denied the authenticity of the videos, two democratic operatives, Robert Creamer and Scott Foval, have both been forced to resign over the allegations.

Many democrats made the rounds on various mainstream media outlets over the weekend in an attempt to debunk the Project Veritas videos. Unfortunately for them, O'Keefe fired back with warnings that part 3 of his multi-part series was forthcoming and would implicate Hillary Clinton directly.

Anything happens to me, there's a deadman's switch on Part III, which will be released Monday. @HillaryClinton and @donnabrazile implicated.

- James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 21, 2016

Now, we have the 3rd installment of O'Keefe's videos which does seemingly reveal direct coordination between Hillary Clinton, Donna Brazile, Robert Creamer and Scott Foval to organize a smear campaign over Trump's failure to release his tax returns. Per Project Veritas :

Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton's campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it's all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. " In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground," says Creamer in one of several exchanges. "So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground." It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: "Don't repeat that to anybody."

Within the video both Clinton and Brazile are directly implicated by Creamer during the following exchange:

"The duck has to be an Americans United for Change entity. This had to do only with some problem between Donna Brazile and ABC, which is owned by Disney, because they were worried about a trademark issue. That's why. It's really silly.

We originally launched this duck because Hillary Clinton wants the duck .

In any case, so she really wanted this duck figure out there doing this stuff, so that was fine. So, we put all these ducks out there and got a lot of coverage. And Trump taxes. And then ABC/Disney went crazy because they thought our original slogan was 'Donald ducks his taxes, releasing his tax returns."

They said it was a trademark issue. It's not, but anyway, Donna Brazile had a connection with them and she didn't want to get sued. So we switched the ownership of the duck to Americans United for Change and now our signs say 'Trump ducks releasing his tax returns.' And we haven't had anymore trouble."

As Project Veritas points out, this direct coordination between Clinton, Brazile and Americans United For Change is a violation of federal election laws:

"The ducks on the ground are likely 'public communications' for purposes of the law. It's political activity opposing Trump, paid for by Americans United For Change funds but controlled by Clinton/her campaign."

Here is the full video just released:

As a reminder, below are parts 1 & 2 of the Project Veritas series in case you missed them.

Video 1 revealed DNC efforts to incite violence at Trump rallies:

Video 2 provided the democrat playbook on how to committ "mass voter fraud":

RawPawg Oct 24, 2016 1:10 PM ,
i'm waiting for SHTF

And all I get is Ducks

nope-1004 RawPawg Oct 24, 2016 1:15 PM ,
Throw the scumbag Hillary in Jail!!!!

It's time people acknolwedge the deep corruption and headed down to the Capital on foot.

remain calm nope-1004 Oct 24, 2016 1:15 PM ,
Comey will get right on it.
Duane Norman remain calm Oct 24, 2016 1:16 PM ,
And this is why the people want Trump, because he isn't above Comey!

http://fmshooter.com/real-reasons-people-will-vote-for-trump/

Occident Mortal nyse Oct 24, 2016 1:45 PM ,
What's the bets Comey ends up at Goldman Sachs?

e.g. VP without portfolio?

NoDebt Occident Mortal Oct 24, 2016 2:01 PM ,
"As Project Veritas points out, this direct coordination between Clinton, Brazile and Americans United For Change is a violation of federal election laws "

Yeah, you pretty much got the head shot there. Unfortunately, no gun to shoot it from. The enforcement authorities all work FOR the Democrat party.

Full spectrum dominance. It's a bitch. Even if you catch them red-haned there's no "authorities" to report it to that will listen to you.

Remember what happened to Planned Parenthood when they were caught red-handed selling human tissue for profit (which is also illegal)? That's right. Nothing. Same thing here.

Son of Loki NoDebt Oct 24, 2016 2:02 PM ,
Clinton attack featuring Miss Universe was months in the making, email shows

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-attack-featuring-miss-uni...

The Saint froze25 Oct 24, 2016 5:22 PM ,
The problem is that the MSM isn't reporting on any of this stuff about Hillary. And, the Republicans in office aren't on the news at all to talk about any of this. So, the only place it is reported is on the Trump campaign trail where just a few thousand hear about.

If the media won't report it and the Republicans won't talk about it, Hillary gets a pass. The audience for sites like ZH and Drudge are just preaching to the chior and not reaching the people who could change their minds or haven't made up their minds.

froze25 -> ImGumbydmmt •Oct 24, 2016 3:40 PM
What this video is, is evidence of collusion between a campaign and a SuperPac. That is illegal in a criminal court. This is enough to open an investigation, problem is nothing will be done by Nov 8th. All we can do is share it non-stop.
Bastiat d Haus-Targaryen •Oct 24, 2016 2:11 PM
Don't discount the Enquirer: remember who took down Gary Hart and John Edwards:

Hillary Clinton's shady Mr. Fix It will tell all on TV tonight, just days after his explosive confession in The National ENQUIRER hit the stands.

The man who's rocked Washington, D.C., will join Sean Hannity on tonight's episode of "Hannity" - airing on the FOX News Channel at 10 p.m. EST - to reveal his true identity at last.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/politics/hillary-clinton-lesbian-trysts-...

[Oct 23, 2016] The USA now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang

Notable quotes:
"... I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite. ..."
"... But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid. ..."
"... In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to governance of such a huge country crook. ..."
Oct 23, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
likbez October 22, 2016 11:20 pm

The key problems with Democratic Party and Hillary is that they lost working class and middle class voters, becoming another party of highly paid professionals and Wall Street speculators (let's say top 10%, not just 1%), the party of neoliberal elite.

It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and lower middle class works this time. I think it will not. Even upper middle class is very resentful of Democrats and Hillary. So many votes will be not "for" but "against". This is the scenario Democratic strategists fear the most, but they can do nothing about it.

She overplayed "identity politics" card. Her "identity politics" and her fake feminism are completely insincere. She is completely numb to human suffering and interests of females and minorities. Looks like she has a total lack of empathy for other people.

Here is one interesting quote ( http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/10/how-trump-and-clinton-gave-bad-answers-on-us-nuclear-policy-and-why-you-should-be-worried.html#comment-2680036 ):

"What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html ) revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited. "

Usually people are resentful about Party which betrayed them so many times. It would be interesting to see how this will play this time.

Beverly Mann October 23, 2016 12:00 pm

It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and lower middle class works this time?

Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand over to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC, the FCC, the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including the Antitrust Division)-to name only some.

And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed proxies of big business.

And then there's the incessant push to privatize Social Security and Medicare. It ain't the Dems that are pushing that.

You're drinking wayyy too much Kool Aid, likbez. Or maybe just reading too much Ayn Rand, at Paul Ryan's recommendation.

beene October 23, 2016 10:31 am

I would suggest despite most of the elite in both parties supporting Hillary, and saying she has the election in the bag is premature. In my opinion the fact that Trump rallies still has large attendance; where Hillary's rallies would have trouble filling up a large room is a better indication that Trump will win.

Even democrats are not voting democratic this time to be ignored till election again.

likbez October 23, 2016 12:56 pm

Beverly,

=== quote ===
Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand over to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC, the FCC, the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including the Antitrust Division) -- to name only some.

And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed proxies of big business.
=== end of quote ===

This is all true. But Trump essentially running not as a Republican but as an independent on (mostly) populist platform (with elements of nativism). That's why a large part of Republican brass explicitly abandoned him. That does not exclude that he easily will be co-opted after the election, if he wins.

And I would not be surprised one bit if Dick Cheney, Victoria Nuland, Paul Wolfowitz and Perle vote for Hillary. Robert Kagan and papa Bush already declared such an intention. She is a neocon. A wolf in sheep clothing, if we are talking about real anti-war democrats, not the USA brand of DemoRats. She is crazy warmonger, no question about it, trying to compensate a complete lack of diplomatic skills with jingoism and saber rattling.

The problem here might be that you implicitly idealize Hillary and demonize Trump.

I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite.

But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid.

That's what classic neoliberal DemoRats "bait and switch" maneuver (previously executed by Obama two times) means. And that's why working class now abandoned Democratic Party. Even unions members of unions which endorses Clinton are expected to vote 3:1 against her. Serial betrayal of interests of working class (and lower middle class) after 25 years gets on nerve. Not that their choice is wise, but they made a choice. This is "What's the matter with Kansas" all over again.

It reminds me the situation when Stalin was asked whether right revisionism of Marxism (social democrats) or left (Trotskyites with their dream of World revolution) is better. He answered "both are worse" :-).

In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to governance of such a huge country crook.

Of course, we need also remember about existence of "deep state" which make each of them mostly a figurehead, but still the power of "deep state" is not absolute and this is a very sad situation.

Beverly Mann, October 23, 2016 1:57 pm

Good grace.

Two points: First, you apparently are unaware of Trump's proposed tax plan, written by Heritage Foundation economists and political-think-tank types. It's literally more regressively extreme evn than Paul Ryan's. It gives tax cuts to the wealthy that are exponentially more generous percentage-wise than G.W. Bush's two tax cuts together were, it eliminates the estate tax, and it gives massive tax cuts to corporations, including yuge ones.

Two billionaire Hamptons-based hedge funders, Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, have been funding a super PAC for Trump and since late spring have met with Trump and handed him policy proposals and suggestions for administrative agency heads and judicial appointments. Other yuge funders are members of the Ricketts family, including Thomas Ricketts, CEO of TD Ameritrade and a son of its founder.

Two other billionaires funding Trump: Forrest Lucas, founder of Lucas Oil and reportedly Trump's choice for Interior Secretary if you and the working class and lower middle class folks whose interests Trump has at heart get their way.

And then there's Texas oil billionaire Harold Hamm, Trump's very first billionaire mega-donor.

One of my recurring pet peeves about Clinton and her campaign is her failure to tell the public that these billionaires are contributing mega-bucks to help fund Trump's campaign, and to tell the public who exactly they are. As well as her failure to make a concerted effort to educate the public about the the specifics of Trump's fiscal and deregulatory agenda as he has published it.

As for your belief that I idealize Clinton, you obviously are very new to Angry Bear. I was a virulent Sanders supporter throughout the primaries, to the very end. In 2008 I originally supported John Edwards during the primaries and then, when it became clear that it was a two-candidate race, supported Obama. My reason? I really, really, REALLY did not want to see another triangulation Democratic administration. That's largely what we got during Obama's first term, though, and I was not happy about it.

Bottom line: I'm not the gullible one here. You are.

likbez, October 23, 2016 2:37 pm

You demonstrate complete inability to weight the gravity of two dismal, but unequal in their gravity options.

All your arguments about Supreme Court justices, taxes, inheritance and other similar things make sense if and only if the country continues to exist.

Which is not given due to the craziness and the level of degeneration of neoliberal elite and specifically Hillary ("no fly zone in Syria" is one example of her craziness). Playing chickens with a nuclear power for the sake of proving imperial dominance in Middle East is a crazy policy.

Neocons rule the roost in both parties, which essentially became a single War Party with two wings. Trump looks like the only chance somewhat to limit their influence and reach some détente with Russia.

Looks like you organically unable to understand that your choice in this particular case is between the decimation of the last remnants of the New Deal and a real chance of WWIII.

This is not "pick your poison" situation. Those are two events of completely difference magnitude: one is reversible (and please note that Trump is bound by very controversial obligations to his electorate and faces hostile Congress), the other is not.

We all should do our best to prevent the unleashing WWIII even if that means temporary decimation of the remnants of New Deal.

Neoliberalism after 2008 entered zombie state, so while it is still strong, aggressive and bloodthirsty it might not last for long. And in such case the defeat of democratic forces on domestic front is temporary.

That means vote against Hillary.

[Oct 23, 2016] Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts.

Notable quotes:
"... From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the basement"? ..."
"... When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most Russians led miserable lives. ..."
Oct 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

From The Hague | Oct 22, 2016 12:48:39 PM | 8

Option two: Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the basement"?

When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most Russians led miserable lives.

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-us-is-about-to-face-the-worst-crisis-of-its-history-and-how-putins-example-might-inspire-trump/

[Oct 23, 2016] An Establishment in Panic

Notable quotes:
"... Establishment panic is traceable to another fear: its [neoliberal] ideology, its political religion, is seen by growing millions as a golden calf, a 20th-century god that has failed. ..."
"... After having expunged Christianity from our public life and public square, our establishment installed "democracy" as the new deity, at whose altars we should all worship. And so our schools began to teach. ..."
"... Today, Clintons, Obamas, and Bushes send soldiers and secularist tutors to "establish democracy" among the "lesser breeds without the Law." ..."
"... By suggesting he might not accept the results of a "rigged election," Trump is committing an unpardonable sin. But this new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of diversity, democracy, and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow roots. ..."
"... For none of the three-diversity, equality, democracy-is to be found in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, or the Pledge of Allegiance. In the pledge, we are a republic. ..."
"... Among many in the silent majority, Clintonian democracy is not an improvement upon the old republic; it is the corruption of it. ..."
"... Consider: six months ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton bundler, announced that by executive action he would convert 200,000 convicted felons into eligible voters by November. ..."
"... Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in "Points of Rebellion": "We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution." ..."
"... Baby-boomer radicals loved it, raising their fists in defiance of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. But now that it is the populist-nationalist right that is moving beyond the niceties of liberal democracy to save the America that they love, elitist enthusiasm for "revolution" seems more constrained. ..."
The American Conservative
What explains the hysteria of the establishment? In a word, fear. The establishment is horrified at the Donald's defiance because, deep within its soul, it fears that the people for whom Trump speaks no longer accept its political legitimacy or moral authority. It may rule and run the country, and may rig the system through mass immigration and a mammoth welfare state so that Middle America is never again able to elect one of its own. But that establishment, disconnected from the people it rules, senses, rightly, that it is unloved and even detested.

Having fixed the future, the establishment finds half of the country looking upon it with the same sullen contempt that our Founding Fathers came to look upon the overlords Parliament sent to rule them.

Establishment panic is traceable to another fear: its [neoliberal] ideology, its political religion, is seen by growing millions as a golden calf, a 20th-century god that has failed.

Trump is "talking down our democracy," said a shocked Clinton.

After having expunged Christianity from our public life and public square, our establishment installed "democracy" as the new deity, at whose altars we should all worship. And so our schools began to teach.

Half a millennia ago, missionaries and explorers set sail from Spain, England, and France to bring Christianity to the New World.

Today, Clintons, Obamas, and Bushes send soldiers and secularist tutors to "establish democracy" among the "lesser breeds without the Law."

Unfortunately, the natives, once democratized, return to their roots and vote for Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood, using democratic processes and procedures to reestablish their true God. And Allah is no democrat.

By suggesting he might not accept the results of a "rigged election," Trump is committing an unpardonable sin. But this new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of diversity, democracy, and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow roots.

For none of the three-diversity, equality, democracy-is to be found in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, or the Pledge of Allegiance. In the pledge, we are a republic.

When Ben Franklin, emerging from the Philadelphia convention, was asked by a woman what kind of government they had created, he answered, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Among many in the silent majority, Clintonian democracy is not an improvement upon the old republic; it is the corruption of it.

Consider: six months ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton bundler, announced that by executive action he would convert 200,000 convicted felons into eligible voters by November.

If that is democracy, many will say, to hell with it. And if felons decide the electoral votes of Virginia, and Virginia decides who is our next U.S. president, are we obligated to honor that election?

In 1824, Gen. Andrew Jackson ran first in popular and electoral votes. But, short of a majority, the matter went to the House. There, Speaker Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams delivered the presidency to Adams-and Adams made Clay secretary of state, putting him on the path to the presidency that had been taken by Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Adams himself. Were Jackson's people wrong to regard as a "corrupt bargain" the deal that robbed the general of the presidency? The establishment also recoiled in horror from Milwaukee Sheriff Dave Clarke's declaration that it is now "torches and pitchforks time."

Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in "Points of Rebellion": "We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution."

Baby-boomer radicals loved it, raising their fists in defiance of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. But now that it is the populist-nationalist right that is moving beyond the niceties of liberal democracy to save the America that they love, elitist enthusiasm for "revolution" seems more constrained.

What goes around comes around.

Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.

[Oct 22, 2016] Trump We Wish the Problem Was Fascism

Notable quotes:
"... I find the spectacle of liberals heroically mounting the barricades against Trump-fascism rather amusing. ..."
"... Second thing is, Trump isn't fascist. In my opinion, Trump's an old-fashioned white American nativist, ..."
"... Tagging him as "fascist" allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years and predate the formulation of fascism by several decades if not a century. Those nasty vetting/exclusion things he's proposing are as American as apple pie. For those interested in boning up on the Know Nothings and the Chinese Exclusion Act, I have this piece for you . ..."
"... Real fascism, in theory, is a rather interesting and nasty beast. In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life. ..."
"... In both fascism and bolshevism, democratic outcomes lack inherent legitimacy. National legitimacy resides in the party, which embodies the essence of a threatened race or class in a way that Hegel might appreciate but Marx probably wouldn't. Subversion of democracy and seizure of state power are not only permissible; they are imperatives. ..."
"... The purest fascism movement I know of exists in Ukraine. I wrote about it here , and it's a piece I think is well worth reading to understand what a political movement organized on fascist principles really looks like. And Trump ain't no fascist. He's a nativist running a rather incompetent campaign. ..."
"... The most interesting application of the "fascist" analysis, rather surprisingly, applies to the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, when considering the cultivation of a nexus between big business and *ahem* racially inflected politics. ..."
"... White labor originally had legal recourse to beating back the challenge/threat of African-American labor instead of accommodating it as a "class" ally; it subsequently relied on institutional and customary advantages. ..."
"... The most reliable wedge against working class solidarity and a socialist narrative in American politics used to be white privilege which, when it was reliably backed by US business and political muscle, was a doctrine of de facto white supremacy. ..."
"... The perception of marginalized white clout is reinforced by the nomination of Hillary Clinton and her campaign emphasis on the empowerment of previously marginalized but now demographically more important groups. ..."
"... The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -actually, the overarching and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties-"identity politics." ..."
"... The most calculated and systematic employment of racial politics was employed by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the Democratic primary to undercut the socialist-lite populist appeal of Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... My personal disdain for the Clinton campaign was born on the day that John Lewis intoned "I never saw him" in order to dismiss the civil rights credentials of Bernie Sanders ..."
"... In the primary, this translated into an attack on Sanders and the apparently mythical "Bernie bro" as racist swine threatening the legacy of the first black president, venerated by the African American electorate, Barack Obama. In the general, well, Donald Trump and his supporters provided acres more genuine grist for the identity warrior mill. ..."
"... Trump's ambitions to gain traction for a favorable American/populist/outsider narrative for his campaign have been frustrated by determined efforts to frame him as anti-Semitic, racist against blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled-and ready to hold the door while Pepe the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right– into the ovens. ..."
"... That campaign pretty much went by the wayside (as did Black Lives Matter, a racial justice initiative partially funded by core Clinton backer George Soros; interesting, no?) as a) black nationalists started shooting policemen and b) Clinton kicked off a charm campaign to help wedge the black-wary GOP establishment away from Trump. ..."
"... "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism. ..."
"... Clinton's enduring and grotesque loyalty to her family's charitable foundation, an operation that in my opinion has no place on the resume of a public servant, as a font of prestige, conduit for influence, and model for billionaire-backed global engagement. ..."
"... By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests. ..."
"... Clintonism's core identity is not, in other words, as a crusade for groups suffering from the legacy and future threat of oppression by Trump's white male followers. It is a full-court press to keep the wheels on the neoliberal sh*twagon as it careens down the road of globalization, and it recognizes the importance in American democracy of slicing and dicing the electorate by identity politics and co-opting useful demographics as the key to maintaining power. ..."
"... Trump has cornered the somewhat less entitled and increasingly threatened white ethnic group, some of whom are poised to make the jump to white nationalism with or without him. ..."
"... Clinton has cornered the increasingly entitled and assertive global billionaire group, which adores the class-busting anti-socialist identity-based politics she practices. ..."
Oct 22, 2016 | www.unz.com

I find the spectacle of liberals heroically mounting the barricades against Trump-fascism rather amusing.

For one thing, liberals don't crush fascism. Liberals appease fascism, then they exploit fascism. In between there's a great big war, where communists crush fascism. That's pretty much the lesson of WWII.

Second thing is, Trump isn't fascist. In my opinion, Trump's an old-fashioned white American nativist, which is pretty much indistinguishable from old-fashioned racist when considering the subjugation of native Americans and African-Americans and Asian immigrants, but requires that touch of "nativist" nuance when considering indigenous bigotry against Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants and citizens.

Tagging him as "fascist" allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years and predate the formulation of fascism by several decades if not a century. Those nasty vetting/exclusion things he's proposing are as American as apple pie. For those interested in boning up on the Know Nothings and the Chinese Exclusion Act, I have this piece for you .

And for anybody who doesn't believe the US government does not already engage in intensive "extreme" vetting and targeting of all Muslims immigrants, especially those from targeted countries, not only to identify potential security risks but to groom potential intelligence assets, I got the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you right here:

Real fascism, in theory, is a rather interesting and nasty beast. In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life.

In both fascism and bolshevism, democratic outcomes lack inherent legitimacy. National legitimacy resides in the party, which embodies the essence of a threatened race or class in a way that Hegel might appreciate but Marx probably wouldn't. Subversion of democracy and seizure of state power are not only permissible; they are imperatives.

The need to seize state power and hold it while a fascist or Bolshevik agenda is implemented dictates the need for a military force loyal to and subservient to the party and its leadership, not the state.

The purest fascism movement I know of exists in Ukraine. I wrote about it here , and it's a piece I think is well worth reading to understand what a political movement organized on fascist principles really looks like. And Trump ain't no fascist. He's a nativist running a rather incompetent campaign.

It's a little premature to throw dirt on the grave of the Trump candidacy, perhaps (I'll check back in on November 9), but it looks like he spent too much time glorying in the adulation of his white male nativist base and too little time, effort, and money trying to deliver a plausible message that would allow other demographics to shrug off the "deplorable" tag and vote for him. I don't blame/credit the media too much for burying Trump, a prejudice of mine perhaps. I blame Trump's inability to construct an effective phalanx of pro-Trump messengers, a failure that's probably rooted in the fact that Trump spent the primary and general campaign at war with the GOP establishment.

The only capital crime in politics is disunity, and the GOP and Trump are guilty on multiple counts.

The most interesting application of the "fascist" analysis, rather surprisingly, applies to the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, when considering the cultivation of a nexus between big business and *ahem* racially inflected politics.

It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen . It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism.

That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness.

That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. The North's abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War had more to do a desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from the competition of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.

White labor originally had legal recourse to beating back the challenge/threat of African-American labor instead of accommodating it as a "class" ally; it subsequently relied on institutional and customary advantages.

If anyone harbors illusions concerning the kumbaya solidarity between white and black labor in the post-World War II era, I think the article The Problem of Race in American Labor History by Herbert Hill ( a freebie on JSTOR ) is a good place to start.

The most reliable wedge against working class solidarity and a socialist narrative in American politics used to be white privilege which, when it was reliably backed by US business and political muscle, was a doctrine of de facto white supremacy.

However, in this campaign, the race wedge has cut the other way in a most interesting fashion. White conservatives are appalled, and minority liberals energized, by the fact that the white guy, despite winning the majority white male vote, lost to a black guy not once but twice, giving a White Twilight/Black Dawn (TM) vibe to the national debate.

The perception of marginalized white clout is reinforced by the nomination of Hillary Clinton and her campaign emphasis on the empowerment of previously marginalized but now demographically more important groups.

The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -actually, the overarching and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties-"identity politics."

The most calculated and systematic employment of racial politics was employed by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the Democratic primary to undercut the socialist-lite populist appeal of Bernie Sanders.

My personal disdain for the Clinton campaign was born on the day that John Lewis intoned "I never saw him" in order to dismiss the civil rights credentials of Bernie Sanders while announcing the Black Congressional Caucus endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Bear in mind that during the 1960s, Sanders had affiliated his student group at the University of Chicago with Lewis' SNCC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; during the same era, Hillary Clinton was at Wellesley condemning "the snicks" for their excessively confrontational tactics.

Ah, politics.

To understand the significance of this event, one should read Fracture by the guru of woke Clintonism, Joy Reid. Or read my piece on the subject . Or simply understand that after Hillary Clinton lost Lewis's endorsement, the black vote, and the southern Democratic primaries to Barack Obama in 2008, and she was determined above all to secure and exploit monolithic black support in the primaries and, later on, the general in 2016.

So, in order to prevent Sanders from splitting the black vote to her disadvantage on ideological/class lines, Clinton played the race card. Or, as we put it today when discussing the championing of historically disadvantaged a.k.a. non white male heterosexual groups, celebrated "identity politics".

In the primary, this translated into an attack on Sanders and the apparently mythical "Bernie bro" as racist swine threatening the legacy of the first black president, venerated by the African American electorate, Barack Obama. In the general, well, Donald Trump and his supporters provided acres more genuine grist for the identity warrior mill.

Trump's populism draws its heat from American nativism, not "soak the rich" populism of the Sandernista stripe, and it was easily submerged in the "identity politics" narrative.

Trump's ambitions to gain traction for a favorable American/populist/outsider narrative for his campaign have been frustrated by determined efforts to frame him as anti-Semitic, racist against blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled-and ready to hold the door while Pepe the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right– into the ovens.

As an indication of the fungible & opportunistic character of the "identity politics" approach, as far as I can tell from a recent visit to a swing state, as the Clinton campaign pivoted to the general, the theme of Trump's anti-black racism has been retired in favor of pushing his offenses against women and the disabled. Perhaps this reflects the fact that Clinton has a well-advertised lock on the African-American vote and doesn't need to cater to it; also, racism being what it is, playing the black card is not the best way to lure Republicans and indies to the Clinton camp.

The high water mark of the Clinton African-American tilt was perhaps the abortive campaign to turn gun control into a referendum on the domination of Congress by white male conservatives. It happened a few months ago, so who remembers? But John Lewis led a sit-in occupation of the Senate floor in the wake of the Orlando shootings to highlight how America's future was being held hostage to the whims of Trump-inclined white pols.

That campaign pretty much went by the wayside (as did Black Lives Matter, a racial justice initiative partially funded by core Clinton backer George Soros; interesting, no?) as a) black nationalists started shooting policemen and b) Clinton kicked off a charm campaign to help wedge the black-wary GOP establishment away from Trump.

There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to screw Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism.

In my view, a key tell is Clinton's enduring and grotesque loyalty to her family's charitable foundation, an operation that in my opinion has no place on the resume of a public servant, as a font of prestige, conduit for influence, and model for billionaire-backed global engagement.

By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests.

Clintonism's core identity is not, in other words, as a crusade for groups suffering from the legacy and future threat of oppression by Trump's white male followers. It is a full-court press to keep the wheels on the neoliberal sh*twagon as it careens down the road of globalization, and it recognizes the importance in American democracy of slicing and dicing the electorate by identity politics and co-opting useful demographics as the key to maintaining power.

In my view, the Trump and Clinton campaigns are both protofascist.

Trump has cornered the somewhat less entitled and increasingly threatened white ethnic group, some of whom are poised to make the jump to white nationalism with or without him.

Clinton has cornered the increasingly entitled and assertive global billionaire group, which adores the class-busting anti-socialist identity-based politics she practices.

But the bottom line is race. U.S. racism has stacked up 400 years of tinder that might take a few hundred more years, if ever, to burn off. And until it does, every politician in the country is going to see his or her political future in flicking matches at it. And that's what we're seeing in the current campaign. A lot. Not fascism.

(Reprinted from China Matters by permission of author or representative)

[Oct 22, 2016] Nationalists and Populists Poised to Dominate European Balloting

Oct 21, 2016 | www.bloomberg.com

As Europeans assess the fallout from the U.K.'s Brexit referendum , they face a series of elections that could equally shake the political establishment. In the coming 12 months, four of Europe's five largest economies have votes that will almost certainly mean serious gains for right-wing populists and nationalists. Once seen as fringe groups, France's National Front, Italy's Five Star Movement, and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands have attracted legions of followers by tapping discontent over immigration, terrorism, and feeble economic performance. "The Netherlands should again become a country of and for the Dutch people," says Evert Davelaar, a Freedom Party backer who says immigrants don't share "Western and Christian values."

... ... ....

The populists are deeply skeptical of European integration, and those in France and the Netherlands want to follow Britain's lead and quit the European Union. "Political risk in Europe is now far more significant than in the United States," says Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of macro research at Barclays.

... ... ...

...the biggest risk of the nationalist groundswell: increasingly fragmented parliaments that will be unable or unwilling to tackle the problems hobbling their economies. True, populist leaders might not have enough clout to enact controversial measures such as the Dutch Freedom Party's call to close mosques and deport Muslims. And while the Brexit vote in June helped energize Eurosceptics, it's unlikely that any major European country will soon quit the EU, Morgan Stanley economists wrote in a recent report. But they added that "the protest parties promise to turn back the clock" on free-market reforms while leaving "sclerotic" labour and market regulations in place. France's National Front, for example, wants to temporarily renationalise banks and increase tariffs while embracing cumbersome labour rules widely blamed for chronic double-digit unemployment. Such policies could damp already weak euro zone growth, forecast by the International Monetary Fund to drop from 2 percent in 2015 to 1.5 percent in 2017. "Politics introduces a downside skew to growth," the economists said.

[Oct 21, 2016] I wonder if Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney vote for Hillary

Notable quotes:
"... which may be the story one wishes for. But if there were a spread to compare her win against, it was Bernie who massively beat the spread. I'll leave it as an exercise to others to determine if her unfair advantages were as large as the winning margin. ..."
"... He makes a good point and you dismiss it. You bashed Bernie Sanders and "Bernie Bros" during the primary. Then you lie about it. That's why you're the worst. Dishonest as hell. ..."
"... Remember one thing anne, America is not a country. It is an idea. You cannot arrest it, murder it, or pretend it isn't there. We as a people are not perfect. But Mr Putin is stabbing directly at our democracy, not Hillary Clinton and not Paul Krugman. Time to be a little more objective, of which you are even more capable of than me. ..."
"... It is not exactly McCarthyism as stated (although kthomas with his previous Putin comments looks like a modern day McCarthyist). I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the credo of American Exceptionalism -- a flavor of nationalism adapted to the realities of the new continent. ..."
"... And Robert Kagan explained it earlier much better ... I wonder if Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney vote for Hillary too. ..."
Oct 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
point said...

Krugman says:

"...Mrs. Clinton won the Democratic nomination fairly easily..."

which may be the story one wishes for. But if there were a spread to compare her win against, it was Bernie who massively beat the spread. I'll leave it as an exercise to others to determine if her unfair advantages were as large as the winning margin.

Peter K. -> kthomas... , October 21, 2016 at 11:46 AM

"Why do people like you pretend to love Sen Sanders so much!?"

Why do you say he is pretending? What did he write to make you think that?

Are you just a dishonest troll centrist totebagger like PGL.

Peter K. -> to pgl...

What does that have to do with anything?

He makes a good point and you dismiss it. You bashed Bernie Sanders and "Bernie Bros" during the primary. Then you lie about it. That's why you're the worst. Dishonest as hell. Are most New Yorkers as dishonest as you, Trump, Guiliani, Christie, etc?

kthomas -> anne... , October 21, 2016 at 10:59 AM
No. I am a fan of Sen Sanders, and not even he would believe your nonsense. History will not remember it that way. What it will remember is how Putin Comrade meddled. And there is a price for that.

Sen Sanders wanted one, stated thing: to push the narrative to the left. He marginally accomplished this. What he did succeed in was providing an opportunity for false-lefties like you and Mr Putin who seem to think that America is the root of all evil.

Remember one thing anne, America is not a country. It is an idea. You cannot arrest it, murder it, or pretend it isn't there. We as a people are not perfect. But Mr Putin is stabbing directly at our democracy, not Hillary Clinton and not Paul Krugman. Time to be a little more objective, of which you are even more capable of than me.

Peter K. -> kthomas... , October 21, 2016 at 11:48 AM
I agree with Anne and completely disagree with those like you have drunk the Kool Aid. You're not objective at all.
anne -> kthomas... , October 21, 2016 at 12:25 PM
Sen Sanders wanted one stated thing: to push the narrative to the left. He marginally accomplished this. What he did succeed in was providing an opportunity for false-lefties like --- and -- ----- who seem to think that America is the root of all evil....

[ Better to assume such an awful comment was never written, but the McCarthy-like tone to a particular campaign has been disturbing and could prove lasting. ]

Julio -> kthomas... , -1
"America is not a country. It is an idea. You cannot ...murder it..."

[You're trying, with your McCarthyist comments.]

likbez -> Julio ... , October 21, 2016 at 05:24 PM
Julio,

It is not exactly McCarthyism as stated (although kthomas with his previous Putin comments looks like a modern day McCarthyist). I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the credo of American Exceptionalism -- a flavor of nationalism adapted to the realities of the new continent.

cal -> anne... , October 21, 2016 at 11:28 AM
BS, a remarkable.
No, I am sure he will be remembered more than that.

Bernard Sanders, last romantic politician to run his campaign on an average of $37 from 3,284,421 donations (or whatever Obama said at The Dinner). Remarkable but ineffectual. A good orator in empty houses means he was practicing, not performing.

Why does Obama succeed and Sanders fail? Axelrod and co.

Peter K. -> cal... , -1
He was written off by the like of Krugman, PGL, you, KThomas etc.

He won what 13 million votes. Young people overwhelmingly voted for Sanders. He won New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, etc. etc. etc. And now the "unromantic" complacent people have to lie about the campaign.

pgl : , October 21, 2016 at 10:05 AM
Josh Barro explains why he used to be a Republican but is now a Democrat:

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-i-left-republican-party-register-democrat-2016-10

He seems to have had it with Paul Ryan and Rubio.

pgl -> pgl... , October 21, 2016 at 10:12 AM
I was enjoying this until:

"I have voted Republican, for example, in each of the past three New York City mayoral races."

Joe Llota was racist Rudy Guiliani's minnie me. How on earth did Josh think he should be mayor of my city.

likbez -> pgl...
And Robert Kagan explained it earlier much better ... I wonder if Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney vote for Hillary too.

[Oct 21, 2016] The main issue in this election is that the Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have abandoned the pretense of 2 party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests, with WikiLeaks detailing the gory bits of their corruption and malfeasance

Notable quotes:
"... Point being that not only would The Clintons have the Democratic Party machine to rely on for potential vote rigging in this stage of the process (distinguishing vs. primaries simply for rhetorical focus), ..."
"... but with the clear reality of the Republican Party elite also backing her, she can rely on at least some of the Republican Party machine also being available for potential vote rigging, and who have their experience in Florida, Ohio, etc to bring to the table. ..."
"... The longer term issue is the Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have abandoned the pretense of 2 party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests, with WikiLeaks detailing the gory bits of their corruption and malfeasance. And everybody in the system is tainted by that, both parties, media, etc. It has overtly collapsed to the reality of a single Party of Power (per the term Oligarch media like to use re: Russia for example). ..."
"... the Clinton faction is 100% "bi-partisan" and about confluence of both Oligarchic parties. ..."
"... I would say the Democratic primary was even a mirror of this, I would guess that Clinton had hoped to win more easily vs Sanders without rigging etc... essentially between Sanders and Trump turning anything but "radical status quo" into boogymen. ..."
"... That just reveals how close to the line the Imperial Oligarchy feels compelled to play... and, I suppose, how confident they are in the full spectrum of tools at their disposal to manipulate democracy. ..."
"... But that is also shown merely by the situation we are in, with the collapse of the two party system in order to maintain the strength of Imperial Oligarchy. ..."
www.moonofalabama.org

yup yeah uh huh | Oct 19, 2016 8:12:06 PM | 96

Point being that not only would The Clintons have the Democratic Party machine to rely on for potential vote rigging in this stage of the process (distinguishing vs. primaries simply for rhetorical focus),

but with the clear reality of the Republican Party elite also backing her, she can rely on at least some of the Republican Party machine also being available for potential vote rigging, and who have their experience in Florida, Ohio, etc to bring to the table.

The longer term issue is the Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have abandoned the pretense of 2 party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests, with WikiLeaks detailing the gory bits of their corruption and malfeasance. And everybody in the system is tainted by that, both parties, media, etc. It has overtly collapsed to the reality of a single Party of Power (per the term Oligarch media like to use re: Russia for example).

And the craziest thing of course is not that this all happened by accident because some "scary clown" appeared, but that this was nearly exactly planned BY The Clinton faction themselves (promoting Trump in order to win vs. "scary clown"). Most notably, not simply as a seizure of power by Democratic Party "against" Republicans... They are very clear the Clinton faction is 100% "bi-partisan" and about confluence of both Oligarchic parties.

I would say the Democratic primary was even a mirror of this, I would guess that Clinton had hoped to win more easily vs Sanders without rigging etc... essentially between Sanders and Trump turning anything but "radical status quo" into boogymen. Only surprise was how well Sanders did, necessitating fraud etc, with polls in fact showing Sanders was BETTER placed to defeat Trump than Clinton.

That just reveals how close to the line the Imperial Oligarchy feels compelled to play... and, I suppose, how confident they are in the full spectrum of tools at their disposal to manipulate democracy.

But that is also shown merely by the situation we are in, with the collapse of the two party system in order to maintain the strength of Imperial Oligarchy.

[Oct 21, 2016] Washington moves to silence WikiLeaks

Washington forgot his role in color revolutions in Ukraine, Russia, Serbia and other countries, when Washington controlled neoliberal media served as air support for local fifth column. Now boomerang returned...
www.wsws.org

On Tuesday, the Foreign Ministry of Ecuador confirmed WikiLeaks' charge that Ecuador itself had ordered the severing of Assange's Internet connection under pressure from the US government. In a statement, the ministry said that WikiLeaks had "published a wealth of documents impacting on the US election campaign," adding that the government of Ecuador "respects the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states" and "does not interfere in external electoral processes." On that grounds, the statement claimed, the Ecuadorian government decided to "restrict access" to the communications network at its London embassy.

[Oct 20, 2016] The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is notable for its deliberately bizarre policies and it effectively exists to satirise British politics

Notable quotes:
"... The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is a registered political party established in the United Kingdom in 1983 by the musician David Sutch, better known as "Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow" or simply "Screaming Lord Sutch". It is notable for its deliberately bizarre policies and it effectively exists to satirise British politics, and to offer itself as an poignant alternative for protest voters, especially in constituencies where the party holding the seat is unlikely to lose it and everyone else's vote would be quietly wasted. ..."
Oct 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

EMichael : , October 20, 2016 at 08:31 AM

Meanwhile, for those who are considering voting third party, perhaps this information would be useful.

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/see-john-oliver-expose-third-party-platforms-huge-problems-w445178

pgl -> EMichael... , October 20, 2016 at 08:36 AM
I watched that yesterday. Funny and a complete take down of Jill Stein. How come a British comedian knows more about our issues than one of our candidates for the White House? Oh wait - even Jill Stein knows more than Donald Trump. If it were not for that Constitutional matter, I'd say Oliver for President.
Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl... , -1
All politics is 'wacky',
the third-party kind is
the wackiest of all.

Maybe the UK does it best.

The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is a registered political party established in the United Kingdom in 1983 by the musician David Sutch, better known as "Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow" or simply "Screaming Lord Sutch". It is notable for its deliberately bizarre policies and it effectively exists to satirise British politics, and to offer itself as an poignant alternative for protest voters, especially in constituencies where the party holding the seat is unlikely to lose it and everyone else's vote would be quietly wasted.
(Wikipedia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frivolous_political_parties

[Oct 20, 2016] The Ruling Elite Has Lost the Consent of the Governed

Notable quotes:
"... As I have tirelessly explained, the U.S. economy is not just neoliberal (the code word for maximizing private gain by any means available, including theft, fraud, embezzlement, political fixing, price-fixing, and so on)--it is neofeudal , meaning that it is structurally an updated version of Medieval feudalism in which a top layer of financial-political nobility owns the engines of wealth and governs the marginalized debt-serfs who toil to pay student loans, auto loans, credit cards, mortgages and taxes--all of which benefit the financiers and political grifters. ..."
"... The media is in a self-referential frenzy to convince us the decision of the century is between unrivaled political grifter Hillary Clinton and financier-cowboy Donald Trump. Both belong to the privileged ruling Elite: both have access to cheap credit, insider information ( information asymmetry ) and political influence. ..."
"... If you exit the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc. at a cushy managerial rank with a fat pension and lifetime benefits and are hired at a fat salary the next day by a private "defense" contractor--the famous revolving door between a bloated state and a bloated defense industry--the system works great. ..."
Oct 20, 2016 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Information Clearing House - ICH

Brimming with hubris and self-importance, the ruling Elite and mainstream media cannot believe they have lost the consent of the governed.

Every ruling Elite needs the consent of the governed: even autocracies, dictatorships and corporatocracies ultimately rule with the consent, however grudging, of the governed.

The American ruling Elite has lost the consent of the governed. This reality is being masked by the mainstream media, mouthpiece of the ruling class, which is ceaselessly promoting two false narratives:

  1. The "great divide" in American politics is between left and right, Democrat/Republican
  2. The ruling Elite has delivered "prosperity" not just to the privileged few but to the unprivileged many they govern.

Both of these assertions are false. The Great Divide in America is between the ruling Elite and the governed that the Elite has stripmined. The ruling Elite is privileged and protected, the governed are unprivileged and unprotected. That's the divide that counts and the divide that is finally becoming visible to the marginalized, unprivileged class of debt-serfs.

The "prosperity" of the 21st century has flowed solely to the ruling Elite and its army of technocrat toadies, factotums, flunkies, apparatchiks and apologists. The Elite's army of technocrats and its media apologists have engineered and promoted an endless spew of ginned-up phony statistics (the super-low unemployment rate, etc.) to create the illusion of "growth" and "prosperity" that benefit everyone rather than just the top 5%. The media is 100% committed to promoting these two false narratives because the jig is up once the bottom 95% wake up to the reality that the ruling Elite has been stripmining them for decades.

As I have tirelessly explained, the U.S. economy is not just neoliberal (the code word for maximizing private gain by any means available, including theft, fraud, embezzlement, political fixing, price-fixing, and so on)--it is neofeudal , meaning that it is structurally an updated version of Medieval feudalism in which a top layer of financial-political nobility owns the engines of wealth and governs the marginalized debt-serfs who toil to pay student loans, auto loans, credit cards, mortgages and taxes--all of which benefit the financiers and political grifters.

The media is in a self-referential frenzy to convince us the decision of the century is between unrivaled political grifter Hillary Clinton and financier-cowboy Donald Trump. Both belong to the privileged ruling Elite: both have access to cheap credit, insider information ( information asymmetry ) and political influence.

The cold truth is the ruling Elite has shredded the social contract by skimming the income/wealth of the unprivileged. The fake-"progressive" pandering apologists of the ruling Elite--Robert Reich, Paul Krugman and the rest of the Keynesian Cargo Cultists--turn a blind eye to the suppression of dissent and the looting the bottom 95% because they have cushy, protected positions as tenured faculty (or equivalent). They cheerlead for more state-funded bread and circuses for the marginalized rather than demand an end to exploitive privileges of the sort they themselves enjoy.

Consider just three of the unsustainably costly broken systems that enrich the privileged Elite by stripmining the unprivileged:

While the unprivileged and unprotected watch their healthcare premiums and co-pays soar year after year, the CEOs of various sickcare cartels skim off tens of millions of dollars annually in pay and stock options. The system works great if you get a $20 million paycheck. If you get a 30% increase in monthly premiums for fewer actual healthcare services--the system is broken.

If you're skimming $250,000 as under-assistant dean to the provost for student services (or equivalent) plus gold-plated benefits, higher education is working great. If you're a student burdened with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt who is receiving a low-quality, essentially worthless "education" from poorly paid graduate students ("adjuncts") and a handful of online courses that you could get for free or for a low cost outside the university cartel--the system is broken.

If you exit the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc. at a cushy managerial rank with a fat pension and lifetime benefits and are hired at a fat salary the next day by a private "defense" contractor--the famous revolving door between a bloated state and a bloated defense industry--the system works great.

If you joined the Armed Forces to escape rural poverty and served at the point of the spear somewhere in the Imperial Project--your perspective may well be considerably different.

Unfortunately for the ruling Elite and their army of engorged enablers and apologists, they have already lost the consent of the governed.

They have bamboozled, conned and misled the bottom 95% for decades, but their phony facade of political legitimacy and "the rising tide raises all boats" has cracked wide open, and the machinery of oppression, looting and propaganda is now visible to everyone who isn't being paid to cover their eyes. Brimming with hubris and self-importance, the ruling Elite and mainstream media cannot believe they have lost the consent of the governed. The disillusioned governed have not fully absorbed this epochal shift of the tides yet, either. They are aware of their own disillusionment and their own declining financial security, but they have yet to grasp that they have, beneath the surface of everyday life, already withdrawn their consent from a self-serving, predatory, parasitic, greedy and ultimately self-destructive ruling Elite.

Charles Hugh Smith, new book is #8 on Kindle short reads -> politics and social science: Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition) For more, please visit the book's website . http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.mx

[Oct 20, 2016] Guest-post-essential-rules-tyranny

Notable quotes:
"... At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect threats to their personal safety. ..."
"... The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process of centralization. ..."
"... People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful, and easily overthrown. ..."
"... They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner, whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently culled. ..."
"... The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized forms of activism. ..."
"... In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state. ..."
"... Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything resembling a solution, even despotism. ..."
"... Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them. ..."
"... When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile. ..."
"... Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses. ..."
"... Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone. ..."
"... Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities. ..."
"... Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think ..."
"... Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace". Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it. ..."
www.zerohedge.com
Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt Market

The Essential Rules Of Tyranny

As we look back on the horrors of the dictatorships and autocracies of the past, one particular question consistently arises; how was it possible for the common men of these eras to NOT notice what was happening around them? How could they have stood as statues unaware or uncaring as their cultures were overrun by fascism, communism, collectivism, and elitism? Of course, we have the advantage of hindsight, and are able to research and examine the misdeeds of the past at our leisure. Unfortunately, such hindsight does not necessarily shield us from the long cast shadow of tyranny in our own day. For that, the increasingly uncommon gift of foresight is required…

At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect threats to their personal safety. They must abandon all responsibility for their destinies, and lose all respect for their own humanity. They must, indeed, become domesticated and mindless herd animals without regard for anything except their fleeting momentary desires for entertainment and short term survival. For a lumbering bloodthirsty behemoth to actually sneak up on you, you have to be pretty damnably oblivious.

The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process of centralization. Once dishonest governments accomplish an atmosphere of inaction and condition a sense of frailty within the citizenry, the sky is truly the limit. However, a murderous power-monger's day is never quite done. In my recent article 'The Essential Rules of Liberty' we explored the fundamentally unassailable actions and mental preparations required to ensure the continuance of a free society. In this article, let's examine the frequently wielded tools of tyrants in their invariably insane quests for total control…

Rule #1: Keep Them Afraid

People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful, and easily overthrown. Brute strength is calculable. It can be analyzed, and thus, eventually confronted and defeated.

Thriving tyrants instead utilize not just harm, but the imminent THREAT of harm. They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner, whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently culled.

In other cases, our fear is evoked and directed towards engineered enemies. Another race, another religion, another political ideology, a "hidden" and ominous villain created out of thin air. Autocrats assert that we "need them" in order to remain safe and secure from these illusory monsters bent on our destruction. As always, this development is followed by the claim that all steps taken, even those that dissolve our freedoms, are "for the greater good". Frightened people tend to shirk their sense of independence and run towards the comfort of the collective, even if that collective is built on immoral and unconscionable foundations. Once a society takes on a hive-mind mentality almost any evil can be rationalized, and any injustice against the individual is simply overlooked for the sake of the group.

Rule #2: Keep Them Isolated

In the past, elitist governments would often legislate and enforce severe penalties for public gatherings, because defusing the ability of the citizenry to organize or to communicate was paramount to control. In our technological era, such isolation is still used, but in far more advanced forms. The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized forms of activism.

Through co-option, modern day tyrant's can direct and manipulate opposition movements. By creating and administrating groups which oppose each other, elites can then micromanage all aspects of a nation on the verge of revolution. These "false paradigms" give us the illusion of proactive organization, and the false hope of changing the system, while at the same time preventing us from seeking understanding in one another. All our energies are then muted and dispersed into meaningless battles over "left and right", or "Democrat versus Republican", for example. Only movements that cast aside such empty labels and concern themselves with the ultimate truth of their country, regardless of what that truth might reveal, are able to enact real solutions to the disasters wrought by tyranny.

In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state.

Rule #3: Keep Them Desperate

You'll find in nearly every instance of cultural descent into autocracy, the offending government gained favor after the onset of economic collapse. Make the necessities of root survival an uncertainty, and people without knowledge of self sustainability and without solid core principles will gladly hand over their freedom, even for mere scraps from the tables of the same men who unleashed famine upon them. Financial calamities are not dangerous because of the poverty they leave in their wake; they are dangerous because of the doors to malevolence that they leave open.

Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything resembling a solution, even despotism.

Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them.

Rule #4: Send Out The Jackboots

This is the main symptom often associated with totalitarianism. So much so that our preconceived notions of what a fascist government looks like prevent us from seeing other forms of tyranny right under our noses. Some Americans believe that if the jackbooted thugs are not knocking on every door, then we MUST still live in a free country. Obviously, this is a rather naďve position. Admittedly, though, goon squads and secret police do eventually become prominent in every failed nation, usually while the public is mesmerized by visions of war, depression, hyperinflation, terrorism, etc.

When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile.

As tyranny grows, this behavior is encouraged. Good men are filtered out of the system, and small (minded and hearted) men are promoted.

At its pinnacle, a police state will hide the identities of most of its agents and officers, behind masks or behind red tape, because their crimes in the name of the state become so numerous and so sadistic that personal vengeance on the part of their victims will become a daily concern.

Rule #5: Blame Everything On The Truth Seekers

Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses.

All disasters, all violent crimes, all the ills of the world, are hoisted upon the shoulders of activist groups and political rivals. They are falsely associated with fringe elements already disliked by society (racists, terrorists, etc). A bogus consensus is created through puppet media in an attempt to make the public believe that "everyone else" must have the same exact views, and those who express contrary positions must be "crazy", or "extremist". Events are even engineered by the corrupt system and pinned on those demanding transparency and liberty. The goal is to drive anti-totalitarian organizations into self censorship. That is to say, instead of silencing them directly, the state causes activists to silence themselves.

Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone.

Rule #6: Encourage Citizen Spies

Ultimately, the life of a totalitarian government is not prolonged by the government itself, but by the very people it subjugates. Citizen spies are the glue of any police state, and our propensity for sticking our noses into other peoples business is highly valued by Big Brother bureaucracies around the globe.

There are a number of reasons why people participate in this repulsive activity. Some are addicted to the feeling of being a part of the collective, and "service" to this collective, sadly, is the only way they are able to give their pathetic lives meaning. Some are vindictive, cold, and soulless, and actually get enjoyment from ruining others. And still, like elites, some long for power, even petty power, and are willing to do anything to fulfill their vile need to dictate the destinies of perfect strangers.

Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities. People who lean towards citizen spying are often outwardly and inwardly unimpressive; physically and mentally inept. For the average moral and emotional weakling with persistent feelings of inadequacy, the allure of finally being given fifteen minutes of fame and a hero's status (even if that status is based on a lie) is simply too much to resist. They begin to see "extremists" and "terrorists" everywhere. Soon, people afraid of open ears everywhere start to watch what they say at the supermarket, in their own backyards, or even to family members. Free speech is effectively neutralized.

Rule #7: Make Them Accept The Unacceptable

In the end, it is not enough for a government fueled by the putrid sludge of iniquity to lord over us. At some point, it must also influence us to forsake our most valued principles. Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think. If they can mold our very morality, they can exist unopposed indefinitely. Of course, the elements of conscience are inborn, and not subject to environmental duress as long as a man is self aware. However, conscience can be manipulated if a person has no sense of identity, and has never put in the effort to explore his own strengths and failings. There are many people like this in America today.

Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace". Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it.

All tyrannical systems depend on the apathy and moral relativism of the inhabitants within their borders. Without the cooperation of the public, these systems cannot function. The real question is, how many of the above steps will be taken before we finally refuse to conform? At what point will each man and woman decide to break free from the dark path blazed before us and take measures to ensure their independence? Who will have the courage to develop their own communities, their own alternative economies, their own organizations for mutual defense outside of establishment constructs, and who will break under the pressure to bow like cowards? How many will hold the line, and how many will flee?

For every American, for every human being across the planet who chooses to stand immovable in the face of the very worst in mankind, we come that much closer to breathing life once again into the very best in us all.

[Oct 20, 2016] Clinton Aide Asks If Hillary Should Return The Money To Banks If She Loses Badly

Money for speeches were simultaneously a bribe and a bank's contributions to Hillary campaign, which Hillary "privatized".
Oct 20, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

In the latest, 13th daily Podesta email release, one particular email sticks out : on February 2, 2016 Neera Tanden, a close confidante of Hillary Clinton and according to many one of the key organizers of her presidential campaign asks John Podesta a question which may be interpreted that banker money received by Hillary can be deemed equivalent to a bribe.

Specifically, Tanden asks Podesta that " speaking at the banks... don't shoot me but if we lose badly maybe she should just return the money ." To which she then adds "say she gets the anger and moves on. Feels a little like an open wound."

The exchange may be one of the more clear indications of a tentative "quid-pro-quo" arrangement, in which cash is provided in exchange for 'services' which naturally would not be rendered if Hillary were to "lose badly."

Luckily for Tanden and Podesta, not to mention Hillary, at least according to the latest scientific polls, losing badly is not a contingency that should be a major consideration, at least not as of this moment.

[Oct 20, 2016] Immigration Reform and Bad Hombres

www.npr.org

Trump's promise to deport illegal immigrants and build a massive wall along the Mexican border has been one of his signature issues of this campaign. "They are coming in illegally. Drugs are pouring in through the border. We have no country if we have no border. Hillary wants to give amnesty, she wants to have open borders," the GOP nominee argued.

And he also argued that the border problem was contributing to the drug and opioid crisis in the country by allowing them to pore over the border.

"We're going to get them out, we're going to secure the border, and once the border is secured, at a later date, we'll make a determination as to the rest, but we have some bad hombres here, and we're going to get them out," Trump said.

Clinton said she didn't want to "rip families apart. I don't want to be sending parents away from children. I don't want to see the deportation force that Donald has talked about in action in our country." She pointed she voted for increased border security and that any violent person should be deported.

"I think we are both a nation of immigrants and we are a nation of laws, and that we can act accordingly and that's why I am introducing comprehensive immigration reform within the first hundred days with a path to citizenship," Clinton promised.

[Oct 19, 2016] Emails Show Hillary Struggled To Draft Bribery Corruption Reforms - She May Be So Tainted She is Really Vulnerable

Notable quotes:
"... The news was released that Hillarnazi had lesbian lovers, paid for sexual encounters, has had memory issues so severe going back to 2009 that her own people aren't sure if she knows what planet she is on, can't walk without getting massively fatigued, a new rape victim came forward, the Clinton Foundation stole over $2 billion in Haitian relief funds, the Clinton Foundation has a pay gap between men and women of $190,000 and she referred to blacks repeatedly as the dreaded "n" word . ..."
"... Again, that is from YESTERDAY Yet there has been no movement in the polls. She is the most criminal and unethical candidate in the history of America, and is likely to win. There is no greater indictment about our citizens than her candidacy. if thise was 1920, she would be in front of a firing squad. ..."
"... But we have 2016. This is not breaking news at the main media outlets. Only people actively digging know this. All this pales in comparison with the fact of bussing people around different states to vote. If elections can be rigged then nothing else actually matters. Nothing will change because the only tool to repair the country is the election. ..."
"... The ballot box is not the last remedy to fix things. Just saying. Voting is more to bring you into the system than you changing the system. What better way to keep you happy inside the system than to give you the ability to "vote the bums out" at the next (s)election? ..."
"... Europe is also facing the problem of not enough breeding to keep up the exponential expansion of their currency (debt issued with interest) so they import people to keep the ponzi going. Not going to work as the people you bring in are not going to be expanding it at the rate that someone born into that system is going to. ..."
"... Sucks to be them - the humillatiion and embarrassment of the cockroaches as they all scurry for cover. Not to mention the career nose-dives en masse for all the selfsame scum floating around the turd herself. I'm surprised Hillary hasn't told Podesta to eat a bullet (or nail-gun) yet, given the damage he has caused by being hacked. Err...rewind, eh Hillary? Because it is not as if you are an angel in this respect, you dumb fucking senile cunt. ..."
"... Neocons are IT illiterate, and this must be their primary weakness, given how fucking useless they are at securing their insidious evil shit (now in the public domain - eh, Poddy, old chum, you evil CUNT). It must be a fucking disease given how utterly bereft of intelligence with respect to IT security they collectively are. ..."
"... It definitely sucks to be Hillary when even the help knows you're crooked. It sucks to be the help too. HILLARY FOR PRISON 2017!!!! ..."
"... As if. Former Lousiana Governor Edwin Edwards in 1983 said "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy." In 2016, neither of those conditions is a bar to election to the presidency. ..."
"... Evidently the rats have been assured the ship isn't sinking. Besides it's insured if crossing is successful. ..."
"... Americans have the attention span of a gnat these days. The hypocrisy is stunning and has no bounds. ..."
"... The best part of waking up is realizing that TPTB had been pissing in our cup while we weren't looking. ..."
"... Another body to add to the Clinton Death List, this time the doctor who treated her for a concussion and knew about her glioma. A devout Hindu, this doctor supposedly committed suicide after threatening to reveal Hillary medical information if prosecutors continued to go after him for bogus criminal charges. http://www.govtslaves.info/clinton-doctor-who-confirmed-hillarys-brain-t... ..."
"... Neera Tanden must be suicidal by now. She probably doesn't even realise it yet. ..."
"... I was thinking the same thing. With so many on the "team" having such critical positions on their own "leader", why the fuck are they supporting her, and why do they still have jobs? ..."
"... Power. Money. The belief that they will be able to run things themselves once she goes full brain clot. One thing I do know, Hillary would be very unwise to let any of them pick her nursing home for her. ..."
"... Neera Tanden: "It worries me more that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment." https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18353 ..."
"... I imagine cankle's inner circle are gobling a lot off drugs about now. Their paranoia is no doubt palpable. I hope they devour one another. ..."
"... It ain't just the US where free press is extinct. Had Wiki dropped the lot, it would simply have sunk without a trace with respect to the MSM reporting it to the sheeple, as we have seen in the last 12 days. ..."
"... Free Shit and open borders and speaking well while lying. The stupidity of the average person, particularly those who only get their news from the corporate controlled media, is fuckin' amazing. Only a military coup could hunt down and arrest the Deep State... The Kagans and Powers and Jarretts and every cunt who has given HRC money. ..."
"... Short of a coup, massive desertion would be very helpful. ..."
"... you hit the nail on the head - "speaking well while lying". Middle class English people speak very well - appear attractive to Americans - when in fact they have zero monopoly on honesty, brains or ability ..."
"... just because someone speaks well does not mean they are legal, decent, honest and truthful - in fact clinton fails on all four of these positives and is illegal, indecent, crooked and a liar ..."
"... The no fly zone doesn't like questions not preprogrammed. I hope his brother gets a chance to rip Obama a new asshole. ..."
"... rule by criminals REQUIRES deep knowledge and primary experience with criminal exploits. She is the ONLY candidate who is qualified to run Gov-Co. ..."
"... Comey is a Dirty Cop – Former US Attorney. How Crooked Clinton Got Off. ..."
"... Juan Williams email to John Podesta found here: https://twitter.com/hashtag/DrainTheSwamp?src=hash ..."
"... How does it feel working for a total scumbag just to get a paycheck? ..."
Oct 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

The latest WikiLeaks dump reveals yet another bombshell from the outspoken, an likely soon to be unemployed, Neera Tanden. The email chain comes from March of this year and begins when Neera distributes a memo on proposals for reform policies relative to bribery and corruption of public officials . That said, apparently the folks within the Hillary campaign were aware that this was a very dicey topic for their chosen candidate as even Tanden admits " she may be so tainted she's really vulnerable. "

Meanwhile, Hillary advisor Jake Sullivan provided his thoughts that he really liked the following proposal on strengthening bribery laws...

"Strengthen bribery laws to ensure that politicians don' change legislation for political donations."

...but subsequently admits that it might be problematic given Hillary's history.

"The second idea is a favorite of mine, as you know, but REALLY dicey territory for HRC, right?"

Even a month before these internal campaign discussions, Stan Greenberg, a democrat strategist of Democracy Corps, wrote to Podesta highlighting that "reform of money and politics is where she is taking the biggest hit." That said, Stan was quick to assure Podesta that there was no reason for concern as a specially crafted message and a little help from the media could make the whole problem go away.

"We are also going to test some messages that include acknowledgement of being part of the system , and know how much has to change. "

Finally, perhaps no one has better summarized why the Clinton camp may be worried about corruption charges than Obama:

Syrin PrayingMantis Oct 19, 2016 12:58 PM ,
The news was released that Hillarnazi had lesbian lovers, paid for sexual encounters, has had memory issues so severe going back to 2009 that her own people aren't sure if she knows what planet she is on, can't walk without getting massively fatigued, a new rape victim came forward, the Clinton Foundation stole over $2 billion in Haitian relief funds, the Clinton Foundation has a pay gap between men and women of $190,000 and she referred to blacks repeatedly as the dreaded "n" word .

Again, that is from YESTERDAY Yet there has been no movement in the polls. She is the most criminal and unethical candidate in the history of America, and is likely to win. There is no greater indictment about our citizens than her candidacy. if thise was 1920, she would be in front of a firing squad.

WTFRLY Syrin Oct 19, 2016 1:04 PM ,
2 Years After This American Journalist Was Killed, Her 'Conspiracy Theories' on Syria are Proven as Facts
nibiru WTFRLY Oct 19, 2016 1:05 PM ,
But we have 2016. This is not breaking news at the main media outlets. Only people actively digging know this. All this pales in comparison with the fact of bussing people around different states to vote. If elections can be rigged then nothing else actually matters. Nothing will change because the only tool to repair the country is the election.

In Europe they ship people from Africa and the Middle East to become multicultural societies ( look at Blair multicultural effort, Swedish no-go zones and Merkel's last effort with immigration crisis) . We are in deep shit here and the processes to repair the state are not there anymore. Now we only have Wikileaks doing the job of media - watching politicians' hands.

pods nibiru Oct 19, 2016 1:16 PM ,
The ballot box is not the last remedy to fix things. Just saying. Voting is more to bring you into the system than you changing the system. What better way to keep you happy inside the system than to give you the ability to "vote the bums out" at the next (s)election?

Europe is also facing the problem of not enough breeding to keep up the exponential expansion of their currency (debt issued with interest) so they import people to keep the ponzi going. Not going to work as the people you bring in are not going to be expanding it at the rate that someone born into that system is going to.

But, it is a plausible explanation for why they are trying it. The moneychangers have their very lives depending on keeping this going, so they have to try it.

pods

CuttingEdge pods Oct 19, 2016 1:21 PM ,
All I know is, most the cunts behind the curtain have been completely compromised pre-election.

Sucks to be them - the humillatiion and embarrassment of the cockroaches as they all scurry for cover. Not to mention the career nose-dives en masse for all the selfsame scum floating around the turd herself. I'm surprised Hillary hasn't told Podesta to eat a bullet (or nail-gun) yet, given the damage he has caused by being hacked. Err...rewind, eh Hillary? Because it is not as if you are an angel in this respect, you dumb fucking senile cunt.

The fucking irony is palpable.

Neocons are IT illiterate, and this must be their primary weakness, given how fucking useless they are at securing their insidious evil shit (now in the public domain - eh, Poddy, old chum, you evil CUNT). It must be a fucking disease given how utterly bereft of intelligence with respect to IT security they collectively are.

Theosebes Goodfellow CuttingEdge Oct 19, 2016 2:17 PM ,
It definitely sucks to be Hillary when even the help knows you're crooked. It sucks to be the help too. HILLARY FOR PRISON 2017!!!!
junction Syrin Oct 19, 2016 1:05 PM ,

As if. Former Lousiana Governor Edwin Edwards in 1983 said "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy." In 2016, neither of those conditions is a bar to election to the presidency.

Arnold Syrin Oct 19, 2016 1:09 PM ,
Evidently the rats have been assured the ship isn't sinking. Besides it's insured if crossing is successful.
Bay of Pigs PrayingMantis Oct 19, 2016 1:01 PM ,
Americans have the attention span of a gnat these days. The hypocrisy is stunning and has no bounds.
PTR erkme73 Oct 19, 2016 1:43 PM ,
The best part of waking up is realizing that TPTB had been pissing in our cup while we weren't looking.
junction PrayingMantis Oct 19, 2016 1:30 PM ,
Another body to add to the Clinton Death List, this time the doctor who treated her for a concussion and knew about her glioma. A devout Hindu, this doctor supposedly committed suicide after threatening to reveal Hillary medical information if prosecutors continued to go after him for bogus criminal charges. http://www.govtslaves.info/clinton-doctor-who-confirmed-hillarys-brain-t...
Croesus PrayingMantis Oct 19, 2016 1:31 PM ,
ZH Readers in Germany: Read this: https://file.wikileaks.org/file/angela-merkel.pdf Merkel trying to hide money in offshore accounts! Print it, spread it, and wreck that bitch.
whatamaroon Oct 19, 2016 12:53 PM ,
Lock her up!!
medium giraffe Oct 19, 2016 12:54 PM ,
Neera Tanden must be suicidal by now. She probably doesn't even realise it yet.
ShrNfr medium giraffe Oct 19, 2016 12:58 PM ,
Don't worry, for her it will just be a walk in the park.
Ranger4564 -> medium giraffe Oct 19, 2016 12:59 PM ,
I was thinking the same thing. With so many on the "team" having such critical positions on their own "leader", why the fuck are they supporting her, and why do they still have jobs?
tarabel -> Ranger4564 Oct 19, 2016 1:18 PM ,

Power. Money. The belief that they will be able to run things themselves once she goes full brain clot. One thing I do know, Hillary would be very unwise to let any of them pick her nursing home for her.

medium giraffe -> Occams_Chainsaw Oct 19, 2016 1:13 PM ,
Neera Tanden: "It worries me more that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment." https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18353
pine_marten -> medium giraffe Oct 19, 2016 2:00 PM ,
I imagine cankle's inner circle are gobling a lot off drugs about now. Their paranoia is no doubt palpable. I hope they devour one another.
CuttingEdge -> indaknow Oct 19, 2016 1:34 PM ,
Assange has played a blinder, and all those who bitched about him "not dropping everything at once" give some thought to the fact that even in the UK barely one reference to the deluge of shit landing on Hillary thus far has been reported in the MSM. They have killed virtually everything, and are mainlining Trump the mad man (for insinuating election fraud) shit.

It ain't just the US where free press is extinct. Had Wiki dropped the lot, it would simply have sunk without a trace with respect to the MSM reporting it to the sheeple, as we have seen in the last 12 days.

Better a death by a thousand cuts to build up momentum, and give EVERYONE the chance to absorb the full criminallity of this fundamentally evil bitch and her cohorts. There is way too much to take in one hit.

War Machine Oct 19, 2016 1:02 PM ,
sadly, most Americans are going to vote based on which candidate they think is least 'offensive' to them, and ISMism prevails in the corporate MSM and Regressive Left:

Why?

Free Shit and open borders and speaking well while lying. The stupidity of the average person, particularly those who only get their news from the corporate controlled media, is fuckin' amazing. Only a military coup could hunt down and arrest the Deep State... The Kagans and Powers and Jarretts and every cunt who has given HRC money.

Short of a coup, massive desertion would be very helpful.

hooligan2009 -> War Machine Oct 19, 2016 1:39 PM ,
you hit the nail on the head - "speaking well while lying". Middle class English people speak very well - appear attractive to Americans - when in fact they have zero monopoly on honesty, brains or ability

just because someone speaks well does not mean they are legal, decent, honest and truthful - in fact clinton fails on all four of these positives and is illegal, indecent, crooked and a liar

SharkBit Oct 19, 2016 1:02 PM ,
Anyone else disgusted to hear Obozo speak anymore? What an embarrassment.
Atomizer SharkBit Oct 19, 2016 1:13 PM ,
The no fly zone doesn't like questions not preprogrammed. I hope his brother gets a chance to rip Obama a new asshole.
Mango327 Oct 19, 2016 1:04 PM ,
If Donald Trump Acted Like Hillary Clinton... http://youtu.be/K8JUpM97VZE
Madcow Oct 19, 2016 1:05 PM ,
Authoritarian rule by criminals REQUIRES deep knowledge and primary experience with criminal exploits. She is the ONLY candidate who is qualified to run Gov-Co.
SidSays Oct 19, 2016 1:07 PM ,
Comey is a Dirty Cop – Former US Attorney. How Crooked Clinton Got Off.
Miss Expectations Oct 19, 2016 1:11 PM ,
Juan Williams email to John Podesta found here: https://twitter.com/hashtag/DrainTheSwamp?src=hash
vegas Oct 19, 2016 1:13 PM ,
Is this from "The Onion"? Seriously, these people are so fucking tone deaf and out of touch it's amazing. Throw 'em all in prison. How does it feel working for a total scumbag just to get a paycheck?

[Oct 19, 2016] Wikileaks Releases Another 1803 Podesta Emails In Part 12 Of Data Dump; Total Is Now 18953

Notable quotes:
"... Among the initial emails to stand out is this extensive exchange showing just how intimiately the narrative of Hillary's server had been coached. The following September 2015 email exchange between Podesta and Nick Merrill, framed the "core language" to be used in response to questions Clinton could be asked about her email server, and the decision to "bleach" emails from it. The emails contain long and short versions of responses for Clinton. ..."
Oct 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
The daily dump continues. In the now traditional daily routine, one which forces the Clinton campaign to resort to ever more stark sexual scandals involving Trump to provide a media distraction, moments ago Wikileaks released yet another 1,803 emails in Part 12 of its ongoing Podesta Email dump, which brings the total number of released emails to 18,953.

RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 12 https://t.co/wzxeh70oUm #HillaryClinton #imWithHer #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails12 pic.twitter.com/druf7WQXD5

- WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 19, 2016

As a reminder among the most recent revelations we got further insights into Hillary's desire to see Obamacare " unravel" , her contempt for "doofus" Bernie Sanders, staff exchanges on handling media queries about Clinton "flip-flopping" on gay marriage, galvanizing Latino support and locking down Clinton's healthcare policy. Just as notable has been the ongoing revelation of just how "captured" the so-called independent press has been in its "off the record" discussions with John Podesta which got the head Politico correspondent, Glenn Thrush, to admit he is a "hack" for allowing Podesta to dictate the content of his article.

The release comes on the day of the third and final presidential campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and as a result we are confident it will be scrutinized especially carefully for any last minute clues that would allow Trump to lob a much needed Hail Mary to boost his standing in the polls.

As there is a total of 50,000 emails, Wikileaks will keep the media busy over the next three weeks until the elections with another 30,000 emails still expected to be released.

* * *

Among the initial emails to stand out is this extensive exchange showing just how intimiately the narrative of Hillary's server had been coached. The following September 2015 email exchange between Podesta and Nick Merrill, framed the "core language" to be used in response to questions Clinton could be asked about her email server, and the decision to "bleach" emails from it. The emails contain long and short versions of responses for Clinton.

"Because the government already had everything that was work-related, and my personal emails were just that – personal – I didn't see a reason to keep them so I asked that they be deleted, and that's what the company that managed my server did. And we notified Congress of that back in March"

She was then presented with the following hypothetical scenario:

* "Why won't you say whether you wiped it?"

"After we went through the process to determine what was work related and what was not and provided the work related emails to State, I decided not to keep the personal ones."

"We saved the work-related ones on a thumb drive that is now with the Department of Justice. And as I said in March, I chose not to keep the personal ones. I asked that they be deleted, how that happened was up to the company that managed the server. And they are cooperating fully with anyone that has questions."

* * *

Another notable email reveals the close relationship between the Clinton Foundation and Ukraine billionaire Victor Pinchuk, a prominent donor to the Clinton Foundation , in which we see the latter's attempt to get a meeting with Bill Clinton to show support for Ukraine:

From: Tina Flournoy < [email protected] >
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 9:58:55 AM
To: Amitabh Desai
Cc: Jon Davidson; Margaret Steenburg; Jake Sullivan; Dan Schwerin; Huma Abedin; John Podesta
Subject: Re: Victor Pinchuk

Team HRC - we'll get back to you on this

> On Mar 30, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Amitabh Desai < [email protected] > wrote:
>
> Victor Pinchuk is relentlessly following up (including this morning) about a meeting with WJC in London or anywhere in Europe. Ideally he wants to bring together a few western leaders to show support for Ukraine, with WJC probably their most important participant. If that's not palatable for us, then he'd like a bilat with WJC.
>
> If it's not next week, that's fine, but he wants a date. I keep saying we have no Europe plans, although we do have those events in London in June. Are folks comfortable offering Victor a private meeting on one of those dates? At this point I get the impression that although I keep saying WJC cares about Ukraine, Pinchuk feels like WJC hasn't taken enough action to demonstrate that, particularly during this existential moment for the county and for him.
>
> I sense this is so important because Pinchuk is under Putin's heel right now, feeling a great degree of pressure and pain for his many years of nurturing stronger ties with the West.
>
> I get all the downsides and share the concerns. I am happy to go back and say no. It would just be good to know what WJC (and HRC and you all) would like to do, because this will likely impact the future of this relationship, and slow walking our reply will only reinforce his growing angst.
>
> Thanks, and sorry for the glum note on a Monday morning...

* * *

We find more evidence of media coordination with Politico's Glenn Thrush who has an off the record question to make sure he is not "fucking anything up":

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 2015-04-30 17:06
Subject: Re: sorry to bother...

Sure. Sorry for the delay I was on a plane.
On Apr 30, 2015 9:44 AM, "Glenn Thrush" < [email protected] > wrote:

> Can I send u a couple of grafs, OTR, to make sure I'm not fucking
> anything up?

* * *

Another notable moment emerges in the emails, involving Hillary Clinton's selective memory. Clinton's description of herself as a moderate Democrat at a September 2015 event in Ohio caused an uproar amongst her team. In a mail from Clinton advisor Neera Tanden to Podesta in the days following the comment she asks why she said this.

"I pushed her on this on Sunday night. She claims she didn't remember saying it. Not sure I believe her," Podesta replies. Tanden insists that the comment has made her job more difficult after "telling every reporter I know she's actually progressive". " It worries me more that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment ," she adds.

* * *

We also get additional insight into Clinton courting the Latino minority. A November 2008 email from Federico Peńa , who was on the Obama-Biden transition team, called for a "Latino media person" to be added to the list of staff to appeal to Latino voters. Federico de Jesus or Vince Casillas are seen as ideal candidates, both of whom were working in the Chicago operations.

"More importantly, it would helpful (sic) to Barack to do pro-active outreach to Latino media across the country to get our positive message out before people start spreading negative rumors," Peńa writes.

* * *

Another email between Clinton's foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan and Tanden from March 2016 discussed how it was "REALLY dicey territory" for Clinton to comment on strengthening "bribery laws to ensure that politicians don't change legislation for political donations." Tanden agrees with Sullivan:

" She may be so tainted she's really vulnerable - if so, maybe a message of I've seen how this sausage is made, it needs to stop, I'm going to stop it will actually work."

* * *

One email suggested, sarcastically, to kneecap bernie Sanders : Clinton's team issued advise regarding her tactics for the "make or break" Democratic presidential debate with Sanders in Milwaukee on February 11, 2016. The mail to Podesta came from Philip Munger, a Democratic Party donor. He sent the mail using an encrypted anonymous email service.

"She's going to have to kneecap him. She is going to have to take him down from his morally superior perch. She has done so tentatively. She must go further," he says.

Clearly, the desire to get Sanders' supporters was a key imperative for the Clinton campaign. In a September 2015 email to Podesta , Hill columnist Brent Budowsky criticized the campaign for allegedly giving Clinton surrogates talking points to attack Bernie Sanders. "I cannot think of anything more stupid and self-destructive for a campaign to do," he says. "Especially for a candidate who has dangerously low levels of public trust," and in light of Sanders' campaign being based on "cleaning up politics."

Budowsky warns voters would be "disgusted" by attacks against Sanders and says he wouldn't discourage Podesta from sharing the note with Clinton because "if she wants to become president she needs to understand the point I am making with crystal clarity."

"Make love to Bernie and his idealistic supporters, and co-opt as many of his progressive issues as possible."

Budowsky then adds that he was at a Washington university where " not one student gave enough of a damn for Hillary to open a booth, or even wear a Hillary button. "

* * *

One email focused on how to address with the topic of the TPP. National Policy Director for Hillary for America Amanda Renteria explains, "The goal here was to minimize our vulnerability to the authenticity attack and not piss off the WH any more than necessary."

Democratic pollster Joel Benenson says, "the reality is HRC is more pro trade than anti and trying to turn her into something she is not could reinforce our negative [sic] around authenticity. This is an agreement that she pushed for and largely advocated for."

* * *

While claiming she is part of the people, an email exposes Hillary as being " part of the system ." Clinton's team acknowledges she is "part of the system" in an email regarding her strategies. As Stan Greenberg told Podesta:

" We are also going to test some messages that include acknowledgement of being part of the system, and know how much has to change ,"

* * *

Some more on the topic of Hillary being extensively coached and all her words rehearsed, we find an email which reveals that Clinton's words have to be tightly managed by her team who are wary of what she might say. After the Iowa Democratic Party's presidential debate in November 2015 adviser Ron Klain mails Podesta to say, "If she says something three times as an aside during practice (Wall Street supports me due to 9/11), we need to assume she will say it in the debate, and tell her not to do so." Klain's mail reveals Sanders was their biggest fear in the debate. "The only thing that would have been awful – a Sanders break out – didn't happen. So all in all, we were fine," he says.

The mail also reveals Klain's role in securing his daughter Hannah a position on Clinton's team. "I'm not asking anyone to make a job, or put her in some place where she isn't wanted – it just needs a nudge over the finish line," Klain says. Hannah Klain worked on Clinton's Surrogates team for nine months commencing in the month after her father's mail to Podesta, according to her Linkedin.

CuttingEdge X_in_Sweden Oct 19, 2016 9:18 AM

Is Podesta authorised to be privy to confidential information?

Only Hillary sends him a 9-point assessment of the ME with this at the top:

Note: Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.

I would assume Intelligence Services intel based assessments would be a bit confidential, Mr Comey? Given their source? Nothing to see here, you say?

Fuck Me.

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18917

Bubba Rum Das samjam7 Oct 19, 2016 9:02 AM

I love this...Assange is incommunicado, yet the data dumps keep coming!
Horse face looks like such a fool to the world as a result; & due to John Kerry's stupidity which is drawing major attention to the whole matter; Americans are finally beginning to wake up & pay attention to this shit!

Looks like the Hitlery for Prez ship is starting to take on MASSIVE amounts of water!

I believe they are beyond the point where any more news of 'pussy grabbing' will save them from themselves (and Mr. Assange)!

Oh, yeah...-And THANK YOU, MR. O'KEEFE!

css1971 Oct 19, 2016 9:04 AM

Dems!! Dems!! Where are you. You need 2 more bimbos to accuse Trump of looking at them!!

DEMS you need to get that nose to the grindstone!!

Hobbleknee GunnerySgtHartman Oct 19, 2016 8:48 AM

Fox is controlled opposition. They dropped the interview with O'Keefe after he released the latest undercover report on Democrat voter fraud.

JackMeOff Oct 19, 2016 10:16 AM

Wonder what "docs" they are referring?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/17978

monad Oct 19, 2016 1:14 PM The FBI had no difficulty convicting Obugger's crony Rod Blagegovitch.

The new lowered expectations federal government just expects to get lucre + bennies for sitting on their asses and holding the door for gangsters. Traitors. Spies. Enemies foreign and domestic. Amphisbaegenic pot boiling.

california chrome Oct 19, 2016 11:03 AM

With Creamer's tricks effective in Obama's re-election, it now makes sense why Obama was so confident when he said Trump would never be president.

Trump is still ahead in the only poll I track. But i conduct my own personal poll on a daily basis and loads of Trump supporters are in the closet and won't come out until they pull the lever for Trump on election day.

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

whatamaroon Oct 19, 2016 1:04 PM https://pageshot.net/qLjtSLje2gBJ1Mlp/twitter.com ,

This supposedly directly implicates Podesta and voter fraud. If it will open here

[Oct 19, 2016] Hillary Clinton Linked To Mysterious Front Associated with Julian Assange Pedophile Smear

Oct 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

Zero Hedge

The DailyKos put out a report on Oct. 17 that WikiLeaks describes as a "smear campaign plot to falsely accuse Julian Assange of pedophilia."

"An unknown entity posing as an internet dating agency prepared an elaborate plot to falsely claim that Julian Assange received US$1M from the Russian government and a second plot to frame him sexually molesting an eight year old girl," WikiLeaks said in a press release Tuesday.

The press release went on: "The second plot includes the filing of a fabricated criminal complaint in the Bahamas, a court complaint in the UK and laundering part of the attack through the United Nations. The plot happened durring WikiLeaks' Hillary Clinton related publications, but the plot may have its first genesis in Mr. Assange's 16 months litigation against the UK in the UN system, which concluded February 5 (Assange won. UK and Sweden lost & US State Dept tried to pressure the WGAD according to its former Chair, Prof. Mads Andenas)."

The DailyKos reported that a Canadian family holidaying in the Bahamas reported to the police that their 8-year-old daughter was "sexually molested online" by Assange on Toddandclare.com.

Julian Assange's legal team provided a timeline in the press release which showed that the self-claimed dating agency ToddAndClare.com contacted WikiLeaks' defense team offering one million dollars for Assange to appear in a video advertisement for the "dating agency".

Assange's defense wrote back, stating that the proposal appeared to be an "elaborate scam designed to entrap Mr. Assange's reputation into unwanted and unwarranted publicity."

WikiLeaks was able to trace down the address of the front, posting an image on twitter of what appears to be a warehouse or garage.

Here is the "headquarters" of the front (PAC?) behind the Assange "took US$1M from Russia" plot

More: https://t.co/xOjTy15Mkf pic.twitter.com/ukcZ6O9URv

- WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 19, 2016

Internet sleuths from Reddit were able to dig up some information about the dating service pushing the attacks on Assange, finding that the company shares the address with a private intelligence corporation named Premise Data Corporation.

Interestingly, Larry Summers, who is connected to the Clinton Campaign , is on the board of directors of Premise Data Corporation.

Here is the Reddit post that lays out the findings:

As other Redditors point out, the Center for American Progress was founded by Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and was funded by billionaire and pro-Clintonite George Soros.

Connecting the front to Clinton further, co-founder of Premise Data David Soloff has met with both Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine this year.

Internet sleuths connect Clinton to mysterious intelligence contractor associated with Assange false accusations https://t.co/NhOyO5xbZ7 pic.twitter.com/Np8yW1ckDT

- WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 19, 2016

Internet sleuths connect Clinton to mysterious intelligence contractor associated with Assange false accusations 2 https://t.co/idKuVC1BoD pic.twitter.com/ueX2JKhpOw

- WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 19, 2016

With Julian Assange spearheading the Podesta leaks, which have revealed and highlighted many shady dealings of both the Clinton campaign and Clinton Foundation , it is highly unlikely that it's a coincidence a Clinton connected group shares the same address of the smear pushing front.

As one Redditor so laughably put it, "If this was merely a coincidence, then I'm the queen of England."

As we reported yesterday , Fox News had told its audience Tuesday morning that Assange would be arrested "maybe in a matter of hours," leading to the speculation that there could have been a plot to arrest Assange over the pedophilia accusations.

WikiLeaks revealed yesterday that multiple U.S. sources had told them that Secretary of State John Kerry demanded that Ecuador stop Wikileaks from publishing documents damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign back in September, which, if true, proves that there has been previous attempt to silence Assange by the U.S. establishment.

[Oct 17, 2016] All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another monster before he destroys all the peace and stability we bring to the region

Notable quotes:
"... The trees, the forest and pretty much the entire landscape are screaming 2000 and 2004 didn't matter a damn. ..."
"... All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another 'monster' before he destroys all the peace and stability we bring to the region. ..."
"... This time, of course, there's no Bush/Cheney in charge. But no matter, the decisions and the rationale are identical. Democracy will flower in the region once America and the UK kill enough of the bad guys and install their own puppets (I mean 'good guys') ..."
"... Hillary and the democrats are in charge of the killing, so all the death must be both necessary and humanitarian. The possibility that more death and more wars and more invasions and more regime change is pretty much built into the 'solution' is unthinkable. ..."
"... Watching all the cheering for 'victory in Mosul' and over the 'hold-outs' in Libya has actually driven me to turn off the nets ..."
"... Violent regime-change is 'unavoidable' regardless of which party is in power. And the current war is always better, safer, and less prone to blow-back than all those other earlier stupid wars ..."
Oct 17, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

kidneystones 10.15.16 at 2:31 pm 240

Clinton meets impartial press to discuss repackaging Hillary over cocktails hosted by Diane Sawyer:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/10/your-moral-and-380.html

bruce wilder 10.15.16 at 3:39 pm 244
ks @ 240:

Reading thru the link, my favorite part was the stated purpose of the cocktail party for elite NY reporters: "Give reporters their first thoughts . . ."

kidneystones 10.17.16 at 1:06 pm 339
@244 Good eye, Bruce. The trees, the forest and pretty much the entire landscape are screaming 2000 and 2004 didn't matter a damn.

All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another 'monster' before he destroys all the peace and stability we bring to the region.

This time, of course, there's no Bush/Cheney in charge. But no matter, the decisions and the rationale are identical. Democracy will flower in the region once America and the UK kill enough of the bad guys and install their own puppets (I mean 'good guys') .

Hillary and the democrats are in charge of the killing, so all the death must be both necessary and humanitarian. The possibility that more death and more wars and more invasions and more regime change is pretty much built into the 'solution' is unthinkable.

Watching all the cheering for 'victory in Mosul' and over the 'hold-outs' in Libya has actually driven me to turn off the nets .

Violent regime-change is 'unavoidable' regardless of which party is in power. And the current war is always better, safer, and less prone to blow-back than all those other earlier stupid wars .

I learned that reading the pro-Hillary 'liberal' press.

[Oct 17, 2016] Jill Stein On Fire "Crooked Corporate Democrats! Waste of Votes! Traitors! Monsters!"

EUTimes.net

WOW! Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein is on fire! After previously blasting Hillary Clinton, accusing her of basically being a scary psychopath who "would start World War 3 with Russia", Jill is now warning liberal progressives not to throw away their vote by supporting corporatist Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton because she is a "two faced public and private position, corporatist who takes Wall Street special interest big donor money, traitor who would betray you, a crook who controls the media, a monster and your votes would be wasted on her" in what is basically a summary of what Jill Stein said.

"Don't waste your vote on corporate Democrats. #InvestYourVote," Stein wrote on Twitter on Wednesday:

"If Trump's campaign is flailing, does a "spoiler" vote even exist anymore? Don't waste your vote on corporate Democrats."

Stein then retweeted a statement from the Green Party's official Twitter account which read, "It's time to #InvestYourVote in building a people's party – not waste your vote on corporate party candidates that continue to betray you."

"Unlike the Democrats and Republicans, we don't cuddle up to Wall Street and special interests with our 'public' and 'private' positions," Stein added in a separate tweet, referring to the recent WikiLeaks revelation that Hillary Clinton said that politicians need to have "both a public and private position" on every issue:


"Unlike the Democrats and Republicans, we don't cuddle up to Wall Street and special interests with our "public" and "private" positions."

she's right the Republicans are in the same boat! People like Paul Ryan, John McCain, there's no doubt about it, they are just as corrupt as the Democrats. Its only Donald Trump himself who is not bound to any Wall Street special interests and who doesn't accept donations from big banks, but other Republicans are just as corrupt as your average Democrats. That's why GOP elites are not endorsing Trump. Trump himself is also at war with the GOP establishment.

Stein observed that "corporations were originally chartered to serve the public good, but they've become monsters that dominate our government."

Stein has previously explained that the liberal progressive agenda–on health care, crime, climate change, trade, etc.– cannot be accomplished under a corporatist like Hillary Clinton. Stein argued that a Clinton presidency will simply be the continuation of the policies supported by Washington's "uniparty," which is controlled by special interest donors–and will not in any way advance the goals of liberal progressives.

Seeming to borrow Trump's moniker for Clinton, Stein also attacked DNC chair Donna Brazile for her "crooked" behavior– providing Clinton's campaign with a question in advance for a town hall as Clinton was trying to defeat Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary:


"Invest your vote in a movement party, not in more crooked behavior from the Democrats! PodestaEmails4 http://thehill.com/media/300427-emails-donna-brazile-gave-town-hall-questions-to-clinton-camp-in-advance "

Stein is a Harvard Medical School graduate, a mother to two sons, and a practicing physician, who became an environmental-health activist and organizer in the late 1990s. As the Green Party's 2012 presidential candidate, Stein holds the record for the most votes ever received by a female candidate for president in a general election.

While third party Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson has received quite a bit of media attention throughout this election, Stein said that she has experienced a virtual media blackout. Stein urged supporters to help her "#BreakTheBlackout from corporate media."

Stein suggested that the reason for the media blackout stems is because she is an effective messenger against Washington's "uniparty."

"I debated @MittRomney in 2002 and was declared the winner by viewers. After that they locked me out of the debates," Stein tweeted. "The Democratic and Republican candidates + @GovGaryJohnson refuse to debate me because they're scared. #OccupyTheDebate":


"Help us #BreakTheBlackout from corporate media – go to http://Jill2016.com and sign up to join our team! #GreenTownHall"

WOW! Her anti-Hillary rants have been really strong lately! Its nice to finally see someone else take on the crooked Democrats with such anger. Seeing Trump doing all the ranting all by himself is really nice but now its even better. Perhaps the two should meet and discuss some sort of alliance. Jill Stein could be an effective messenger to the Bernie voters. Perhaps Trump could make her the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or something, since she's Green.

In exchange Jill should of course drop out and ask her 2% voter base to vote Trump. She should also keep bashing the Democrats and target Bernie Sanders's people to vote Trump. Wouldn't be such a bad idea, wouldn't it??

Yeah, it's too far-fetched… we agree!

[Oct 16, 2016] The Deep State

Notable quotes:
"... "deep state" - the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment - is a far greater threat to liberty than you think ..."
"... Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. ..."
"... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." ..."
Feb 28, 2014 | The American Conservative

Steve Sailer links to this unsettling essay by former career Congressional staffer Mike Lofgren, who says the "deep state" - the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment - is a far greater threat to liberty than you think. The partisan rancor and gridlock in Washington conceals a more fundamental and pervasive agreement.

Excerpts:

These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi's regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 million to keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least Ł100m to the United Kingdom's Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and access to that country's intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same period of time, the government spent $1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined. A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every single trace of your electronic life.

Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an "establishment." All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.

More:

Washington is the most important node of the Deep State that has taken over America, but it is not the only one. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect the town to other nodes. One is Wall Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the status quo, Wall Street floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember their own best interests. The executives of the financial giants even have de facto criminal immunity. On March 6, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following: "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy." This, from the chief law enforcement officer of a justice system that has practically abolished the constitutional right to trial for poorer defendants charged with certain crimes. It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative beyond the dreams of avarice - certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee. [3]

The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. Not all the traffic involves persons connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General David Petraeus joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance. General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State do not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior fellow at theBelfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.

Lofgren goes on to say that Silicon Valley is a node of the Deep State too, and that despite the protestations of its chieftains against NSA spying, it's a vital part of the Deep State's apparatus. More:

The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the Deep State, and its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited by its overweening sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face."

Read the whole thing.

... I would love to see a study comparing the press coverage from 9/11 leading up to the Iraq War with press coverage of the gay marriage issue from about 2006 till today. Specifically, I'd be curious to know about how thoroughly the media covered the cases against the policies that the Deep State and the Shallow State decided should prevail. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy here, not at all. I'm only thinking back to how it seemed so obvious to me in 2002 that we should go to war with Iraq, so perfectly clear that the only people who opposed it were fools or villains. The same consensus has emerged around same-sex marriage. I know how overwhelmingly the news media have believed this for some time, such that many American journalists simply cannot conceive that anyone against same-sex marriage is anything other than a fool or a villain. Again, this isn't a conspiracy; it's in the nature of the thing. Lofgren:

Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. Government life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it's 11:00 in the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist. After a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles off steel plate: "You mean the number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?" No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it.

When all you know is the people who surround you in your professional class bubble and your social circles, you can think the whole world agrees with you, or should. It's probably not a coincidence that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, the two cities that were attacked on 9/11, and whose elites - political, military, financial - were so genuinely traumatized by the events.

Anyway, that's just a small part of it, about how the elite media manufacture consent. Here's a final quote, one from the Moyers interview with Lofgren:

BILL MOYERS: If, as you write, the ideology of the Deep State is not democrat or republican, not left or right, what is it?

MIKE LOFGREN: It's an ideology. I just don't think we've named it. It's a kind of corporatism. Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization. And they believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it's our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war.

This can't last. We'd better hope it can't last. And we'd better hope it unwinds peacefully.

[Oct 16, 2016] The pattern of current events is the pattern of a global hegemon approaching imperial collapse.

Notable quotes:
"... I would not precisely characterize the recognizable pattern of American choices and strategies - that is, of American policy - as that of "an imperial power bent on maintaining its global hegemony" without further qualification. I would say the pattern is that of a global hegemon approaching imperial collapse. There are important differences, with immediate relevance. ..."
"... When commenters decry the failure to observe the norms of international law, they are not just being moralists in an immoral world; they are decrying the erosion of international order, an erosion that has been accelerated by the U.S. turn toward futile expedience as a foreign policy justified by groundless self-righteousness. ..."
"... And, the R2P doctrine has been ruined not just by hypocrisy but by the demonstrated incapacity to match means to putative ends. It is not just suspicious that the impulse to humanitarianism emerges only when an opportunity to blow things up arises, it's criminal. Or should be. (sarcasm) But, of course, it is not criminal, because atrocities are only a problem when it is the other guy committing them. Then, we can exercise our righteousness for the good, old cause. (end sarcasm) ..."
"... This chaos, I repeat, is inherent in the organization of U.S. policy - it is an observable pattern, not a property by axiomatic definition as your strawman would have it, but it is very worrisome. It is a symptom of what I rather dramatically labeled "imperial collapse". That the next President of the U.S. cannot work out why a no-fly zone in a country where the Russians are flying might be a bad idea is not a good sign. That the same person was a proponent of the policy that plunged Libya into chaos is another not-good sign. That's not an argument for Trump; it is an argument that Trump is another symptom. ..."
Oct 16, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

bruce wilder 10.16.16 at 8:00 pm 328

LFC @ 317

Dropping the heavy mockery for a moment to get at the logic of my view:

I think that if Y wants to stop Z from happening, Y might consider as a first expedient, self-restraint: not doing Z, itself. That is, discipling its own forces and reforming its own strategies, when it finds itself either doing Z or creating the conditions where Z happens.

Your strawman summation of my view is actually not half-bad:

. . . we know a priori that X [the U.S.] cannot act without committing war crimes because X [the U.S.] is an imperial power bent on maintaining its global hegemony, therefore any employment of any military force in any way by X [the U.S.] anywhere necessarily constitutes a war crime, because every aspect of X's [the U.S.'s] foreign policy is criminal and therefore every act taken by X is criminal.

What makes this a strawman is the "we know a priori ". I don't think we know this a priori . I think we know this, a posteriori , that is, from ample recent experience and observation. I think there's a pattern of choice and strategy that we ought to recognize and, if we recognize it, there might actually be an opportunity to choose differently and realize less horrific consequences.

I would not precisely characterize the recognizable pattern of American choices and strategies - that is, of American policy - as that of "an imperial power bent on maintaining its global hegemony" without further qualification. I would say the pattern is that of a global hegemon approaching imperial collapse. There are important differences, with immediate relevance.

A global hegemon in its prime is all about reducing the risks and costs of armed conflicts and coordinating the cooperation of allied, nominally neutral and even rival states with the elaboration of international law, norms, conventions and other agreements. The U.S. in its prime as global hegemon was all about sponsoring the formation of organizations for global and regional multilateral cooperation, even where its direct participation was not welcome. It is true that the political autonomy of states was respected only to the extent that they adopted sufficiently reactionary and economically conservative or authoritarian governments and the political costs to any other course could be large. Back in the day, a Gaddafi or an Assad or a Saddam had to balance on an international tightrope as well as a domestic one, but it was doable and such regimes could last a long-time. Anyway, I do not want to litigate the mixed virtues and vices of (Anglo-)American hegemony past, just to point out the contrast with our present circumstances.

The turn toward a palsied expedience is a distinct symptom of impending imperial collapse. That the U.S. cannot seem to win a war or bring one to a conclusion in any finite period of time is relevant. That a vast "deep state" is running on auto-pilot with no informed instruction or policy control from Congress is a problem.

When commenters decry the failure to observe the norms of international law, they are not just being moralists in an immoral world; they are decrying the erosion of international order, an erosion that has been accelerated by the U.S. turn toward futile expedience as a foreign policy justified by groundless self-righteousness.

"It's complicated" shouldn't be a preface to ungrounded simplification and just rounding up the usual policy suspects: let's declare a no-fly zone, then find and train some moderate faction of fierce fighters for liberal democracy (as if such exist). If we demonstrate the will and commitment and stay the course . . . blah, blah, blah.

And, the R2P doctrine has been ruined not just by hypocrisy but by the demonstrated incapacity to match means to putative ends. It is not just suspicious that the impulse to humanitarianism emerges only when an opportunity to blow things up arises, it's criminal. Or should be. (sarcasm) But, of course, it is not criminal, because atrocities are only a problem when it is the other guy committing them. Then, we can exercise our righteousness for the good, old cause. (end sarcasm)

The situation in Syria is chaotic, but the chaos is in U.S. policy as well as on the ground. But, the immediate question is not whether the U.S. will intervene, because, as other commenters have pointed out, the U.S. has already involved itself quite deeply. The creation of ISIS, one belligerent in the Syrian conflict is directly attributable to the failure of U.S. policy in Iraq and the U.S. is actively attacking ISIS directly in Syrian as well as Iraqi territory. The U.S. provides military support to multiple factions, including both Turkish-backed forces and the forces of a Kurdish belligerent, which are in conflict with each other. Meanwhile, our great good allies, the Saudis and Qataris are apparently funding Al Qaeda in Syria and maybe ISIS as well.

This chaos, I repeat, is inherent in the organization of U.S. policy - it is an observable pattern, not a property by axiomatic definition as your strawman would have it, but it is very worrisome. It is a symptom of what I rather dramatically labeled "imperial collapse". That the next President of the U.S. cannot work out why a no-fly zone in a country where the Russians are flying might be a bad idea is not a good sign. That the same person was a proponent of the policy that plunged Libya into chaos is another not-good sign. That's not an argument for Trump; it is an argument that Trump is another symptom.

The chaos, the breakdown of rational, deliberate and purposive control of policy, means that policy and its rationales are often absurd. I mock the absurdity as a way of drawing attention to it. Others seek to normalize. So, there you have it.

likbez 10.16.16 at 2:43 pm 310

@305
bruce wilder 10.16.16 at 12:43 pm
LFC: We do have Bruce Wilder mocking the notion that the Russians hacked into the DNC email. Cyber specialists think it was the Russians to a 90 percent certainty, but of course Wilder knows better. Anyway, who cares whether the Russians hacked the ******* email?

Most establishment news reporting has taken note that no evidence has been offered by the U.S. officials making the attribution.

It looks like LFC is completely clueless about such notion as Occam's razor.
Why we need all those insinuations about Russian hackers when we know that all email boxes in major Web mail providers are just a click away from NSA analysts.

Why Russians and not something like "Snowden II".

And what exactly Russians will get politically by torpedoing Hillary candidacy. They probably have tons of "compromat" on her, Bill and Clinton Foundation. Trump stance on Iran is no less dangerous and jingoistic then Hillary stance on Syria. Aggressive protectionism might hurt Russian exports. And as for Syria, Trump can turn on a dime and became a second John McCain anytime. Other then his idea of avoiding foreign military presence (or more correctly that allies should pay for it) and anti-globalization stance he does not have a fixed set of policies at all.

Also you can elect a dog as POTUS and foreign policy will be still be the same as it is now controlled by "deep state" ( http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-deep-state/ ):

Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an "establishment." All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.

In view of all this, LFC anti-Russian stance looks extremely naďve and/or represents displaced anti-Semitism.

likbez 10.16.16 at 4:18 pm 311

In a way Hillary laments about Russia interference are what is typically called "The pot calling the kettle black" as she is exactly the specialist in this area. BTW there is a documented history of the US interference into Russian elections of 2011-2012.

In which Hillary (via ambassador McFaul and the net of NGOs) was trying to stage a "color revolution" (nicknamed "white revolution") in Russia and prevent the re-election of Putin. The main instrument was claiming the fraud in ballot counting.

Can you imagine the reaction if Russian ambassador invited Trump and Sanders to the embassy and offered full and unconditional support for their noble cause of dislodging the corrupt neoliberal regime that exists in Washington. With cash injections to breitbart.com, similar sites, and especially organizations that conduct polls after that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/europe/observers-detail-flaws-in-russian-election.html

And RT covered staged revelations of "Hillary campaign corruption" 24 x 7. As was done by Western MSM in regard to Alexei Navalny web site and him personally as the savior of Russia from entrenched corruption ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny )

http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-duma-elections-navalny-pamfilova-resignation/28007404.html

Actually the USA has several organizations explicitly oriented on interference in foreign elections and promotion of "color revolutions", with functions that partially displaced old functions of CIA (as in Italian elections of 1948). For example, NED.

Why Russia can't have something similar to help struggling American people to have more honest elections despite all the blatantly undemocratic mechanisms of "first to the post", primaries, state based counting of votes, and the United States Electoral College ?

It would be really funny if Russians really resorted to color revolution tricks in the current presidential elections :-)

Here is a quote that can navigate them in right direction (note the irony of her words after DNC throw Sanders under the bus ;-)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/world/europe/russian-parliamentary-elections-criticized-by-west.html?_r=0

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized what she called "troubling practices" before and during the vote in Russia. "The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," she said in Bonn, Germany.

With 99.9 percent of ballots processed, election officials said that United Russia had won 238 seats in Parliament, or about 53 percent, from 315 seats or 70 percent now. The Communist Party won 92 seats; Just Russia, a social democratic party, won 64 seats and the national Liberal Democratic Party won 56 seats.


Rich Puchalsky 10.16.16 at 9:26 pm

LFC: "Would a multilateral action - not unilateral by the U.S. alone, but multilateral - undertaken in response to, e.g., the current situation in Aleppo necessarily violate international law if it lacked UN sanction?"

This would be a kind of coalition - only of willing countries, of course - maybe we could call it something catchy, like The Willing Coalition. Are we allowed to bring up recent history at all, or does that make us America haters? It's strange how these hard cases just keep coming up. Alternatively, we could go for Reset Theory. We need to look forwards instead of looking backwards.

So let's avoid recent history, and just go to ancient history, like that long-outmoded relic, the Security Council. I'd had some vague impression that the chance of military conflict between Security Council members was supposed to be Very Very Bad and by definition worse than any other result, so much so a lot of the legalities that you're casually thinking of writing into the law books later were intended to prevent exactly the kinds of situations that you're proposing, in which members of the Security Council started to think about gathering coalitions to shoot down each other's planes.

But I'm a crazy anarchist, and you're an international affairs expert. So why don't you tell me.

[Oct 16, 2016] Revenge of the White Working-Class Woman

Notable quotes:
"... In a June/July national survey by GQRR, white working-class women put Trump 23 points ahead of Clinton in a three-way ballot ..."
www.politico.com

POLITICO Magazine

Donald Trump's solid core of support comes from white working-class America. As the blue-collar voter has become central to the political conversation, a clear picture of who we're talking about has emerged: He's likely male and disillusioned with the economy and loss of industry. He's a coal miner that's been laid off in Hazard, Kentucky, and is scraping by off his wife's income; a machinists' union member in a Pennsylvania steel town who says "a guy like Donald Trump, he's pushing for change." Through the campaign, we've seen endless portraits of Trump support in the heart of Appalachian coal country, and a recent spate of books documents white working-class alienation and the history of the white underclass in America. Trump's iron grip on the support of blue-collar white Americans has been one of the most striking threads of his unprecedented campaign.

... ... ...

...Thomas Frank, who recently published Listen, Liberal, about the Democratic Party's abandonment of the working class and Robert Reich, public policy professor at the University of California at Berkeley and former secretary of labor in the Clinton administration. They both have outlined a series of Democratic moves to elevate free trade and an inability to defend unions as proof that Democrats created a platform that left no room for the white working class.

Marginalized for years without working-class candidates or elected officials, "the white working class found their voice in Trump," says Justin Gest, assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of The New Minority: White Working Class Politics in an Age of Immigration and Inequality. "He speaks directly to conspiracy, frustration and a sense of powerlessness, and they're grateful he speaks to them." Trump, too, has worked hard to burnish his working-class cred, telling a crowd in Pennsylvania on Tuesday that he considers himself "in a certain way to be a blue-collar worker."

...In terms of the economy, white working-class women also differ from their male counterparts. While manufacturing concerns and the white working class may be linked in our cultural narrative (especially in Trump's campaign), the women were focused on different economic concerns-in particular, the cost of higher education and preschooling.

.... Single women tend to lean to the left, and in recent years white working-class marriage rates have fallen more sharply than those of their more educated and affluent counterparts, who are more likely to delay marriage than not get married at all, according to FiveThirtyEight's analysis of Census data. (Roughly 45 percent of white working-class women are unmarried, according to GQRR's Nancy Zdunkewicz). In a June/July national survey by GQRR, white working-class women put Trump 23 points ahead of Clinton in a three-way ballot, but when you looked at only unmarried white non-college-educated women, that gap was only 11 percent-a preview, if current trends continue, of a gap likely to grow in the future.

..For Democrats hoping to capitalize on this group, it's not obvious they can just swoop in and grab alienated women. For one thing, white working-class women don't necessarily trust Hillary Clinton any more than men do.

,,,For now, though, if Democrats continue bleeding white working-class men and women, the party's white base will be mostly highly educated and white collar, a perhaps uncomfortable shift for the so-called party of the people

Julia Sonenshein is California-born writer and editor living in New York City. Her work focuses on social-political issues like reproductive rights, American gun culture and intersectional feminism.

[Oct 15, 2016] Whats Behind a Rise in Ethnic Nationalism

Notable quotes:
"... 'End of Growth' Sparks Wide Discontent By Alastair Crooke (October 14, 2016, consortiumnews): The global elites' false promise that neoliberal economics would cure all ills through the elixir of endless growth helps explain the angry nationalist movements ripping apart the West's politics. ..."
"... Yes, that would seem transparently obvious to anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in defending the neoliberal programme. ..."
"... The last thing that powerful elites and their court economists want to talk about is the relationship between an increasingly unequal distribution of income and wealth and the rise of ethnic nationalism...it might force the elites to do something about it. One would think that that would entail redistribution. Unfortunately, increasing militarization of the police seems to be a far cheaper solution...for the short term. ..."
"... The elites used religious, tribal and ethnic, conflict to keep a lid on the rabble for thousands of years. They are supremely comfortable with this, it's part of the toolbox. ..."
"... However I think they are overly complacent because it appears to me that in an industrial society such conflicts now involve a lot more than a few hundred peasants going after each other with random farm implements. ..."
"... The media is shocked -- just shocked -- that a foreign government would tamper with US elections...such behavior is supposed to be off limits to anyone but the CIA and National Endowment for Democracy or their deputies... ..."
"... I'm not sure that Putin has a preference. It may be enough for him to show that Russia can play the destabilization card as well as NED. Displaying the profound corruption of the US political system also serves to undermine the US abroad, since much of its standing is based on the myth of its taking the moral high ground. International elites will have a harder time garnering support for pro-US policies, if those policies are seen as morally bankrupt. ..."
"... Establishment economists are making excuses for slow growth and poor policy by pointing at things like demographics and technology. Excuse-making isn't going to stem the rising tide of ethnic nationalism. Thomas Friedman's Flat World is turning into Tribalistic World. ..."
"... Many of the "Rich" love to push the dialectics of "ethnic nationalism" where none is to be found in reality ..."
"... the pointless destruction of the manufacturing sector of Western economies because of their decision to have private banking systems and eschew tariffs - no surprises here folks ..."
"... Of course economy plus consequences of the state of the economy, i.e. many people being treated like shit, without recourse, except turning away from mainstream politics (which isn't much of a recourse usually). ..."
"... external factors are much more significant in determining success or lack of it than any personal virtues or failings the individual may have. It is not even luck. ..."
"... People do not blame the actual causes of their lack of success. Instead, they seek and find scapegoats. Most Trumpista have heard all their lives from people they respect that black and latino people unfairly get special treatment. That overrides the reality. ..."
"... The comment started with: "When things aren't going as you expect or want, people always have to find someone to blame... since the ego works to prevent you blaming yourself." ..."
Oct 15, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Robert Shiller:
What's Behind a Rise in Ethnic Nationalism? Maybe the Economy : Global economic weakness and a rise in inequality appear to be causing a disturbing growth in ethnic nationalism. ...

In the United States, despite his attempts to woo minority voters, Donald J. Trump appears to derive support from such sentiment. In Moscow, Vladimir V. Putin has used Russian nationalist sentiment to inspire many of his countrymen. And we see growing ethnic political parties inspired by national identity in countless other countries.

It is natural to ask whether something so broad might have a common cause, other than the obvious circumstantial causes like the gradual fading of memories about the horrors of ethnic conflict in World War II or the rise in this century of forms of violent ethnic terrorism.

Economics is my specialty, and I think economic factors may explain at least part of the trend. ...

anne : Friday, October 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM

'End of Growth' Sparks Wide Discontent By Alastair Crooke (October 14, 2016, consortiumnews): The global elites' false promise that neoliberal economics would cure all ills through the elixir of endless growth helps explain the angry nationalist movements ripping apart the West's politics.

drb48 -> anne... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:06 PM
Yes, that would seem transparently obvious to anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in defending the neoliberal programme.
JohnH -> anne... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:37 PM
The last thing that powerful elites and their court economists want to talk about is the relationship between an increasingly unequal distribution of income and wealth and the rise of ethnic nationalism...it might force the elites to do something about it. One would think that that would entail redistribution. Unfortunately, increasing militarization of the police seems to be a far cheaper solution...for the short term.
Gibbon1 -> JohnH... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 11:32 PM
The elites used religious, tribal and ethnic, conflict to keep a lid on the rabble for thousands of years. They are supremely comfortable with this, it's part of the toolbox.

However I think they are overly complacent because it appears to me that in an industrial society such conflicts now involve a lot more than a few hundred peasants going after each other with random farm implements.

pgl : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 11:45 AM
Trump is now saying Mexican Carlos Slim wants to control our election. No worries Donald - Putin the Russian is trying really hard for you.
JohnH -> pgl... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 02:02 PM
Putin is just returning the favor...

The media is shocked -- just shocked -- that a foreign government would tamper with US elections...such behavior is supposed to be off limits to anyone but the CIA and National Endowment for Democracy or their deputies...

pgl -> JohnH... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 03:31 PM
Thank so much for the Pravda insights.
likbez -> pgl... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 07:43 PM
Paradoxically Pravda in old times did have real insights into the US political system and for this reason was widely read by specialists. Especially materials published by the Institute of the USA and Canada -- a powerful Russian think tank somewhat similar to the Council on Foreign Relations.

As for your remark I think for many people in the USA Russophobia is just displaced Anti-Semitism.

JohnH remark is actually very apt and you should not "misunderestimate" the level of understanding of the US political system by Russians. They did learn a lot about machinations of the neoliberal foreign policy, especially about so called "color revolutions." Hillary&Obama has had a bloody nose when they tried to stage a "color revolution" in 2011-2012 in Russia (so called "white revolution). A typical US citizen probably never heard about it or heard only about "Pussy riot", Navalny and couple of other minor figures. At the end poor ambassador Michael McFaul was recalled. NED was expelled. Of course Russia is just a pale shadow of the USSR power-wise, so Obama later put her on sanctions using MH17 incident as a pretext with no chances of retaliation. They also successfully implemented regime change in Ukraine -- blooding Putin nose in return.

But I actually disagree with JohnH. First of all Putin does not need to interfere in a way like the USA did in 2011-2012. It would be a waist of resources as both candidates are probably equally bad for Russia (and it is the "deep state" which actually dictates the US foreign policy, not POTUS.)

The US political system is already the can of worms and the deterioration of neoliberal society this time created almost revolutionary situation in Marxists terms, when Repug elite was not able to control the nomination. Democratic establishment still did OK and managed to squash the rebellion, but here the level of degeneration demonstrated itself in the selection of the candidate.

Taking into account the level of dysfunction of the US political system, I am not so sure the Trump is preferable to Hillary for Russians. I would say he is more unpredictable and more dangerous. The main danger of Hillary is Syria war escalation, but the same is true for Trump who can turn into the second John McCain on a dime.

Also the difference between two should not be exaggerated. Both are puppets of the forces the brought them to the current level and in their POTUS role will need to be subservient to the "deep state". Or at least to take into account its existence and power. And that makes them more of prisoners of the position they want so much.

Trump probably to lesser extent then Hillary, but he also can't ignore the deep state. Both require the support of Republican Congress for major legislative initiatives. And it will very hostile to Hillary. Which is a major advantage for Russians, as this excludes the possibility of some very stupid moves.

Again, IMHO in no way any of them will control the US foreign policy. In this area the deep state is in charge since Allen Dulles and those who try to deviate too much might end as badly as JFK. I think Obama understood this very well and did not try to rock the boat. And there are people who will promptly explain this to Trump in a way that he understands.

In other words, neither of them will escape the limit on their power that "deep state" enforces. And that virtually guarantee the continuity of the foreign policy, with just slight tactical variations.

So why Russians should prefer one to another? You can elect a dog as POTUS and the foreign policy of the USA will be virtually the same as with Hillary or Trump.

In internal policy Trump looks more dangerous and more willing to experiment, while Hillary is definitely a "status quo" candidate. The last thing Russians needs is the US stock market crush. So from the point of internal economic policy Hillary is also preferable.

A lot of pundits stress the danger of war with Russia, and that might be true as women in high political position try to outdo men in hawkishness. But here Hillary jingoism probably will be tightly controlled by the "deep state". Hillary definitely tried to be "More Catholic then the Pope" in this area while being the Secretary of State. That did not end well for her and she might learn the lesson.

But if you think about the amount of "compromat" (Russian term ;-) on Hillary and Bill that Russians may well already collected, in "normal circumstances" she might be a preferable counterpart for Russians. As in "devil that we know". Both Lavrov and Putin met Hillary. Medvedev was burned by Hillary. Taking into account the level of greed Hillary displayed during her career, I would be worried what Russians have on her, as well as on Bill "transgressions" and RICO-style actions of Clinton Foundation.

And taking into account the level of disgust amount the government officials with Hillary (and this is not limited to Secret Service) , new leaks are quite possible, which might further complicate her position as POTUS. In worst case, the first year (or two) leaks will continue. Especially if damaging DNC leaks were the work of some disgruntled person within the USA intelligence and not of some foreign hacker group. That might be a plus for Russians as such a constant distraction might limit her possibility to make some stupid move in Syria. Or not.

As you know personal emails boxes for all major Web mail providers are just one click away for NSA analysts. So "Snowden II" hypothesis might have the right to exist.

Also it is quite probably that impeachment process for Hillary will start soon after her election. In the House Republicans have enough votes to try it. That also might be a plus for s for both Russia and China. Trump is extremely jingoistic as for Iran, and that might be another area were Hillary is preferable to Russians and Chinese over Trump.

Also do not discount her health problems. She does have some serious neurological disease, which eventually might kill her. How fast she will deteriorate is not known but in a year or two the current symptoms might become more pronounced. If Bill have STD (and sometime he looks like a person with HIV; http://joeforamerica.com/2016/07/bill-clinton-aids/) that further complicates that picture (this is just a rumor, but he really looks bad).

I think that all those factors make her an equal, or even preferable candidate for such states as Russia and China.

JohnH -> likbez... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 09:46 PM
I'm not sure that Putin has a preference. It may be enough for him to show that Russia can play the destabilization card as well as NED. Displaying the profound corruption of the US political system also serves to undermine the US abroad, since much of its standing is based on the myth of its taking the moral high ground. International elites will have a harder time garnering support for pro-US policies, if those policies are seen as morally bankrupt.

Procopius -> likbez... October 16, 2016 at 05:01 AM

Your analysis does give me some comfort. My greatest fear is that the Deep State seems to currently be in disarray. Their actions in Syria are divided, contradictory, foolish, counterproductive, and without direction.

Obama has mostly obviously obeyed the Deep State but has seemed to sometimes "nudge" them in a direction that seems to me better for the country. The deal with Iran is an exception. It's significant, but it is both sensible and pragmatic. It's hard to believe anything as important as that was not sanctioned by the Deep State, in defiance of Israel, and yet it is quite uncharacteristic of the Deep State's behavior over the last fifteen years.

DrDick : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:05 PM
The existing research literature on ethnonationalism would generally support this, though rising inequality around the world is at least as important.
likbez -> to anne...
Anne,

You probably can start with

https://www.amazon.com/Ethnonationalism-Walker-Connor/dp/0691025630

There are useful pages on the Web related to particular flavors, for example Ukrainian nationalism.

The term "American exceptionalism" is a politically correct term for American nationalism so any literature on that will give you overview too.

anne -> likbez...

https://www.amazon.com/Ethnonationalism-Walker-Connor/dp/0691025630

1993

Ethnonationalism
By Walker Connor

Walker Connor, perhaps the leading student of the origins and dynamics of ethnonationalism, has consistently stressed the importance of its political implications. In these essays, which have appeared over the course of the last three decades, he argues that Western scholars and policymakers have almost invariably underrated the influence of ethnonationalism and misinterpreted its passionate and nonrational qualities....

[ I do appreciate the reference, which strikes me as fine since I would like to read older essays or essays extending over a few decades for perspective on the matter. I will begin here. ]

JohnH -> anne... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 12:43 PM
I think that the rise of Nazi Germany would be ample proof of the power of ethnic nationalism during an economic crisis. Now we get Trump...
Peter K. : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 01:05 PM
Brexit. Theresa May's recent speeches at the Conservative conference was very nationalistic and Little Englander. See Benjamin Friedman's book The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth.

Establishment economists are making excuses for slow growth and poor policy by pointing at things like demographics and technology. Excuse-making isn't going to stem the rising tide of ethnic nationalism. Thomas Friedman's Flat World is turning into Tribalistic World.

kthomas -> Peter K.... , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 01:32 PM
Your usual theatrics, but I largely agree with you lattermost statement. Things are always best when we share. Tribesman can be especially selfish, even amongst themselves.
Ben Groves : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 01:50 PM
Frankly, I am not seeing it. Many of the "Rich" love to push the dialectics of "ethnic nationalism" where none is to be found in reality or manipulated like half-jew Donald Trump, who is being run by the rothschild flank in Russia due to his disaster when he went with fellow jews during the post-Soviet Oligarch scam. Much like all his businesses, it flopped. He owes the bank of russia(owned by rothschild) 100's of millions of dollars. They own him.

The point? The "monied elite" tell you what they want you to believe. The dialectical illusion and collision of the duelism is how they stay in power. I feel bad for Trump supporters, most are old and not very smart. But I also feel bad for Trump opposition who refuse to bring this up, mainly because they are financed by the same crowd(aka the Clinton have worked with Rothschild as well, they come from the same cloth).

Growth adjusted for population was not overly impressive in the 70's or 90's. Yet...............

likbez : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 02:47 PM
Neoliberalism creates an impulse for nationalism in several ways:

1. It destroys human solidarity. And resorting to nationalism in a compensational mechanism to restore it in human societies. that's why the elite often resorts to foreign wars if it feels that it losing the control over peons.

2. Neoliberalism impoverishes the majority of population enriching top 1% and provokes the search for scapegoats. Which in the past traditionally were Jews. Now look like MSM are trying to substitute them for Russians

3. Usually the rise of nationalism is correlated with the crisis in the society. There is a crisis of neoliberalsm that we experience in the USA now: after 2008 neoliberalism entered zombie state, when the ideology is discredited, but forces behind it are way too strong for any social change to be implemented. Much like was the case during "Brezhnev socialism" in the USSR.

So those who claim that we are experiencing replay of late 1920th on a new level might be partially right. With the important difference that it does not make sense to establish fascist dictatorship in the USA. Combination of "Inverted totalitarism" and "national security state" already achieved the same major objectives with much less blood and violence.

spirit of forgotten American protectionism : , Friday, October 14, 2016 at 09:46 PM
the pointless destruction of the manufacturing sector of Western economies because of their decision to have private banking systems and eschew tariffs - no surprises here folks
cm -> cm... , -1
Of course economy plus consequences of the state of the economy, i.e. many people being treated like shit, without recourse, except turning away from mainstream politics (which isn't much of a recourse usually).

cm -> Longtooth... October 15, 2016 at 02:19 PM

This analysis totally misses the point that often external factors are much more significant in determining success or lack of it than any personal virtues or failings the individual may have. It is not even luck.

Procopius -> cm... October 16, 2016 at 05:22 AM

I think you miss Longtooth's point. You are, of course, right that personal virtues or failings usually have no effect on success or lack of it, but if I understand Longtooth correctly, he is saying that's irrelevant. People do not blame the actual causes of their lack of success. Instead, they seek and find scapegoats. Most Trumpista have heard all their lives from people they respect that black and latino people unfairly get special treatment. That overrides the reality.

cm -> Procopius...

The comment started with: "When things aren't going as you expect or want, people always have to find someone to blame... since the ego works to prevent you blaming yourself."

[Oct 14, 2016] To all Sanders supporters.  Your hero sold out to the devil.

Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
SharkBit Oct 14, 2016 9:20 AM To all Sanders supporters. Your hero sold out to the devil. Your party is corrupt to the core. If you care about America, voting Trump is the only way out of this Shit Show. Otherwise, we all die as that corrupt bitch of your party is crazy enough to take the USA into WWIII. You may not like Trump but he is nothing compared to the Clinton Crime Family and all its globalist tenacles.

[Oct 14, 2016] "Is he remaining quiet because they promised him something?"

Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
Crash Overide Paul Kersey Oct 14, 2016 10:16 AM "Is he remaining quiet because they promised him something?"

I mean I don't know, you tell me...

Bernie Sanders buys his 3rd home worth $600,000 shortly after he left the presidential race...

zuuma Crash Overide Oct 14, 2016 11:04 AM Nicely done for a man who never had a paying job until age 40.

And then only government jobs. Bastiat Crash Overide Oct 14, 2016 11:11 AM "Cha-ching!"

"Money, it's a hit

Don't give me none of that do-goody good bullshit"

Pink Floyd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkhX5W7JoWI

Oldwood Crash Overide Oct 14, 2016 11:41 AM bought and paid for

[Oct 14, 2016] why are all these suckers using gmail anyway?

Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
Lumberjack Oct 14, 2016 9:18 AM Wikileaks dump #7 has arrived:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?new&q=&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=...

Lumberjack Lumberjack Oct 14, 2016 9:26 AM Has it leaked yet?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9252

Tom Servo Lumberjack Oct 14, 2016 9:47 AM why are all these cocksuckers using gmail anyway?

[Oct 14, 2016] Hillary Clinton asks for landslide victory to rebuke Trumps bigotry and bullying

Killary only can beg that voters hold their noses and vote for her. Guardian neoliberal presstitutes still don't want to understand that Hillary is more dangerous then trump, Sge with her attempt that she is more militant then male neocons can really provoke a confrontation with Russia or China.
Notable quotes:
"... War at home versus another foreign war, nothing will get through Congress, and either will get impeached...so third party all the way for me. ..."
"... Keep in mind, the election is not over and that drip, drip, drip of Hillary emails may push more people towards Trump. ..."
"... Shameless. Absolutely shameless, Guardian. This is not-even-disguised Clinton sycophancy... ..."
"... Clinton has everything going for her. The media, the banks, big business, the UN, foreign leaders, special interest lobbyists, silicon valley, establishment Republicans. How can she not win in an landslide?! ..."
"... We came, we saw, and he grabbed some pussy. ..."
"... It seems nobody wants to talk about what is really going on here - instead we are fed this bilge from both sides about 'sexual misconduct' and other fluff ..."
"... The stagnation of middle-class incomes in the West may last another five decades or more. ..."
"... This calls into question either the sustainability of democracy under such conditions or the sustainability of globalization. ..."
"... These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its continuation. ..."
"... But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization. ..."
Oct 14, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

Julian Kelley , 14 Oct 2016 02:47

The vast majority of her support comes from people that will be holding their noses as they vote for her. Seems to me that convincing those same people that you have it in the bag will just cause them to think voting isn't worth their time since they don't want to anyway.

I know Trump's supporters, the real ones, and the anyone-but-Hillary club will show up as well. Funny if this backfires and he wins.

I won't be voting for either one and couldn't care less which one wins. War at home versus another foreign war, nothing will get through Congress, and either will get impeached...so third party all the way for me.

Apache287 -> Julian Kelley , 14 Oct 2016 02:57

War at home versus another foreign war

Yes because War in the US will be so great.

... ... ...

AQuietNight -> playloro , 14 Oct 2016 02:56
"Trump has to be the limit, and there has to be a re-alignment"

Trump has shown one must fight fire with fire. The days of the meek and mild GOP are over. Twice they tried with nice guys and failed. Trump has clearly shown come out with both fists swinging and you attract needed media and you make the conversation about you. Trump's mistake was not seeking that bit of polish that leaves your opponent on the floor.

Keep in mind, the election is not over and that drip, drip, drip of Hillary emails may push more people towards Trump.

taxhaven , 14 Oct 2016 02:50
Shameless. Absolutely shameless, Guardian. This is not-even-disguised Clinton sycophancy...
tugend49

For every woman that's been sexually harassed, bullied, raped, assaulted, catcalled, groped, objectified, and treated lesser than, a landslide victory for Clinton would be an especially sweet "Fuck You" to the Trumps of this world.

DJROM -> tugend49 , 14 Oct 2016 03:17

Tell that to Juanita Brodrick, Katherine Willie, or Paula Jones
SwingState , 14 Oct 2016 02:53

Clinton has everything going for her. The media, the banks, big business, the UN, foreign leaders, special interest lobbyists, silicon valley, establishment Republicans. How can she not win in an landslide?!

It might be a reaction against Trump, but it's also a depressing example of the power of the establishment, and their desire for control in democracy. Just look at how they squealed at Brexit.

chuckledog -> SwingState , 14 Oct 2016 03:06
Rather low opinion of people's ability to decide for themselves.
AlvaroBo -> chuckledog , 14 Oct 2016 03:13
That low opinion is justified. See also: Asch experiment.
Kieran Brown -> SwingState , 14 Oct 2016 03:52
"squealed at Brexit" hahaha...hasnt happened yet and your currency is in the toilet. the squealing from england gonna be deafening...
Boojay , 14 Oct 2016 02:54
It takes a horrible man to make Clinton look good. We came, we saw, and he grabbed some pussy.
SeenItAlready , 14 Oct 2016 02:55
It seems nobody wants to talk about what is really going on here - instead we are fed this bilge from both sides about 'sexual misconduct' and other fluff

There is a report from two years ago, July 2014, before the candidates had even been selected, by the economist Branko Milanovic for Yale 'Global' about the impact of Globalisation on the Lower Middle Classes in the West and how this was basically going to turn into exactly the choice the American electorate is facing now

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/tale-two-middle-classes

Why won't the media discuss these issues instead of pushing this pointless circus?

These are the penultimate paragraphs of the article on the report (there is a similar one for the Harvard Business Review here ):

The populists warn disgruntled voters that economic trends observed during the past three decades are just the first wave of cheap labor from Asia pitted in direct competition with workers in the rich world, and more waves are on the way from poorer lands in Asia and Africa. The stagnation of middle-class incomes in the West may last another five decades or more.

This calls into question either the sustainability of democracy under such conditions or the sustainability of globalization.

If globalization is derailed, the middle classes of the West may be relieved from the immediate pressure of cheaper Asian competition. But the longer-term costs to themselves and their countries, let alone to the poor in Asia and Africa, will be high. Thus, the interests and the political power of the middle classes in the rich world put them in a direct conflict with the interests of the worldwide poor.

These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its continuation.

But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization.

Martin51 -> SeenItAlready , 14 Oct 2016 09:19
Globalisation will continue to happen. It has pulled a large part of the world population out of poverty and grown the global economy.

Sure on the downside it has also hugely benefitted the 1%, while the western middle classes have done relatively less well and blue collar workers have suffered as they seek to turn to other types (less well paid) of work.

The issue is the speed of change, how to manage globalisation and spread the wealth more equitably. Maybe it will require slowing but it cannot and should not be stopped.

ozbornzadick , 14 Oct 2016 02:56
Ah, the lesser of two evils.

[Oct 13, 2016] Our Famously Free Press helped to exterminate Sanders like unwannted pest using all kind of dirty tricks

Notable quotes:
"... I have never before seen the press take sides like they did this year, openly and even gleefully bad-mouthing candidates who did not meet with their approval. ..."
"... This shocked me when I first noticed it. It felt like the news stories went out of their way to mock Sanders or to twist his words, while the op-ed pages, which of course don't pretend to be balanced, seemed to be of one voice in denouncing my candidate. ..."
"... I propose that we look into this matter methodically, and that we do so by examining Sanders-related opinion columns in a single publication: the Washington Post, ..."
"... its practitioners have never aimed to be nonpartisan. They do not, therefore, show media bias in the traditional sense. But maybe the traditional definition needs to be updated. We live in an era of reflexive opinionating and quasi opinionating, and we derive much of our information about the world from websites that have themselves blurred the distinction between reporting and commentary, or obliterated it completely. ..."
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... Post ..."
Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Neoliberal press serves its neoliberal paymasters. As simple of that. There is no even hint of Us press being press. In certain aspects US jounalists are more "solgers of the Party" then their colleagues in the Brezhnev time Pravda and Izvesia.

From [Essay] Swat Team, by Thomas Frank Harper's Magazine - Part 3 By Thomas Frank

For once, a politician like Sanders seemed to have a chance with the public. He won a stunning victory over Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, and despite his advanced age and avuncular finger-wagging, he was wildly popular among young voters. Eventually he was flattened by the Clinton juggernaut, of course, but Sanders managed to stay competitive almost all the way to the California primary in June.

His chances with the prestige press were considerably more limited. Before we go into details here, let me confess: I was a Sanders voter, and even interviewed him back in 2014, so perhaps I am naturally inclined to find fault in others' reporting on his candidacy. Perhaps it was the very particular media diet I was on in early 2016, which consisted of daily megadoses of the New York Times and the Washington Post and almost nothing else. Even so, I have never before seen the press take sides like they did this year, openly and even gleefully bad-mouthing candidates who did not meet with their approval.

This shocked me when I first noticed it. It felt like the news stories went out of their way to mock Sanders or to twist his words, while the op-ed pages, which of course don't pretend to be balanced, seemed to be of one voice in denouncing my candidate. A New York Times article greeted the Sanders campaign in December by announcing that the public had moved away from his signature issue of the crumbling middle class. "Americans are more anxious about terrorism than income inequality," the paper declared-nice try, liberal, and thanks for playing. In March, the Times was caught making a number of post-publication tweaks to a news story about the senator, changing what had been a sunny tale of his legislative victories into a darker account of his outrageous proposals. When Sanders was finally defeated in June, the same paper waved him goodbye with a bedtime-for-Grandpa headline, hillary clinton made history, but bernie sanders stubbornly ignored it.

I propose that we look into this matter methodically, and that we do so by examining Sanders-related opinion columns in a single publication: the Washington Post, the conscience of the nation's political class and one of America's few remaining first-rate news organizations. I admire the Post 's investigative and beat reporting. What I will focus on here, however, are pieces published between January and May 2016 on the paper's editorial and op-ed pages, as well as on its many blogs. Now, editorials and blog posts are obviously not the same thing as news stories: punditry is my subject here, and its practitioners have never aimed to be nonpartisan. They do not, therefore, show media bias in the traditional sense. But maybe the traditional definition needs to be updated. We live in an era of reflexive opinionating and quasi opinionating, and we derive much of our information about the world from websites that have themselves blurred the distinction between reporting and commentary, or obliterated it completely. For many of us, this ungainly hybrid is the news. What matters, in any case, is that all the pieces I review here, whether they appeared in pixels or in print, bear the imprimatur of the Washington Post, the publication that defines the limits of the permissible in the capital city.

... ... ...

On January 27, with the Iowa caucuses just days away, Dana Milbank nailed it with a headline: nominating sanders would be insane . After promising that he adored the Vermont senator, he cautioned his readers that "socialists don't win national elections in the United States." The next day, the paper's editorial board chimed in with a campaign full of fiction , in which they branded Sanders as a kind of flimflam artist: "Mr. Sanders is not a brave truth-teller. He is a politician selling his own brand of fiction to a slice of the country that eagerly wants to buy it."

Stung by the Post 's trolling, Bernie Sanders fired back-which in turn allowed no fewer than three of the paper's writers to report on the conflict between the candidate and their employer as a bona fide news item. Sensing weakness, the editorial board came back the next morning with yet another kidney punch, this one headlined the real problem with mr. sanders . By now, you can guess what that problem was: his ideas weren't practical, and besides, he still had "no plausible plan for plugging looming deficits as the population ages."

... ... ...

After the previous week's lesson about Glass Steagall, the editorial board now instructed politicians to stop reviling tarp -i.e., the Wall Street bailouts with which the Bush and Obama Administrations tried to halt the financial crisis. The bailouts had been controversial, the paper acknowledged, but they were also bipartisan, and opposing or questioning them in the Sanders manner was hereby declared anathema. After all, the editorial board intoned:

Contrary to much rhetoric, Wall Street banks and bankers still took losses and suffered upheaval, despite the bailout-but TARP helped limit the collateral damage that Main Street suffered from all of that. If not for the ingenuity of the executive branch officials who designed and carried out the program, and the responsibility of the legislators who approved it, the United States would be in much worse shape economically.

As a brief history of the financial crisis and the bailout, this is absurd. It is true that bailing out Wall Street was probably better than doing absolutely nothing, but saying this ignores the many other options that were available to public officials had they shown any real ingenuity in holding institutions accountable. All the Wall Street banks that existed at the time of TARP are flourishing to this day, since the government moved heaven and earth to spare them the consequences of the toxic securities they had issued and the lousy mortgage bets they made. The big banks were "made whole," as the saying goes. Main Street banks, meanwhile, died off by the hundreds in 2009 and 2010. And average home owners, of course, got no comparable bailout. Instead, Main Street America saw trillions in household wealth disappear; it entered into a prolonged recession, with towering unemployment, increasing inequality, and other effects that linger to this day. There has never been a TARP for the rest of us.

... ... ...

Charles Krauthammer went into action on January 29, too, cautioning the Democrats that they "would be risking a November electoral disaster of historic dimensions" should they nominate Sanders-cynical advice that seems even more poisonous today, as scandal after scandal engulfs the Democratic candidate that so many Post pundits favored.

... ... ...

The Iowa caucuses came the next day, and Stephen Stromberg was at the keyboard to identify the "three delusions" that supposedly animated the campaigns of Sanders and the Republican Ted Cruz alike. Namely: they had abandoned the "center," they believed that things were bad in the United States, and they perceived an epidemic of corruption-in Sanders's case, corruption via billionaires and campaign contributions. Delusions all.

... ... ...

On and on it went, for month after month, a steady drumbeat of denunciation. The paper hit every possible anti-Sanders note, from the driest kind of math-based policy reproach to the lowest sort of nerd-shaming-from his inexcusable failure to embrace taxes on soda pop to his awkward gesticulating during a debate with Hillary Clinton ("an unrelenting hand jive," wrote Post dance critic Sarah L. Kaufman, "that was missing only an upright bass and a plunky piano").

The paper's piling-up of the senator's faults grew increasingly long and complicated. Soon after Sanders won the New Hampshire primary, the editorial board denounced him and Trump both as "unacceptable leaders" who proposed "simple-sounding" solutions. Sanders used the plutocracy as a "convenient scapegoat." He was hostile to nuclear power. He didn't have a specific recipe for breaking up the big banks. He attacked trade deals with "bogus numbers that defy the overwhelming consensus among economists." This last charge was a particular favorite of Post pundits: David Ignatius and Charles Lane both scolded the candidate for putting prosperity at risk by threatening our trade deals. Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer grew so despondent over the meager 2016 options that he actually pined for the lost days of the Bill Clinton presidency, when America was tough on crime, when welfare was being reformed, and when free trade was accorded its proper respect.

... ... ...

The danger of Trump became an overwhelming fear as primary season drew to a close, and it redoubled the resentment toward Sanders. By complaining about mistreatment from the Democratic apparatus, the senator was supposedly weakening the party before its coming showdown with the billionaire blowhard. This matter, like so many others, found columnists and bloggers and op-ed panjandrums in solemn agreement. Even Eugene Robinson, who had stayed fairly neutral through most of the primary season, piled on in a May 20 piece, blaming Sanders and his noisy horde for "deliberately stoking anger and a sense of grievance-less against Clinton than the party itself," actions that "could put Trump in the White House." By then, the paper had buttressed its usual cast of pundits with heavy hitters from outside its own peculiar ecosystem. In something of a journalistic coup, the Post opened its blog pages in April to Jeffrey R. Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, so that he, too, could join in the chorus of denunciation aimed at the senator from Vermont. Comfort the comfortable, I suppose-and while you're at it, be sure to afflict the afflicted.

... ... ...

It should be noted that there were some important exceptions to what I have described. The paper's blogs, for instance, published regular pieces by Sanders sympathizers like Katrina vanden Heuvel and the cartoonist Tom Toles. (The blogs also featured the efforts of a few really persistent Clinton haters.) The Sunday Outlook section once featured a pro-Sanders essay by none other than Ralph Nader, a kind of demon figure and clay pigeon for many of the paper's commentators. But readers of the editorial pages had to wait until May 26 to see a really full-throated essay supporting Sanders's legislative proposals. Penned by Jeffrey Sachs, the eminent economist and professor at Columbia University, it insisted that virtually all the previous debate on the subject had been irrelevant, because standard economic models did not take into account the sort of large-scale reforms that Sanders was advocating:

It's been decades since the United States had a progressive economic strategy, and mainstream economists have forgotten what one can deliver. In fact, Sanders's recipes are supported by overwhelming evidence-notably from countries that already follow the policies he advocates. On health care, growth and income inequality, Sanders wins the policy debate hands down.

It was a striking departure from what nearly every opinionator had been saying for the preceding six months. Too bad it came just eleven days before the Post, following the lead of the Associated Press, declared Hillary Clinton to be the preemptive winner of the Democratic nomination.

What can we learn from reviewing one newspaper's lopsided editorial treatment of a left-wing presidential candidate?

For one thing, we learn that the Washington Post, that gallant defender of a free press, that bold bringer-down of presidents, has a real problem with some types of political advocacy. Certain ideas, when voiced by certain people, are not merely debatable or incorrect or misguided, in the paper's view: they are inadmissible. The ideas themselves might seem healthy, they might have a long and distinguished history, they might be commonplace in other lands. Nevertheless, when voiced by the people in question, they become damaging.

... ... ...

Clinging to this so-called pragmatism is also professionally self-serving. If "realism" is recognized as the ultimate trump card in American politics, it automatically prioritizes the thoughts and observations of the realism experts-also known as the Washington Post and its brother institutions of insider knowledge and professional policy practicality. Realism is what these organizations deal in; if you want it, you must come to them. Legitimacy is quite literally their property. They dole it out as they see fit.

There is the admiration for consensus, the worship of pragmatism and bipartisanship, the contempt for populist outcry, the repeated equating of dissent with partisan disloyalty. And think of the specific policy pratfalls: the cheers for TARP, the jeers aimed at bank regulation, the dismissal of single-payer health care as a preposterous dream.

This stuff is not mysterious. We can easily identify the political orientation behind it from one of the very first pages of the Roger Tory Peterson Field Guide to the Ideologies. This is common Seaboard Centrism, its markings of complacency and smugness as distinctive as ever, its habitat the familiar Beltway precincts of comfort and exclusivity. Whether you encounter it during a recession or a bull market, its call is the same: it reassures us that the experts who head up our system of government have everything well under control.

It is, of course, an ideology of the professional class, of sound-minded East Coast strivers, fresh out of Princeton or Harvard, eagerly quoting as "authorities" their peers in the other professions, whether economists at MIT or analysts at Credit Suisse or political scientists at Brookings. Above all, this is an insider's ideology; a way of thinking that comes from a place of economic security and takes a view of the common people that is distinctly patrician.

[Oct 13, 2016] 'Anonymous' Remembers Hillary Clinton, Career Criminal Zero Hedge

Oct 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
Unlike Reuters' political "reporters" , it seems the hacker collective "Anonymous" is less impressed by Hillary Clinton's awesomeness. Following Wikileaks' recent release of leaks, Anonymous reminds Americans of the 'career criminal' in a video containing a well researched list of wrong-doings, exposing the actions of Hillary over her career .

This includes things like:

  • fraud investigations
  • conflicts of interest
  • political corruption
  • wrongful pardons
  • campaign and finance law violations
  • business & political scandals
  • This is only a small list of what is explored in the video below...

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/wK2K5v5bm0Q

    AnoNews explains Why This Matters

    With so much exposed already, why do we continue to follow, allow, and accept people like Hillary and Trump as potentials to be country leaders? Truly think about it. Can we even take a system that puts these two so high up in the ranks seriously?

    Is this not the perfect storm to allow us to wake up to the reality of our current state? We should be thankful that this is going on so we can help wake up the world and begin a conversation about what we can legitimately do next.

    This isn't about Trump vs Clinton. That is merely the illusion we are being invited to believe. This is about awakening to the fact that our system is absurd and that it's time to do something different. What is the answer? That is what we must discuss instead of playing this broken political game of dividing and choosing who to "vote" for.

    Occident Mortal Kidbuck Oct 12, 2016 3:41 AM Any journalist should feel enormous professional humilation and deep personal shame at the fact a bunch of teenagers are offering more scrutiny on this presidential candidate than the entire press industry.

    What a pathetic weak press this country has. All bought, every last one of them. CuttingEdge Occident Mortal Oct 12, 2016 4:12 AM Its not a matter of tolerance, it is a matter of wilfull ignorance.

    Guided and also manufactured to a great degree by an MSM-fabricated matrix of misinformation at the behest of the fuckers pulling the strings. The disinterest in the morals of policy and action and their effect on millions of people both at home and abroad is quite jaw-dropping, and a sad reflection on how low society (not just in the US) has fallen.

    However Brexit proved all hope is not lost and sheeple can develop an awareness (probaly as a result of the intimidating bullshit they were being fed).

    Vote Trump 2016 sun tzu Occident Mortal Oct 12, 2016 6:00 AM Presstitutes have no shame or morals quadraspleen Occident Mortal Oct 12, 2016 6:17 AM Anonymous aren't any single bunch of anything, let alone a bunch of teenagers. That's the point. They are everyone and no-one. Lots of milsec white hats use their cover. Hell, a few of them are deep NSA and .gov peeps just pissed at the way their erstwhile "honourable" (yeah, right) agencies have been co-opted by crooks like her We no longer have statesmen. We have technocrats or "temporarily displaced bankers." Stranger_in_a_S... crazzziecanuck Oct 12, 2016 11:00 AM

    I wish you could say that was happening. I just don't see it at all. I see things getting worse, and it's this "business" mentality that is sucking the rest of us all down beneath the waves to drown.

    I tend to agree.

    Though just personal anecdote, in my career, I've seen this 'business mentality' at work, and it can be ugly.

    For instance, I was in the room, to hear the CFO and COO discuss how to 'reach the numbers' so that the COO would get his bonus. The decision in this case was to rid 100+ employees, many with decades of experience and accumulated skillsets, to reduce costs, hit the 'correct' bottom line for a quarter or two, and voila! Company 'hit the numbers' and COO gets his bonus...in addition to the already lucrative salary, well beyond what most would 'need'. Within a week of the bonus, he drives up in a flashy, new, red sportscar. Should have witnessed the rage many of the remaining, spared employees that had watched their friends/coworkers get axed and still remain unemployed; there were literally conversations about lighting that car on fire in the parking lot.

    There were similar decisions to gobble up local and other national competitor shops. Some were immediately shut down and everyone axed, but some with more glowing numbers that could be used to pad forecasts, were kept on for a short while. After saddling the company with immense debt to cover the acquisitions, boosting the sales and forecast figures 'on paper' for the foreseeable near future, he penned himself a nice, shiny résumé about 'increasing sales 4x in just a year' landed himself a different COO job in California and left. Soon thereafter, when the weight of everything crashed down (scarce employees, with little skill left to efficiently accomplish a quality product...both measures suffering/declining), those acquisitions were shut down and the original company is now scarcely a shadow of what it was, thereby causing more layoffs and terminations. Now the $150 million +/year company, with 900 employees, is a $10 million/year company, with 200 employees.

    But that COO? He's living it up in CA, several companies later, and my periodic checkup on the 'net shows he's done similarly a few more times, yet entrenched in the network of corporate boards/COOs that still perpetuate this scheme. Contrary to 'building' anything, they construct a false narrative and tear everyone down in the process. But he and his cohorts get rich.

    No, not everyone at that level does this, but the incentives are such that it is very tempting to follow suit and a review of corporate history in this nation shows it is/was quite typical over many decades...because it works for those that engage this behavior.

    Sound familiar to U.S. policy abroad? michelp luckylongshot Oct 12, 2016 10:37 AM "The answer is to start studying what it takes to apply power productively and use the findings to select and train appropriate leaders."

    Sorry but! In the currupt USA run by zio and war machines any 'appropriate leader' is DOA (Dead on Arrival.) Donald J. Trump tbd108 Oct 12, 2016 3:58 AM As I'm sure there are some that put Ttump on a high horse, I think most Trump supporters are supporting him because of the exact reason they are fed up with system as aanonymous says. Trump is a big middle finger to the status quo of Washington politics. I for one hope he does as he says he will do to hopefully right the ship of the US. He may even sink the ship but it's going down already, he's our only chance to right it. What he's done takes a certain level of celebrity, balls, and money, and I can't think of another person who could do what he has done. As great a cure Trump may be for our country, there are some side effects so talk to your doctor to see if Trump is right for you. Dial 1(844)LIB-TARD or (855)LIB-TARD for a free sample of Trump.

    Btw- those phone numbers are available if someone could actually make a good use for it. I'm also interested if the other exchanges that are already taken have anything to with libtards.

    [Oct 13, 2016] I am surprised that Trump is not making the Podesta Wikileaks into a major story.

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ProNewerDeal October 12, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    I am surprised that Trump is not making the Podesta Wikileaks into a major story. Perhaps Trump is not earnestly trying to actually win, or Trump is a Bush43/Palin level low IQ person.

    Trump & his media spokeshacks could repeat "Podesta Wikileaks show HClinton's actual 'private position' is cut SS & MC, & pro-TPP. Trump will not cut SS & MC, & will veto TPP. Vote for Trump". Even if Trump is lying, Trump could "pull an 0bama 2008 on NAFTA" & privately tell PRyan/Trump BigFunders/Owners Trump's actual plan.

    IMHO Trump could possibly win if he took such an approach. Why isn't he doing so?

    [Oct 12, 2016] NYT, WaPo, CNN and friends are not press . They are propaganda outlets of the neoliberal elite

    Notable quotes:
    "... They were in active collusion with the 1990s Clinton campaigns too, but I didn't have Wikileaks around to confirm it, or the internets for alternative sources of information. I suspected it anyway. I finally cut the cord after 2002. ..."
    "... Well the NYT, WaPo, CNN et al have shot themselves in the foot with this blatant collusion with the Clinton campaign. They've pissed off their most intelligent readers & viewers, shown themselves to be knaves and fools, and what are they going to say when HRC is president and investigated up the wazoo for corruption? ..."
    "... If you defeat Trump, you prevail over one guy. When Clinton is defeated, you win over all those 'with her.' ..."
    "... Yes… But leverage much higher than 100:1… Not just MSM, but banks, neocons, corrupt ceo's, and all these alphabet groups keeping us safe… Hopefully he'd be vindictive against all the elites trying to defeat him. ..."
    "... Some combination of "it's a Russian plot" and "we told you so." The MSM - they know everything. ..."
    "... NEVER overestimate the intelligence of the American public. If Hillary can get an 11 point lead over a salacious story that affects almost nobody and yet get no drop in popularity over revelations that will affect everyone's lives, I don't think there is much hope that the NYT, WaPo, CNN, et al, will get their comeuppance. But Americans who drink in what these MSM sites are feeding them WILL get the President they so obviously deserve, won't they? ..."
    "... Yes, it's the public's fault… despite being subject to the most brutal propaganda campaign in history and being assaulted by years of neoliberalism that barely gives them time to breathe between their three zero-hour contract jobs, it's their fault and they deserve a president who will grand-bargain away their social security benefits, TPP away the few remaining good jobs and start a civilisation-threatening war with Russia. ..."
    "... And just for the record (/sarc), HRC only has an 11-point lead because most people won't be voting anyway, as they've correctly surmised that the system is completely rigged against them. ..."
    "... I have not seen the data on that poll but I doubt that it is a "scientific poll". Many of the polls that I have taken the time to look at the data shows that they avoid asking 35 and under voters and heavily skew the data set to democrats. Lee Camp from Redacted Tonight has also shown this on his TV show on RT. Those even ruskies. ..."
    "... Stupid Bloomberg headlines I never clicked on: The Trump Video Would Get Most CEOs Ousted. No doubt. But so would running their own private server outside the company system, then destroying emails in response to a Congressional subpoena. ..."
    Oct 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 7:05 am

    Stupid NYT headlines I never clicked on:

    Trump's Bluster Erodes Democracy, Experts Say

    When I hear the trigger word "experts," I reach for my revolver.

    jgordon October 11, 2016 at 7:45 am

    NYT: the toilet paper of record. In yet another Wikileaks dump it's come out that they're in active collusion with Hillary's campaign. How anyone is still dumb enough to believe the lies they're alwaus putting out is beyond me.

    Really, it's fine to be biased lackeys for the rich and powerful as long as you're honest about it. Pretending to be unbiased arbiters of truth while doing that though is pathetic.

    These media presstitutes are so rancidly despicable that I want to throw up whenever I think of them. Newspapers and the rest of the media: want to know why you're going bankrupt? It's not the internet–it's because every day more and more people are clued into the fact that you are pathetic lying scum. In my mind these media people are in the same exact category as child molesters.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 7:52 am

    If it were a little softer, yeah, it would work for that. But it's disgusting getting ink on your butt.

    Ed October 11, 2016 at 8:32 am

    They were in active collusion with the 1990s Clinton campaigns too, but I didn't have Wikileaks around to confirm it, or the internets for alternative sources of information. I suspected it anyway. I finally cut the cord after 2002.

    Pavel October 11, 2016 at 9:51 am

    Well the NYT, WaPo, CNN et al have shot themselves in the foot with this blatant collusion with the Clinton campaign. They've pissed off their most intelligent readers & viewers, shown themselves to be knaves and fools, and what are they going to say when HRC is president and investigated up the wazoo for corruption?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 11, 2016 at 10:06 am

    If you defeat Trump, you prevail over one guy. When Clinton is defeated, you win over all those 'with her.'

    For any leverage kind of person, that's a potential 100-bagger right there.

    John k October 11, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    Yes… But leverage much higher than 100:1… Not just MSM, but banks, neocons, corrupt ceo's, and all these alphabet groups keeping us safe…
    Hopefully he'd be vindictive against all the elites trying to defeat him.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 10:07 am

    Some combination of "it's a Russian plot" and "we told you so." The MSM - they know everything.

    justanotherprogressive October 11, 2016 at 10:23 am

    NEVER overestimate the intelligence of the American public. If Hillary can get an 11 point lead over a salacious story that affects almost nobody and yet get no drop in popularity over revelations that will affect everyone's lives, I don't think there is much hope that the NYT, WaPo, CNN, et al, will get their comeuppance. But Americans who drink in what these MSM sites are feeding them WILL get the President they so obviously deserve, won't they?

    RabidGandhi October 11, 2016 at 11:54 am

    Yes, it's the public's fault… despite being subject to the most brutal propaganda campaign in history and being assaulted by years of neoliberalism that barely gives them time to breathe between their three zero-hour contract jobs, it's their fault and they deserve a president who will grand-bargain away their social security benefits, TPP away the few remaining good jobs and start a civilisation-threatening war with Russia.

    And just for the record (/sarc), HRC only has an 11-point lead because most people won't be voting anyway, as they've correctly surmised that the system is completely rigged against them.

    AnEducatedFool October 11, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    I have not seen the data on that poll but I doubt that it is a "scientific poll". Many of the polls that I have taken the time to look at the data shows that they avoid asking 35 and under voters and heavily skew the data set to democrats. Lee Camp from Redacted Tonight has also shown this on his TV show on RT. Those even ruskies.

    polecat October 11, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    'Little Big Horn' (Wurlitzer) Syndrome …..

    ggm October 11, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    Just watched a documentary on the murder of Kitty Genovese. It sure made me think there has been a culture of corruption at the New York Times for decades, enabled by outside journalists refusing to question them for whatever reason (intimidation, careerism…).

    beth October 11, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    jgordon, did I miss a link above or could you give me a link to the Wikileaks reference? Thanks. I need to pass this along to a friend.

    Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 7:49 am

    Stupid Bloomberg headlines I never clicked on: The Trump Video Would Get Most CEOs Ousted. No doubt. But so would running their own private server outside the company system, then destroying emails in response to a Congressional subpoena.

    [Oct 12, 2016] Breaking: DNC Chief Donna Brazile Leaked Sanders Info to Clinton Campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | observer.com
    WikiLeaks hack reveals DNC's favoritism as Clinton staff in damage control over Hillary's support for DOMA

    On October 10, Wikileaks released part two of their emails from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.

    Friday, Wikileaks released their first batch of Podesta's emails, which included excerpts from Clinton's Wall Street transcripts that reaffirmed why Clinton refused to release them in full. During the second presidential debate, Clinton confirmed their authenticity by attempting to defend one statement she made in the speech about having a public and private stance on political issues. She cited Abraham Lincoln, a defense comparable to her ridiculous invocation of 9/11 when pressed on her ties to Wall Street during a Democratic primary debate.

    The latest release reveals current DNC chair Donna Brazile, when working as a DNC vice chair, forwarded to the Clinton campaign a January 2016 email obtained from the Bernie Sanders campaign, released by Sarah Ford, Sanders' deputy national press secretary, announcing a Twitter storm from Sanders' African-American outreach team. "FYI" Brazile wrote to the Clinton staff. "Thank you for the heads up on this Donna," replied Clinton campaign spokesperson Adrienne Elrod.

    The second batch of emails include more evidence of collusion between the mainstream media and Clinton Campaign.

    One email , received by prolific Clinton donor Haim Saban, was forwarded to Clinton staff, praising the friendly moderators in the early March 2016 Democratic primary debate co-hosted by Univision in Florida. "Haim, I just wanted to tell you that I thought the moderators for last nights Debate were excellent. They were thoughtful, tough and incisive. I thought it made Hilary appear direct and strong in her resolve. I felt it advanced our candidate. Thanks for Univision," wrote Rob Friedman, former co-chair of the Motion Picture Group.

    Another email discusses planting a favorable Clinton story in The New York Times in March 2015. "NYT heroine. Should she call her today?" Podesta wrote to other Clinton campaign staffers with the subject line 'Laura Donohoe.' "I do think it's a great idea! We can make it happen," replied Huma Abedin. The story they referred to is likely " In New Hampshire, Clinton Backers Buckle Up," published in The New York Times on March 12, 2015 about Laura Donohoe, a retired nurse and Clinton supporter in New Hampshire.

    John Harwood, New York Times contributor and CNBC correspondent, regularly exchanged emails with Podesta-communicating more as a Clinton surrogate than a journalist.

    In an October 2015 email thread, Clinton staff were in damage control over Hillary's support for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Hillary Clinton would not disavow her support for it. "I'm not saying double down or ever say it again. I'm just saying that she's not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance."

    Former Clinton Foundation director, Darnell Strom of the Creative Artist Agency, wrote a condescending email to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard after she resigned from the DNC to endorse Bernie Sanders , which he then forwarded to Clinton campaign staff. "For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton," wrote Strom.

    A memo sent from Clinton's general counsel, Marc Elias of the law firm Perkins Coie, outlined legal tricks to circumvent campaign finance laws to raise money in tandem with Super Pacs.

    In a March 2015 email , Clinton Campaign manager Robby Mook expressed frustration DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz hired a Convention CEO without consulting the Clinton campaign, which suggests the DNC and Clinton campaign regularly coordinated together from the early stages of the Democratic primaries.

    [Oct 12, 2016] Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Oct 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    (Busy with nurturing some illness, please bear with me.)

    Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Clinton in a 2013 speech to the Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner (via The Intercept ):

    [Arming moderates has] been complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons-and pretty indiscriminately-not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future, ...

    Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course.

    The following was written by Podesta, a well connected former White House Chief of Staff, in an 2014 email to Clinton. As introduction Podesta notes:"Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.":

    While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

    Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq.

    [Oct 11, 2016] The US Surrendered Its Right To Accuse Russia Of War Crimes A Long Time Ago

    Looks like Obama in working overclock to ensure the election of Trump ... anti-Russian hysteria might have results different that he expects. Whether we are to have a world of sovereign nation-states or one in which a single imperial superpower contends with increasingly fragmentary post-national and sub-national threats around the globe will depend on the decisions that are made in the near future: in the next few years.
    Oct 11, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Darius Shahtahmasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Renowned journalist Glenn Greenwald recently tweeted the three rules of American exceptionalism :

    3 rules of US Exceptionalism: 1) Our killing is better than theirs; 2) Nothing we do can be "terrorism"; 3) Only enemies are "war criminals"

    - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 6, 2016

    Greenwald's astute observations were presumably made in response to Secretary of State John Kerry's recent remarks that both Russia and Syria should face war crimes investigations for their recent attacks on Syrian civilians.

    "Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting hospitals, and medical facilities, and women and children," Mr. Kerry said in Washington, where he spoke alongside French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, as reported by the Independent .

    Unsurprisingly, Russia responded by urging caution regarding allegations of war crimes considering the United States has been waging wars in a number of countries since the end of World War II. It has picked up a number of allegations of war crimes in the process.

    Kerry's continuous accusations that Russia bombed hospital infrastructure are particularly hypocritical in light of the fact the United States has bombed hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan on more than one occasion over past decade.

    Further, former congressman Ron Paul's Institute for Peace and Prosperity hit back at Kerry, accusing him of completely fabricating the most recent alleged hospital attack. As the Institute noted :

    " In a press event yesterday, before talks with the French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault about a new UN resolution, he said ( vid @1:00) about Syria:

    "'Last night, the regime attacked yet another hospital, and 20 people were killed and 100 people were wounded. And Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women. These are acts that beg for an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be held accountable for these actions.'

    " No opposition group has claimed that such an extremely grave event happened. None. No press agency has a record of it. The MI-6 disinformation outlet SOHR in Britain, which quite reliably notes every claimed casualty and is frequently cited in 'western media,' has not said anything about such an event anywhere in Syria. "

    However, the most disturbing aspect of Kerry's allegation is that the accusations against Russia run in tandem with Saudi Arabia's brutal assault on Yemen. Saudi Arabia, with the aid of a few regional players - and with ongoing American and British assistance (not to mention billion dollar arms sales ) - has been bombing Yemen back into the Stone Age without any legal basis whatsoever. Often, the Saudi-led coalition has completely decimated civilian infrastructure, which has led a number of groups to accuse the coalition of committing war crimes in the process.

    Civilians and civilian infrastructure have been struck so routinely that the world has become increasingly concerned the actual targets of the coalition strikes are civilians (what could be a greater recruitment tool for al-Qaeda and ISIS in Yemen?) As noted by Foreign Policy :

    "The Houthis and their allies - armed groups loyal to Saleh - are the declared targets of the coalition's 1-year-old air campaign. In reality, however, it is the civilians, such as Basrallah and Rubaid, and their children, who are predominantly the victims of this protracted war. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in airstrikes while asleep in their homes, when going about their daily activities, or in the very places where they had sought refuge from the conflict. The United States, Britain, and others, meanwhile, have continued to supply a steady stream of weaponry and logistical support to Saudi Arabia and its coalition."

    Yemen is the poorest , most impoverished nation in the Arab world . The Saudi-led coalition has been striking refugee camps , schools , wedding parties and well over 100 hospitals to date . The coalition has been strongly suspected of using banned munitions such as cluster bombs. The country now has more than half a million children at serious risk of malnutrition . More than 21 million out of the total population of 25 million are in serious need of basic humanitarian assistance .

    Just take one example of the cruel and disproportionate use of force that Saudi Arabia has used in Yemen (using American-made and supplied aircraft and weapons) - against Judge Yahya Rubaid and his family. As Foreign Policy reported in March of this year:

    "According to family members, Rubaid was a judge on a case against Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, for treason in absentia. It is unclear whether his house was attacked for this reason. What is clear, however, is that there was no legally valid basis for bombing his home, as he and his family were civilians and under international law should not have been deliberately targeted."

    At the time this article's publication, over 140 Yemenis had been killed and another 500 injured in a Saudi-coalition aerial attack on a funeral over the weekend. The civilian death toll continues to rise in Yemen, completely unchallenged by any major players at the U.N. When the U.N. does attempt to quell Saudi actions , the Saudis threaten severe economic retaliation.

    How Kerry can accuse Russia of committing war crimes in Syria with a straight face is unclear, as reports of atrocious crimes committed in Yemen continue to surface.

    This is not to say Russia and Syria should not be investigated for war crimes – but maybe, just maybe, we could live in a world where everyone responsible for committing these gross acts could be held accountable, instead of just those who pose an economic threat to the West . Mango327 38BWD22 Oct 11, 2016 3:47 PM

    If Russia Acted Like The USA...
    http://youtu.be/uhqZFWDeaB4
    SidSays 38BWD22 Oct 11, 2016 3:50 PM
    All wars are, well...

    All wars are banker's wars .

    Katos 38BWD22 Oct 11, 2016 4:35 PM
    Madeline Albright, "Yes, I think the death of 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 years old by US sanctions, was a good price that had to be paid so we could get to Sadam Hussein "??? This bitch along with Kissinger, Soros, Rice, Clinton, Obama, Kerry, and all the news organizations who have been cheerleaders for the slaughter of innocents should all be charged with Crimes against humanity and SHOT!
    PrayingMantis Oct 11, 2016 3:39 PM

    ... US: "Who you gonna believe, us or your own eyes" ~ Groucho Marx

    Ignatius PrayingMantis Oct 11, 2016 3:58 PM

    "Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -- John Kerry, 197x

    That was the supposed anti-war Kerry speaking of the Vietnam War, who rode such comments into a congressional seat. We didn't know then that he was Skull and Bones or what it might mean. Now we know it in spades.

    Now it's clear he's just a lying sack of war mongering, deep state shit.

    crazybob369 Oct 11, 2016 3:45 PM
    To quote Goebbels:

    "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie."

    Chupacabra-322 crazybob369 Oct 11, 2016 4:44 PM
    Goebbels used "Gas Lighting" as a form of Psychological manipulation on a population on a mass scale. Operation Mocking Bird. It continues on today. 365 days a year, 24hrs a day, 7 days a week. The Psyche Warefare / PsyOp War does not clos
    Felix da Kat Oct 11, 2016 4:03 PM
    There is an assumption that Russia would never go to war with the US over the Syrian dispute. But yet, Russia is preparing for war. It has both first-strike and counter-strike capability in the event the west (US State Dept.) continues with its bullying tactics and further escalates its hostility. Russia is a sovereign nation; it has both the right and the power to do what is in the best interests of its citizenry and its allies (Assad).

    The US used to be that way until it was over-run in a silent, but effective liberal-coup that has taken full control and stupidly re-newed the cold war with Russia.

    And now America has been left more vulnerable that it ever has been. A simple shut-down of the electric grid for several months, will, by itself, cut the population in half.

    Ultra-liberalism is ultra self-destructive... we're about to see just how destructive that really is.

    Kyddyl Oct 11, 2016 4:07 PM
    Well this is a refreshing start, but only a start. Russia certainly had nothing to do with the gunships that bombed the hospitals in Afghanistan into powder, killing patients including children, doctors, nurses and other personell.

    I for one would like to know who it was who flew those planes and have them explain to all of us why they did not refuse orders? What sort of morals have Americans got to behave ths way? The hospitals bombed in Syria, ditto. The Saudis are the beasts they are and somebody needs to bomb them into oblivion. (Perhaps take out some other smug financial centers too!) But Yemen is a very poor sandy country to begin with and Saudi must think there's oil or something there. If some of the weapons used there weren't tactical nukes they sure looked like them. Gee. Wonder where they got them?

    . . . _ _ _ . . . Oct 11, 2016 4:16 PM
    Chomsky's been saying it for decades, "If they do it, they're terrorists; if we do it, we're freedom fighters."

    My take is that if you are the head of a government, you are a psychopath and any categorization beyond this is moot.

    Clinton / Trump, Obama / Putin, Assad / Erdogan, UN / Nationalism, whoever it may be, they're all playing the same game, and we're not even allowed to watch, much less comment.

    The only thing trickling-down (through a historical perspective) should be blood.

    taketheredpill Oct 11, 2016 4:26 PM

    A cynical person might suggest that the volume of US War Drums is inversely proportional to the strength of the US economy.

    It's as if the boys at the top

    1) know the economy is already in the toilet

    2) know that the next financial meltdown is going to be a real hum-dinger

    3) know that the unwashed masses will need a really big distraction when the next meltdown hits

    [Oct 10, 2016] DNC cronies bullying (that is the Democrat buzzword right?) Rep.Tulsi Gabbard

    Notable quotes:
    "... "You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign." ..."
    "... "How DARE you not give our Crown Princess the respect she deserves!" ..."
    "... financially squeeze those not with status quo… guess they object to woman patriots that want to serve "all the people"??…..telling ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Roger Smith October 10, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    DNC cronies bullying (that is the Democrat buzzword right?) Rep.Tulsi Gabbard for deciding to support Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. Dated February 29th, 2016

    "For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton."

    "You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign."

    Plenue October 10, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    "How DARE you not give our Crown Princess the respect she deserves!"

    Kim Kaufman October 10, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    How DARE you have an independent thought.

    Pat October 10, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    I sort of enjoy the typo in Podesta's intro to the forward, if not the sentiment aka gloating that a couple of CAA agents decided to punish Gabbard for supporting the better candidate. I mean they are clearly a couple of pigs.

    Roger Smith October 10, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    What was he trying to say? I was not familiar with that expression.

    Pat October 10, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    First off I got it wrong, it was Storm who forwarded his own email to Podesta and Clinton,
    but what he was trying to say was "Hammer dropped!"

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=drop%20the%20hammer

    But like I said Hammed as in hams works for me.

    Roger Smith October 10, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    Oooooh! now that makes sense! I was wondering where the heck "Ham" came in haha

    rich October 10, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    financially squeeze those not with status quo… guess they object to woman patriots that want to serve "all the people"??…..telling

    [Oct 10, 2016] Now that we have in writing that Hillary has 2 positions on issues which she called a public and private position

    Notable quotes:
    "... For example, IMO now that we have in writing that Hillary has 2 positions on issues (a public and private position) it is 100% fair that debate moderators and the media ask Clinton aggressively which position she is giving in her responses – her public or private position? ..."
    "... If the media won't focus on the public/private position issue (and Obama did the same in 2008 regarding NAFTA, I recall), then Trump can force them to by putting that front and center in the debate. ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    timbers October 9, 2016 at 11:31 am

    Not surprised, no. But IMO has definite implications.

    For example, IMO now that we have in writing that Hillary has 2 positions on issues (a public and private position) it is 100% fair that debate moderators and the media ask Clinton aggressively which position she is giving in her responses – her public or private position?

    Won't happen with our media, but IMO this should now be standard operating procedure for the media with regard to Hillary and would be completely fair, prudent, and necessary to inform the public and voters.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 9, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    The debate is setting up to be the mother of all debates.

    If the media won't focus on the public/private position issue (and Obama did the same in 2008 regarding NAFTA, I recall), then Trump can force them to by putting that front and center in the debate.

    [Oct 10, 2016] An Election Of Leaks And Counter-Leaks

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's an election for and among the ruling class. ..."
    "... Scott Adams who has been right so far says Trump still has a clear path to victory. The media is just trying to blackpill everyone. Why should we believe them? They are saying Trump can't win because they said he can't win. ..."
    "... Somehow Clinton bragging about getting a pedophile off the hook is OK? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDzRtZLUkc CLinton will start WW III. Trump may do so. What a choice. ..."
    "... For nearly a generation now there have been decent candidates for US president who would, to a greater or lesser degree, have opposed our increasingly corrupt and violent oligarchy. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, Jill Stein, Rick Santorum ... and many more you haven't heard of. The elites have perfected a system of taking them down, with no messy assassination. Ridicule them in the press, don't cover their positions, just their style, find a flaw or mis-statement and hammer hammer hammer until people believe that they are ridiculous, then ban them from the media. ..."
    "... now the establishment is doubling down on the only thing it knows how to do. They are 'reporting' that Trump is finished. ..."
    "... Donald Trump has said unfortunate off-the-cuff things. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, has actually DONE some things so crazy that if I wrote her up as a character in a work of fiction my editor would reject it as unbelievable. ..."
    "... The Podesta e-mails show Killary in her true colors (see b.) The few I read though were unsurprising and boring, because she is mentally challenged, as is her staff, they are in a bubble. The leaks re. her speeches to Banksters ditto, and anyway the speeches are immaterial, they are just empty, fakelorum, performances carried out to legitimise bribery in a completely corrupt circuit. ..."
    "... I concur with the very first post...it will be a Trump landslide. The silent majority- the plurality of voters who are neither D nor R. We have no voice in politics and no voice in the media. We already see through the lies and the hypocracy. That is Trumps target audience. Even if it is just a show at least Trump talks about policies ..."
    "... Trump and his supporters must henceforth be more vigilant and pull no punches in exposing the Clintons' perfidy. ..."
    "... And on other fronts - the Vice News vid I just watched was titled 'the US/Russia Proxy War in Ukraine'. I was shocked. Their prior coverage was 200% neocon blather. (Aka Simon Otrovsky IIRc) Could it be a beginning of a revolt by the MSM? If CNN begins to refer to Syria and Ukraine as proxy wars, it means the Empire's control of MSM is slipping. And that would spell the end for them. ..."
    "... "This is a very dangerous game given that Russia, being in Syria at the invitation of the legitimate government of this country and having two bases there, has got air defense systems there to protect its assets," Lavrov said, according to Reuters. ..."
    "... IMO Sanders is worst among all the POTUS hopefuls. He lied repeatedly, In a debate with Hillary on Edward Snowden "He broke the law … but what he did [exposing the NSA surveillance] should be taken into consideration," Edward Snowden wanna fair trial, but can he get it? Dun Forget Assange afraid of assassinated, to speak from Ecuador embassy balcony to exposed Hillary. Can you trust Obomo's Justice Dept. or anyone in his administration? ..."
    "... Outrage Can No Longer Be Ignored. The elections methods enterprise consists of an imposing compilation of distracting, unworkable feints, erroneously purported to constitute viable election methods. Get strategic hedge simple score voting. No More Two-Party!!! No more!!! ..."
    "... The social theorist Zygmunt Bauman argues that the age of nations states, which was born with the treaty that ended the Thirty Years War, and which we all take for granted, is now over. Nation States made decisions through politics and then used power to implement their wishes. Now, however, power no longer resides with the state, but instead is in the hands of international entities -- corporations, banks, criminal enterprises -- that are above, beyond and indifferent to any nation's political decisions. ..."
    "... Although American presidents, the congress, the courts still pretend otherwise, it's pretty clear they know they have no real power, and so go through charades of legislating meaningless issues. Allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia, for example, when there's not the slightest chance of pinning 911 on the Saudis. ..."
    "... The election is a circus meant to distract and entertain a powerless public. Might as well enjoy it. The Dems and Repugs like to strut and posture, rake in dollars and enjoy prestige, and try to make us believe they can still shape the future, but really it out of their control. ..."
    "... Of course the U.S. has tremendous military power, but the "elected" government has no control over it, how it is used or where. JFK's murder ended that era, ..."
    "... Many here think the U.S., and hence the U.S. military, is controlled by Israel, but Israel too is a nation state, and supra-national institutions ($$$$) seem to be running it as well, ..."
    "... My take as an outsider. Use Trump to take down the elite. His foreign policy basics are consistent and solid - non intervention, pull back of US military to the US, protection of local manufacturing. ..."
    "... US involvement in Libya began at Hillary's urging shortly after Hillary received this advice from her confidante Sidney Blumenthal. Note that the advice that the overthrow of Qaddafi needed to be connected with "an identifiable rebellion" in Syria means that it needs to be connected with civil war in Syria. US involvement in Libya was, of course, coordinated out of Benghazi, as the advice to Hillary suggested. ..."
    "... Once the fall of Qaddafi was a fait accompli, Hillary's State Department advocated the overthrow of Bashar Assad as a critical component for calming Israel so that President Barrack Obama could accomplish his legacy nuclear pact with Iran without Israel blowing Iran up before the deal was sealed. ..."
    "... No. Planning for overthrow of Assad - and use of extremists as a weapon of State - was begun in earnest in 2006; as described by Seymour Hersh in "The Redirection". ..."
    "... Anyone else notice that Hillary couldn't remember what she did while in office? Major mistake. ..."
    "... Clinton insisted she had retired from the government by the time that happened. Not so: Obama dared Assad to cross his line in August 2012, six months before Clinton's term ended. ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The tape of Trump talking dirty was released just in time to sidetrack from the release of more of Clinton's dirty secrets by Wikileaks. Trump's talk was juvenile and sexist bragging in front of other "boys". Surprising it was not. There will more releases like that, all timed to run cover for Clinton.

    The just released emails of her campaign chairman John Podesta about Clinton's talk to Wall Street and other Clinton related issues are indeed revealing. She is the sell-out you would expect her to be:

    *CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY*

    Clinton: "But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position."

    It is funny how the U.S. electorate has a deeper "very negative" view of Trump (-44%) and Clinton (-41%) than of the much vilified Russian President Putin (-38%).

    When Trump will come back in the polls (not "if"), it will be a devious fight with daily "leaks" followed by counter leaks and a lot of dirty laundry washed in front of the public. Good.

    Many of the people who will vote will vote against a candidate, not for the one that they will mark on their ballot. I expect a very low turn out election, barely giving a mandate, to whomever may win or get selected to have won. Elwood | Oct 9, 2016 9:26:03 AM | 1

    Uh no. The silent majority that swept Reagan into office will speak again this year.
    Ron Showalter | Oct 9, 2016 9:37:47 AM | 2
    Please stick to geo-politics and quit embarrassing yourself re: domestic US politics. Trump is done and the longer it takes for you and the rest of the fake-left - both domestically and abroad - to get their heads around that fact, the longer the rest of us have to witness the frightfully shameful mental contortions your Trump-love takes.

    Please stop. It's one thing to have to deal with shallow and inaccurate fake-left analysis without a healthy dose of butt-hurt b/c Hillary will be POTUS.

    Grow up and quit being a victim of the US propaganda arsenal.

    tsuki | Oct 9, 2016 9:40:53 AM | 3
    In other words, I shall lie to the "Deplorables" to keep you safe from regulation and incarceration. Give me money. I am a corrupt and experienced liar.
    Rich | Oct 9, 2016 9:52:39 AM | 5
    I had a home inspector come to my place last week, intelligent and skilled working class guy, who didn't even know who Trump was. He knew Clinton was running and hates her. But had zero clue who her opponent was. And he's never voted before. There are very few election signs on yards. It's an election for and among the ruling class.
    Formerly T-Bear | Oct 9, 2016 9:54:09 AM | 7
    This may become the most transparent election - ever. May necessitate the most outrageous vote counting schemes also.
    Take Me | Oct 9, 2016 9:57:39 AM | 8
    BURN. IT. DOWN. That was the WHOLE point of Trump voters from the get-go. And his slide toward zionist scumbags was a HUUUGE problem. To me at least. Now he SEES. And he won't be shut down by the fukwits. And regardless of what happens. He is likely carefully considering having his son-in-law fall down a VERY deep hole. His daughter and grandchildren will thank him one day. Et tu Brutus?

    Here's what the Deplorables will be doing. On election day. 1) Bring black sharpie. 2) Demand PAPER ballot. 3) Vote Trump. 4) Vote I or D down-ballot. 5) Fill in all blanks.

    And by-the-way. To #2 Ron. We do this for Syria. And Yemen. And all the OTHER people the USG, MIC, MSM ZIOthugs have been murdering and enslaving for the past 50+ years. Not just for ourselves and our children. It's the absolute LEAST we can do. But its a start.

    lemur | Oct 9, 2016 9:57:44 AM | 9
    Scott Adams who has been right so far says Trump still has a clear path to victory. The media is just trying to blackpill everyone. Why should we believe them? They are saying Trump can't win because they said he can't win.

    Ron is obviously a Clinton groupie.

    Btw, how is what Trump said sexist? It's just real dude talk with the lads. Plenty of people say that behind closed doors.

    Blk | Oct 9, 2016 10:00:28 AM | 10
    @2. I happen to think Trump is another wolf in a sheep's clothe and won't deliver any significant part of his promises, so like you, I am baffled that someone like b could actually buy into this. However unlike you, I don't think the election is predictable, I think it actually bodes well for Trump, why? It seems clear from the polls, that Hillary isn't a preferred choice for majority of the voters. If he was, she should be polling close to the 50 point mark by now, yet she's in the low 40s, someone with her resume running against a political light weight like Trump should be doing much better. So what does that mean? It means (at lest to me) voters have rejected Hillary as a firs choice, she may be second or third but she's definitely not most voters first choice. So Trump has a chance, although he's working his darnes to ruin it, Imagine if it was someone else had Trumps message without the baggage?

    The polls wouldn't be close, I think the undecided (who don't have Hillary has their first choice) will decide this election at the last minute, if Trump has more recordings leaked (not about his tryst) but for instance the NYT interview where he supposedly said he's not going to build a wall? ( I think that will be leaked soon if the polls don't move in Hillary's favor, the establishment clearly has their preference). If there are no more damages to Trump, he may very well win this thing, but I suspect the empire has more leaks coming.

    I for one thinks a third party candidate is where its at, but what do I know?

    From The Hague | Oct 9, 2016 10:10:49 AM | 13
    Breaking: A photo has surfaced of Donald Trump grabbing a pussy.

    https://twitter.com/Writeintrump/status/784811133370667008

    The MSM, social medias and Internet are making any election a new Pokemon game but dirtier. Is this the 21th century "exercise of democracy?"

    Davis | Oct 9, 2016 10:44:30 AM | 18

    Want to read some original observations? (1) The Pence-Is-So-Presidential vp debate win was a complete set-up, with the DNC complicit in instructing Tim Kaine to play the obvious heavy, a movie caricature villian, complete with raised eyebrows, crazy expressions, and interrupting 70+ times. Made Pence a new hero. Reason? (2) GOP Rinos and DNC have been co-ordinating for months on "perfect time" to release Trump's Naughty Audio Tape (sharp ears can also detect it was edited), and this was reported by DC Whispers and journalists Mr/Mrs Bill & Beth Still in a recent video. (3) Media had their 'talking points' to conclude with NBC's Chuck Todd yesterday: "The election is over. Hillary has won." (4) GOP Paul Ryan did high-profile dis-invitation of Trump to Wisconsin; and then Pence substitution at event (vetoed by Trump) was to support GOP Establishment plot to replace Trump with Pence on the ticket, which they will still try to do when the DNC floats false pedophile charges against Trump w/o Oct. 9 (DNC whistleblowers gave full plan to Alex Jones because even there, some people are too disgusted with all this dirt to 'carry on camping'). Pence was in on the conspiracy from the very beginning. Another smiling choirboy.
    Yonatan | Oct 9, 2016 10:53:03 AM | 19
    Somehow Clinton bragging about getting a pedophile off the hook is OK? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDzRtZLUkc CLinton will start WW III. Trump may do so. What a choice.
    TG | Oct 9, 2016 10:53:58 AM | 20
    For nearly a generation now there have been decent candidates for US president who would, to a greater or lesser degree, have opposed our increasingly corrupt and violent oligarchy. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, Jill Stein, Rick Santorum ... and many more you haven't heard of. The elites have perfected a system of taking them down, with no messy assassination. Ridicule them in the press, don't cover their positions, just their style, find a flaw or mis-statement and hammer hammer hammer until people believe that they are ridiculous, then ban them from the media.

    Trump's big mouth and complete lack of shame has, for now, made him relatively immune to this treatment. So now the establishment is doubling down on the only thing it knows how to do. They are 'reporting' that Trump is finished. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But it would be wise to remember that the corporate press doesn't report the news any more, it is attempting to create the news, out of whole cloth. Remember how many times they said that Trump was 'finished' during the primary?

    I mean, how come what Trump said ten years ago in a private conversation, is headline news, while Hillary Clinton's decision to ALLY THE UNITED STATES WITH AL QAEDA AND RISK WAR WITH RUSSIA TO DEFEND THEM is somehow a minor detail? It's crazy when you think about it.

    Donald Trump has said unfortunate off-the-cuff things. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, has actually DONE some things so crazy that if I wrote her up as a character in a work of fiction my editor would reject it as unbelievable.

    So I am voting for Trump even if the New York Times says he is doomed. We don't really know what he will do as president, but in the business world he has proven the ability to actually get along with disparate people in a constructive way. Hillary Clinton is a bona fide monster who should scare any sane person. We know exactly what she will do as president, and attacking Russian forces in Syria will be just the start...

    Better a chance on a wildcard, then certain doom. IMHO.

    Noirette | Oct 9, 2016 11:11:29 AM | 21
    The Podesta e-mails show Killary in her true colors (see b.) The few I read though were unsurprising and boring, because she is mentally challenged, as is her staff, they are in a bubble. The leaks re. her speeches to Banksters ditto, and anyway the speeches are immaterial, they are just empty, fakelorum, performances carried out to legitimise bribery in a completely corrupt circuit.

    One e-mail (idk who wrote it and can't find it back): a campaign manager who had his head screwed on stated that most likely one needs to add 10 points to Trump re. polls. Details were a bit bizarre and convoluted...no matter...

    It reminded me that in France all the 'official' polls use an 'algorithm' based on 'hunches dressed up in fancy pyscho-babble verbiage' that add between 2 and 5% to NF votes (depending on election, region, first/second round, etc.) Necessary for maintaining their credibility, to come closer to what the real results will show.

    As for Trump's locker-room bragaddacio, not one single Trump supporter will flip, and undecideds etc. may switch to Trump, finding such an 'attack' illegit, frivolous, etc. It throws light on the fact that what Killary is being accused of - e-mails, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, pay to play, etc. - is extremely serious, whereas smutty chat is part-o-life.

    Imho the underlying aim of the release (first, serving to create buzzz! to cover over the leaks natch) was to furnish a reason for segments of the PTB establishment base, nominally Repubs., to come forward and support HRC, after they were subjected to pressure, arm-twisting, possibly even blackmail.

    McCain withdraws his support for DT:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/presidential-election.html

    Paul Ryan annouced Friday that Trump was no longer welcome at the rally after a recording was released… and he gets heckled:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/paul-ryan-heckled-by-trump-supporters-in-his-district/ar-BBxbeIT

    The Atlantic gives some kind of mealy-mouthed overview:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/where-republicans-stand-on-donald-trump-a-cheat-sheet/481449/

    The 'duopoly' power-structure has been exposed.

    Phodges | Oct 9, 2016 11:49:07 AM | 24
    I concur with the very first post...it will be a Trump landslide. The silent majority- the plurality of voters who are neither D nor R. We have no voice in politics and no voice in the media. We already see through the lies and the hypocracy. That is Trumps target audience. Even if it is just a show at least Trump talks about policies
    Steve | Oct 9, 2016 12:11:25 PM | 28
    Trump is still going to "win" the election. I put the win in quotations because that will not mean that he would be declared winner. The plan to rig the election has always been part of the plan, what this leak provides is a way to persuade the gullible people that the tape cost Trump the election. The oligarchs in both parties and all over the Western world are truly terrified of a Trump presidency but equally terrified of the reaction of the masses, should the election be brazenly rigged with no plausible reasons. They have tried to manipulate the polls and it is not succeeding. But now they can go back to their pseudo pollsters and start dishing out dubious polls until the election. That would appear credible to the credulous voters who by and large are, frankly, dim. The two parties and the global oligarchs and their media shoeshine crew have now found a convenient talking point to prepare the ground for an eventual rigging of the election. Trump and his supporters must henceforth be more vigilant and pull no punches in exposing the Clintons' perfidy.
    NoOneYouKnow | Oct 9, 2016 12:14:23 PM | 30
    #22 I'd say "war criminals who rule us" is Hillary's job title to a T. So many Hillary supporters are giving off the scent of mixed rage and panic these days.
    O'Coner | Oct 9, 2016 12:33:07 PM | 31
    And on other fronts - the Vice News vid I just watched was titled 'the US/Russia Proxy War in Ukraine'. I was shocked. Their prior coverage was 200% neocon blather. (Aka Simon Otrovsky IIRc) Could it be a beginning of a revolt by the MSM? If CNN begins to refer to Syria and Ukraine as proxy wars, it means the Empire's control of MSM is slipping. And that would spell the end for them.
    Take Me | Oct 9, 2016 12:52:20 PM | 35
    To 31. Nah. It's not the end of 'em. Just controlled opposition. Cuz thru all this miasma. LOTS of decent folks are hip to what's happening in Yemen and Syria. The muppets are rubbing sleep from their tired little eyes. And SEE what the MSM has been neglecting to tell them. The MSM aren't stupid. They hope feeding the muppets some bit of truthiness, we'll fall back into an MSM-stupor. Sadly. The MSM has lost too many muppets. Gone for good. This CIVIL WAR won't be fought carnally. But it will be just as bloody. Cuz metaphysical warfare is something for which they are NOT prepared to battle.
    schlub | Oct 9, 2016 1:20:57 PM | 39
    I think the term used here refers to any form of modern mass release of bombs or missiles.
    Each B-52 which of course can refuel so fly from anywhere, & is ponderously slow, can release about 24 cruise missiles, serially, from a rotary dispenser inside, from standoff distances.

    So the problem becomes "How many 'rounds' do the russians have for each & every one of their missile batteries there?"

    "This is a very dangerous game given that Russia, being in Syria at the invitation of the legitimate government of this country and having two bases there, has got air defense systems there to protect its assets," Lavrov said, according to Reuters.
    http://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2016/10/09/1208996/russia-says-can-protect-its-syria-assets-if-us-carpet-bombs

    dumbass | Oct 9, 2016 1:32:44 PM | 40
    >> Scott Adams

    Except that he didn't inherit or steal his money, he demonstrated he's nearly perfect example of the 1% when he mocked any voter who has a opinion about anything except for his own opinion that estate taxes are theft (though so would be Trump's inflation-based tax -- thereby demonstrating Mr. Scott 1%-er Adams is less informed than he is rich) and that (according to Scott Adams himself) is far and away the issue that matters to Scott Adams in this election.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-25/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-explains-why-he-switched-his-endorsement-trump

    I've not chuckled over a Dilbert in a while. Now that I know how Scott prioritizes the issues of the world, it'll be even more difficult.

    Jack Smith | Oct 9, 2016 2:43:45 PM | 51
    @Michael | Oct 9, 2016 11:49:08 AM | 25

    Who gave you or the Democrats the right to demand changes after the Primaries? .....believe Gallup's polls and anyone who happen to disagree with you a troll?

    IMO Sanders is worst among all the POTUS hopefuls. He lied repeatedly, In a debate with Hillary on Edward Snowden "He broke the law … but what he did [exposing the NSA surveillance] should be taken into consideration," Edward Snowden wanna fair trial, but can he get it? Dun Forget Assange afraid of assassinated, to speak from Ecuador embassy balcony to exposed Hillary. Can you trust Obomo's Justice Dept. or anyone in his administration?

    Sanders said "Well, as somebody who spent many months of my life when I was a kid in Israel, who has family in Israel, of course Israel has a right not only to defend themselves, but to live in peace and security without fear of terrorist attack." Did you look at Google's Palestine map (taken down after protests)?

    Your comments are flaws and an apologist!

    blues | Oct 9, 2016 2:51:34 PM | 53
    You have, perhaps, heard me mention "strategic hedge simple score voting" here before. Here are two short pieces I have posted at the website "The Center for Election Science", at:
    https://electology.org/forums/theory

    /~~~~~~~~~~
    They tend to fall back on a Google+ Groups "site" which I do not use since I refuse to join (corporate) "social media" at:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/electionscience
    Outrage Can No Longer Be Ignored. The elections methods enterprise consists of an imposing compilation of distracting, unworkable feints, erroneously purported to constitute viable election methods. Get strategic hedge simple score voting. No More Two-Party!!! No more!!!

    ... ... ...

    Ken Nari | Oct 9, 2016 5:55:42 PM | 75
    Giving Americans a choice of candidates no one wants is a way of humiliating them, of showing them they have no say in how they are ruled. It's much like Caligula appointing his horse to the Roman Senate to show his power and his contempt for the senators who might still have thought they had a say in running Rome.

    The social theorist Zygmunt Bauman argues that the age of nations states, which was born with the treaty that ended the Thirty Years War, and which we all take for granted, is now over. Nation States made decisions through politics and then used power to implement their wishes. Now, however, power no longer resides with the state, but instead is in the hands of international entities -- corporations, banks, criminal enterprises -- that are above, beyond and indifferent to any nation's political decisions.

    Although American presidents, the congress, the courts still pretend otherwise, it's pretty clear they know they have no real power, and so go through charades of legislating meaningless issues. Allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia, for example, when there's not the slightest chance of pinning 911 on the Saudis.

    If WW3 or anything else is in the cards it will happen no matter who is elected, Clinton, Trump or someone else.

    The election is a circus meant to distract and entertain a powerless public. Might as well enjoy it. The Dems and Repugs like to strut and posture, rake in dollars and enjoy prestige, and try to make us believe they can still shape the future, but really it out of their control.

    Indeed, according to Bauman, things may be spinning out of anyone's control. That's everywhere, not just in the U.S.

    Ken Nari | Oct 9, 2016 7:45:45 PM | 82
    The Hague @ 77

    Of course the U.S. has tremendous military power, but the "elected" government has no control over it, how it is used or where. JFK's murder ended that era,

    Many here think the U.S., and hence the U.S. military, is controlled by Israel, but Israel too is a nation state, and supra-national institutions ($$$$) seem to be running it as well,

    Recently there have been plenty of posts here pointing out the contradictions and inexplicable behavior of American leaders concerning Syria -- is the military opposing the State Department? Is the "CIA" opposing both and calling the shots? I think Bauman would agree (?) that in the final analysis, none of them are running things. Americans, including their supposed leaders, have lost control of their destiny and can only do as they are told.

    I'm not qualified to judge Bauman's assertion. I'm only suggesting it gives a plausible explanation for the current insanity we're living through. "The State of Crisis" (2014). A great work (only 150 pages) that you'll be glad to read if you haven't already read it.

    Peter AU | Oct 9, 2016 9:17:48 PM | 90
    My take as an outsider. Use Trump to take down the elite. His foreign policy basics are consistent and solid - non intervention, pull back of US military to the US, protection of local manufacturing.
    These are the two best policies to break the globalised elite, US would go through some hard times for a bit re-adjusting, then take off again as part of this world rather than wannabe ruler of this world.
    stumpy | Oct 9, 2016 10:45:06 PM | 98
    Trump's line about Gens. Macarthur and Patton rolling over in their graves was masterful. Telling Hil that she doesn't know who Isis is. Declaring Aleppo lost. Scored some points. The Trump of yesterday's news is not the Trump in the debate. I find this strangely reassuring. Got her on the 3:00AM phone call in res Benghazi. Whoever ran Trump's prep gets a free drink on me.
    schlub | Oct 9, 2016 11:17:57 PM | 100
    WackyLeaks latest analysis on $hitlary:

    US involvement in Libya began at Hillary's urging shortly after Hillary received this advice from her confidante Sidney Blumenthal. Note that the advice that the overthrow of Qaddafi needed to be connected with "an identifiable rebellion" in Syria means that it needs to be connected with civil war in Syria. US involvement in Libya was, of course, coordinated out of Benghazi, as the advice to Hillary suggested.

    Once the fall of Qaddafi was a fait accompli, Hillary's State Department advocated the overthrow of Bashar Assad as a critical component for calming Israel so that President Barrack Obama could accomplish his legacy nuclear pact with Iran without Israel blowing Iran up before the deal was sealed.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-09/hillary%E2%80%99s-wars-pt-2-wikileaks-proves-syria-about-iran-israel

    Jackrabbit | Oct 9, 2016 11:45:58 PM | 101
    shlub @100:
    Once the fall of Qaddafi was a fait accompli, Hillary's State Department advocated the overthrow of Bashar Assad as a critical component for calming Israel.
    No. Planning for overthrow of Assad - and use of extremists as a weapon of State - was begun in earnest in 2006; as described by Seymour Hersh in "The Redirection".
    Perimetr | Oct 10, 2016 12:11:18 AM | 103
    Anyone else notice that Hillary couldn't remember what she did while in office? Major mistake.

    Trump recalled that Clinton was secretary of state when President Barack Obama drew his now-infamous rhetorical 'red line' in Syria, ineffectively warning Bashar al-Assad not to use chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians.

    Clinton insisted she had retired from the government by the time that happened. Not so: Obama dared Assad to cross his line in August 2012, six months before Clinton's term ended.

    She can't even remain standing during a presidential debate, and can't remember what she did, either.

    Temporarily Sane | Oct 10, 2016 1:19:44 AM | 106
    @ 31 Vice "news" is a bad joke. All their Syria and Libya coverage is 200% pro al-Qaeda/DoS policy. They even had a "journalist" embedded with al-Nusra in Aleppo in 2014 and portrayed them in a favourable light. It doesn't surprise me that their Ukraine coverage follows a similar pattern.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Comparing Bernie's rallies with Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... Zach Bee Of all the words you could chant, in the entire english language, they pick the ONE that rhymes with liar? What does Hillary! Fire! Even mean? I thought that was a joke at first. Wow. ..."
    "... Moh Moony Spot on mate. No one ever accused Hillbots of being very bright. beidoll I kept thinking it should have been "Fire Hillary". I'd fire her before I'd hire her. ..."
    "... Thanet Taout LOLOLOLOL ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 10:40 am

    For those who want a few laughs in these grim times, check out the excellent Jimmy Dore's video (6 minutes) comparing Bernie's rallies with Hillary's. There is a truly cringeworthy episode of HRC cheerleading in the clip.

    Bernie Crowds vs Hillary Crowds - A Depressing, Hilarious Comparison

    integer October 9, 2016 at 10:59 am

    Heh. I liked this little exchange in the comments:

    Zach Bee
    Of all the words you could chant, in the entire english language, they pick the ONE that rhymes with liar? What does Hillary! Fire! Even mean? I thought that was a joke at first. Wow.

    Moh Moony
    Spot on mate. No one ever accused Hillbots of being very bright.

    beidoll
    I kept thinking it should have been "Fire Hillary". I'd fire her before I'd hire her.

    Thanet Taout
    LOLOLOLOL

    BecauseTradition October 9, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    What does Hillary! Fire! Even mean?

    Liar, liar pants on fire?

    [Oct 09, 2016] Bernie is the Biggest Frigging Sellout, if you ask me. He spends 6 months railing against HRC's policies and now is out promoting her. He is dead to me now.

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    edmondo October 9, 2016 at 9:53 am

    So even after Hillary says she's going to renounce every campaign promise she made two hours after the polls close, Bernie can't wait to get out on the campaign trail urge us to vote for our own extinction?

    Donald may be "The Apprentice" but Bernie has got to be "The Biggest Loser"

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Bernie is the Biggest Frigging Sellout, if you ask me. He spends 6 months railing against HRC's policies and now is out promoting her. He is dead to me now.

    I can see the expediency of a reluctant endorsement at the convention, but he's lost his credibility with this behaviour. They must've threatened him with loss of his Senate committee positions or something.

    DarkMatters October 9, 2016 at 12:45 pm

    …or offered to fund his foundation and invite hi to expensive lectures. Carrot or stick, carrot or stick; so hard to tell. I imagine the stick is avoided when possible; no point in bringing needless ugliness into what could be a nice relationship.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Clinton and Podesta Wikileaks Release

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    by Lambert Strether

    naked capitalism


    From: Links 10-9-16 naked capitalism

    The WikiLeaks material is highly relevant to how Clinton would actually govern, as opposed to how she says she will govern. Because of the oddly timed release of the Trump hot mike tape, this story seems to be getting buried, so I'll go into it in some detail. First some links:

    Hillary Clinton's Wall St speeches published by Wikileaks BBC. "Published," and not "allegedly published," or "appear to reveal" (WaPo) .

    In paid speeches, Hillary Clinton said she "represented" and "had great relations" with Wall Street Salon

    Sanders supporters seethe over Clinton's leaked remarks to Wall St. Reuters

    Contradicting FBI view, Clinton's leaked speeches portray her as computer savvy McClatchy

    How the Clinton campaign decisions get made Politico

    And now some quotes. Just to underline what we aleady know :

    *CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY*

    *Clinton: "But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position."*

    (The email is a compilation of quotes from Clinton's paid speeches, not otherwise available. It begins: "Attached are the flags from HRC's paid speeches we have from HWA." The asterisked material is how the Clinton campaign staffer "flagged" the quotes they considered dangerous.) Since these quotes are from paid speeches, we can expect Clinton's private position - expect, that is, if we assume that Clinton isn't cheating her clients by failing to deliver value for money in terms of services to be rendered - to be a more accurate representation of her views than her public one. In other words, we're looking at a pitch to the donor class, when Clinton was laying the groundwork for her campaign. In an oligarchy , this would be natural.

    I believe I've mentioned to readers that my vision of the first 100 days of a Clinton administration includes a Grand Bargain, the passage of TPP, and a new war. So you can read the following as confirmation bias, if you will.

    On the Grand Bargain and Social Security (Morgan Stanley, 2013):

    But Simpson-Bowles - and I know you heard from Erskine earlier today - put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending , we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It's a three-part formula. The specifics can be negotiated depending upon whether we're acting in good faith or not [!!].

    Readers will of course be aware that the fiscal views intrinsic to Simpson-Bowles have been the perennial justification for Social Security cuts ( "the progressive give-up formula" ) and austerity generally. And if you think Democrat orthodoxy on SImpson Bowles has changed, see Robert Rubin today (below). If you buy Simpson-Bowles, you buy Social Security cuts. The policy is bad enough, but "depending upon whether we're acting in good faith or not" is, to me, the real mind-boggler.

    On trade (Banco Itau, 2013):

    Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. *"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders , some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."

    On "green," see Clinton below on climate change. On trade, anybody with a "dream" like that will not surrender TPP lightly.

    On war , Clinton said (Goldman Sachs, 2013):

    Hillary Clinton Said One Of The Problems With A No Fly Zone Would Be The Need To Take Out Syria's Air Defense, And "You're Going To Kill A Lot Of Syrians." "So we're not as good as we used to be, but we still-we can still deliver, and we should have in my view been trying to do that so we would have better insight. But the idea that we would have like a no fly zone-Syria, of course, did have when it started the fourth biggest Army in the world. It had very sophisticated air defense systems. They're getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian imports. To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk-you're going to kill a lot of Syrians. So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians." [ Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo Annual Conference, 6/4/13]

    Not that there's anything wrong with that .

    And speaking of beating the war drums, there's this gobsmacking quote on climate change (tinePublic, 2014):

    Clinton Talked About "Phony Environmental Groups" Funded By The Russians To Stand Against Pipelines And Fracking. "We were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I'm a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you, and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia." [Remarks at tinePublic, 6/18/14]

    Wowsers. I wonder what 350.org thinks about that?

    Avoiding Viruses in DNC/DCCC/CF Excel Files Another Word For It. For readers playing alone at home.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Bernie Sanders Supporters Furious Over Hillarys Leaked Wall Street Speeches

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    With the media exclusively attuned to every new, or 11-year-old as the case may be, twist in the Trump "sex tape" saga, it appeared that everyone forgot that a little over 24 hours ago, Wikileaks exposed the real reason why Hillary was keeping her Wall Street speech transcripts - which we now know had always been within easy reach for her campaign - secret. In her own words : "if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position." In other words, you have to lie to the general public while promising those who just paid you $250,000 for an hour of your speaking time something entirely different, which is precisely what those accusing Hillary of hiding her WS transcripts had done; and as yesterday's hacked documents revealed, they were right.

    The Clinton campaign refused to disavow the hacked excerpts, although it quickly tired to pin the blame again on Russia: "We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange, who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton," spokesman Glen Caplin said in a prepared statement. Previous releases have "Guccifer 2.0 has already proven the warnings of top national security officials that documents can be faked as part of a sophisticated Russian misinformation campaign."

    Ironically, it was literally minutes before the Wikileaks release of the "Podesta Files" that the US formally accused Russia of waging a hacking cyber attack on the US political establishment, almost as if it knew Wikileaks was about to make the major disclosure, and sought to minimize its impact by scapegoating Vladimir Putin.

    And while the Trump campaign tried to slam the leak, with spokesman saying "now we finally get confirmation of Clinton's catastrophic plans for completely open borders and diminishing America's influence in the world. There is a reason Clinton gave these high-paid speeches in secret behind closed doors - her real intentions will destroy American sovereignty as we know it, further illustrating why Hillary Clinton is simply unfit to be president", Trump's campaign had its own raging inferno to deal with.

    So, courtesy of what Trump said about some woman 11 years ago, in all the din over the oddly coincident Trump Tape leak, most of the noise created by the Hillary speeches was lost.

    But not all.

    According to Reuters , supporters of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Saturday " seethed ", and "expressed anger and vindication over leaked comments made by Hillary Clinton to banks and big business that appeared to confirm their fears about her support for global trade and tendency to cozy up to Wall Street. "

    Clinton, who last it emerged had slammed Bernie supporters as "basement dwellers" in a February fundraiser, with virtually no media coverage, needs Sanders' coalition of young and left-leaning voters to propel her to the presidency, pushes for open trade and open borders in one of the speeches, and takes a conciliatory approach to Wall Street , both positions she later backed away from in an effort to capture the popular appeal of Sanders' attacks on trade deals and powerful banks.

    Needless to say, there was no actualy "backing away", and instead Hillary did what he truly excels in better than most: she told the public what they wanted to hear, and will promptly reneg on once she becomes president.

    Only now, this is increasingly obvious to America's jilted youth: " this is a very clear illustration of why there is a fundamental lack of trust from progressives for Hillary Clinton," said Tobita Chow, chair of the People's Lobby in Chicago, which endorsed Sanders in the primary election.

    " The progressive movement needs to make a call to Secretary Clinton to clarify where she stands really on these issues and that's got to involve very clear renunciations of the positions that are revealed in these transcripts," Chow said.

    Good luck that, or even getting a response, even though Hillary was largely spared from providing one: as Reuters correctly observes, the revelations were immediately overshadowed by the release of an 11-year-old recording of Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, making lewd comments about women. In fact, the revelations were almost entirely ignored by the same prime time TV that has been glued to the Trump slow-motion trainwreck over the past 24 hours.

    Still, the hacked speeches could lead to further erosion in support from the so very critical to her successful candidacy, young American voter.

    Clinton has worked hard to build trust with so-called progressives, adopting several of Sanders' positions after she bested him in the primary race. The U.S. senator from Vermont now supports his former rival in the Nov. 8 general election against Trump. Still, Clinton has struggled to win support from young "millennials" who were crucial to Sanders' success, and some Democrats expressed concern that the leaks would discourage those supporters from showing up to vote.

    "That is a big concern and this certainly doesn't help," said Larry Cohen, chair of the board of Our Revolution, a progressive organization formed in the wake of Sanders' bid for the presidency, which aims to keep pushing the former candidate's ideas at a grassroots level. "It matters in terms of turnout, energy, volunteering, all those things."

    Still, despite the Trump media onslaught, the message appeared to filter through to those who would be most impacted by Hillary selling out her voters if she were to win the presidency.

    "Bernie was right about Hillary," wrote Facebook user Grace Tilly cited by Rueters, "she's a tool for Wall Street."

    "Clinton is the politicians' politician - exactly the Wall Street insider Bernie described," wrote Facebook user Brian Leach.

    Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf said progressive voters would still choose the former first lady, even with misgivings. "I'd like to meet the Bernie Sanders supporter who is going to say, 'Well I'm a little worried about her on international trade, so I'm going to vote for Donald Trump'," he said.

    He just may meet a few, especially if Bernie's supporters ask themselves why Bernie's support for Hillary remained so unwavering despite a leak confirming that Hillary was indeed all he had previously railed against.

    In a statement earlier, Sanders responded to the leak by saying that despite Hillary's paid speeches to Wall Street in which she expressed an agenda diametrically opposite to that espoused by the Vermont socialist, he reiterated his his support for the Democratic Party platform.

    "Whatever Secretary Clinton may or may not have said behind closed doors on Wall Street, I am determined to implement the agenda of the Democratic Party platform which was agreed upon by her campaign," he said in a statement.

    "Among other things, that agenda calls for breaking up the largest financial institutions in this country, re-establishing Glass-Steagall and prosecuting those many Wall Street CEOs who engaged in illegal behavior. "

    In retrospect we find it fascinating that in the aftermath of October's two big surprises served up on Friday, Sanders actually believes any of that having read through Hillary's Wall Street speeches, certainly far more fascinating than the staged disgust with Trump who, the media is suddenly stunned to find, was no more politically correct 11 year ago than he is today.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Hillary Camp Worked With Reporter On Anti-Sanders Story

    Notable quotes:
    "... Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff for underhanded tactics. ..."
    "... "We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks, which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us, lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email. ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | dailycaller.com
    Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign collaborated with Bloomberg reporter Jennifer Epstein to create an anti-Bernie Sanders story prior to the Nevada caucus.

    In the vast trove of Clinton emails leaked Thursday by the organization DCLeaks, there is an email exchange between Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and Emily Ruiz, head of the campaign's Nevada operation. In the exchange, Ruiz and Mook discuss rumors that Sanders volunteers were posing as Clinton operatives and engaging in irritating behavior like knocking on voters' doors at 11 pm.

    Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff for underhanded tactics.

    "We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks, which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us, lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email.

    [Oct 09, 2016] A Real Life House of Cards - The Most Striking WikiLeaks Revelations From The Podesta Files Zero Hedge

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Yesterday we pointed out the many amazing one-liners offered up by Hillary as she was out collecting millions of dollars for her "Wall Street speeches." Here is an expanded sample:

    Hillary Clinton: "I'm Kind Of Far Removed" From The Struggles Of The Middle Class "Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy." "And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it." [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]

    Hillary Clinton Said There Was "A Bias Against People Who Have Led Successful And/Or Complicated Lives," Citing The Need To Divese Of Assets, Positions, And Stocks. "SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that. He said, you know, when he came to Washington, he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he had a small -- MR. BLANKFEIN: That's how you have a small fortune, is you go to Washington. SECRETARY CLINTON: You go to Washington. Right. But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]

    Hillary Clinton Noted President Clinton Had Spoken At The Same Goldman Summit Last Year, And Blankfein Joked "He Increased Our Budget." "SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, thanks for having me here and giving me a chance to know a little bit more about the builders and the innovators who you've gathered. Some of you might have been here last year, and my husband was, I guess, in this very same position. And he came back and was just thrilled by- MR. BLANKFEIN: He increased our budget. SECRETARY CLINTON: Did he? MR. BLANKFEIN: Yes. That's why we -- SECRETARY CLINTON: Good. I think he-I think he encouraged you to grow it a little, too. But it really was a tremendous experience for him, so I've been looking forward to it and hope we have a chance to talk about a lot of things." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]

    Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees "Were Not Mostly Permitted To Have Handheld Devices." "You know, when Colin Powell showed up as Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn't even have computers on their desks. When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have handheld devices. I mean, so you're thinking how do we operate in this new environment dominated by technology, globalizing forces? We have to change, and I can't expect people to change if I don't try to model it and lead it." [Clinton Speech For General Electric's Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]

    Clinton Joked It's "Risky" For Her To Speak To A Group Committed To Futures Markets Given Her Past Whitewater Scandal. "Now, it's always a little bit risky for me to come speak to a group that is committed to the futures markets because -- there's a few knowing laughs -- many years ago, I actually traded in the futures markets. I mean, this was so long ago, it was before computers were invented, I think. And I worked with a group of like-minded friends and associates who traded in pork bellies and cotton and other such things, and I did pretty well. I invested about a thousand dollars and traded up to about a hundred thousand. And then my daughter was born, and I just didn't think I had enough time or mental space to figure out anything having to do with trading other than trading time with my daughter for time with the rest of my life. So I got out, and I thought that would be the end of it." [Remarks to CME Group, 11/18/13]

    Hillary Clinton Said Jordan Was Threatened Because "They Can't Possibly Vet All Those Refugees So They Don't Know If, You Know, Jihadists Are Coming In Along With Legitimate Refugees." "So I think you're right to have gone to the places that you visited because there's a discussion going on now across the region to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by extremism and particularly with Syria which has everyone quite worried, Jordan because it's on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can't possibly vet all those refugees so they don't know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason." [Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon, 10/28/13]

    Hillary Clinton Said The Saudis Opposed The Muslim Brotherhood, "Which Is Kind Of Ironic Since The Saudis Have Exported More Extreme Ideology Than Any Other Place On Earth Over The Course Of The Last 30 Years." "And they are getting a lot of help from the Saudis to the Emiratis-to go back to our original discussion-because the Saudis and the Emiratis see the Muslim Brotherhood as threatening to them, which is kind of ironic since the Saudis have exported more extreme ideology than any other place on earth over the course of the last 30 years." [2014 Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner, 10/28/13]

    Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

    Meanwhile, there are plenty of other great email exchanges as well.

    The following exchange comes from the President of the Soros-funded " Open Society Foundation " (we previously wrote about the society's plan to "Enlarge electorate by at least 10 million voters" here ) who offers some advice on "police reform." The email points Podesta to an article previously written by the Open Society Foundation , ironically titled " Get the Politics Out of Policing ." Surprisingly, Stone points out that the problem isn't a lack of independence by police but by politicians:

    The problem is not a lack of independence just from the police , but independence from city politics. Since 2007, Chicago has had an agency separate from the police to investigate officer-involved shootings, but the "independent" agency (the Independent Police Review Authority, or IPRA) is still under the mayor, and generally retreats from any investigation that might lead to criminal charges. Until we get investigations of cases like this out of the hands of politicians, even the best policies a police chief can impose won't change the culture.

    Well that seemed to backfire. To summarize, Stone says don't do exactly what the FBI did in its investigation of Hillary's email scandal.

    [Oct 08, 2016] Barry and the spooks make it official today – Putin did it! re: the DNC email leaks.

    Oct 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    lyman alpha blob October 7, 2016 at 5:59 pm

    Barry and the spooks make it official today – Putin did it! re: the DNC email leaks.

    But as you note, the Dems are not coming off as particularly trustworthy. Checking the comments of that article, the dogs aren't eating the dogfood and seem to have noticed the claims are still based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

    [Oct 08, 2016] Democrat Email Hairballs

    Oct 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Wikileaks' Julian Assange to release 'significant' documents on US election, Google, arms trading over next 10 weeks" [ International Business Times ]. Oh, not the next 31 days?

    PhilU October 7, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    Wikileaks dumped #ThePodestaEmails. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/

    Complete with a copy of everything problematic in her wall street spaces.
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927#efmAIuAMKAViAXv
    THEY ARE BAD
    "But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position ."
    -100% pro trade
    -Shits on single payer
    -Wall Street should regulate itself… sigh.

    And her Uranium One cover might have just died.
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release

    Titus Pullo October 7, 2016 at 9:11 pm

    Don't worry, the CTR shills are already on Reddit and social media framing this as another "nothing burger," or that it is actually good for her. The campaign's pals in the MSM are sure to follow, especially considering the reprehensible recording of Trump that was released earlier today (granted, as a man, I have heard many men say things as bad or worse than Trump has said at various stages in my life) gives them a foil to wrap this hot potato in.

    [Oct 02, 2016] Donald Trump is an American Ahmadinejad

    Guardian is firmly in Hillary camp. Neoliberal media defends neoliberal candidate. What can you expect?
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Some people insist on disguising this Great Satan as the savior angel." -- Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei, referring to the United States, 2015. ..."
    "... The US has already been doing that for a long time. Your country is currently allied with al Qaeda in Syria and other so called moderates whose intention is to create a sharia law fundamentalist society as aopposed to Assad who is euro centric and secular. ..."
    "... From the article: We know from Wikileaks that she believed privately in the past that Saudi Arabia was the largest source for terrorist funding worldwide, and that the Saudi government was not doing enough to stop that funding. ..."
    "... and yet the Clinton Foundation benefits massively from KSA donations ..."
    "... I heard that Donald Trump speaks out against the USA funding extremists to overthrow leaders like Assad, while they couldn't care about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Tourists are being shot in Tunisia from extremists in Libya since we became involved in killing Gaddafi. ..."
    "... The USA armed and trained extremists in Afghanistan to get one over on Russia, and despite more British troops and civilians being killed by USA friendly fire than the 'enemy' our media never make the same fuss about the USA. ..."
    "... The USA didn't care for years when the government they helped implement in Afghanistan made women walk around in blue tents and banned them from education. ..."
    "... Different political systems; two people who come from very different backgrounds with different views and experiences. Ahmadinejad was a social conservative with a populist economic agenda. Trump is all over the map, but in terms of his staff and advisers and his economic plans he's much more of a conventional Republican. David Duke's admiration is the main thing the two have in common. ..."
    "... Clinton is tripe. She, and her kin, have a ponderous history of talk, and either inaction, or actions that generate disastrous results. Zero accomplishments across the board. Those who'd vote for Hillary must have a "horse" in this race. ..."
    "... Yawn... The Guardian has Trump and Putin bashing on the brain. ..."
    "... John Bolton as possible Secretary of State? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/john-bolton-no-regrets-about-toppling-saddam/article/2564463 Unless you're not talking about the guy who looks like a dead ringer for Mr Pastry that is a really terrifying proposition. ..."
    "... USA and Britain are very directly responsible for Iran being ruled by the Islamic mafia which has been in power in Iran since 1979. Iran had a democratic government which for the benefit of its people and against the stealing of its oil by Britain, nationalised the oil. Britain then, desperate to carry on stealing the Iranian oil persuaded USA to collaborate with it to covertly organise a coup by MI5 and CIA to topple the legitimate democratic government and install a puppet dictatorship. ..."
    "... All that happened in 1953, and Britain and USA totally admitted to all that 30 years later when the official secrets were declassified. ..."
    "... ..., forgot to mention, Jimmy C1arter recently admitted that while he was the president, they contributed to the funding of the Khomeini gang against their own installed ally, the Shah in 1979 to topple him ..."
    "... Trump makes George W Bush seem like an intellectual heavyweight and Hillary Clinton makes Bush seem as honest and truthful as a Girl Scout! ..."
    "... What a shitty choice Americans have to make this time round. A compulsive liar warmonger or an ignorant buffoonish bigot.... ..."
    "... US hatred for Iran is hard to fathom. Other adversaries have been forgiven: Germany, Italy, Japan, Vietnam, China. Iran is an outlier. ..."
    "... I think it's mainly to keep US allies happy. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel regard Iran as their greatest enemy and the Syrian Civil War is largely a proxy conflict between the Saudis and the Iranians over their respective oil supplies, regional clout and religious affinity. ..."
    "... Vote Clinton and absolutely nothing changes or improves. Hillary might as well take golf lessons from Barack, and saxophone lessons from bonking Bill, every day of her presidency. ..."
    "... I wouldn't be at all surprised if the CIA and/or the US Armed Forces do that sort of thing too actually! The CIA, after all, toppled the then democratically elected PM of Iran in 1953, forcibly installing the Shah in his place, the CIA helped bring the Taliban and Saddam to power in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively in the first place, unleashing decades of death and destruction on the peoples of those two countries ..."
    "... When the Iraqi people rose up against Saddam's brutal dictatorship back in 1991, the US actually helped him crush the rebellion, thus ensuring he stayed in power. ..."
    "... One of Trump's top advisors John Bolton wrote an article for the New York Times titled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" calling for a joint US-Israel strike on Iran, including regime change. He could well end up being Sec. Of State if Trump wins. ..."
    "... Meanwhile Clinton is on record as saying that Iran are the world's main sponsor of terrorism and that if she became president she would obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel. Given that Hezbollah are always involved in tit for tat encounters with Israel, and Clinton feels Hezbollah is effectively the state of Iran, it wouldn't take much. ..."
    "... Bolton is a vile neocon of the lowest order, what a charade if he gets a senior post and they call Hillary a warmonger? Just wait for Bolton, you mugs ..."
    "... Let's hope the Saudis defeat the Houthi uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Yemen. Oh, sorry this is the Guardian: let's hope the Russians defeat the Sunni uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Syria... ..."
    "... Yes. Trump is going to steal ISIS's oil. Only slight hole in that theory is that ISIS doesn't own any phucking oil. They aren't a nation state, just thieves. Stealing a thief's stolen goods is still stealing. ..."
    "... I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. They were complicit in 9/11, they hate the west and despise us. ..."
    "... >I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. Oil. Oil. And more Oil. ..."
    "... There's nothing bizarre about working with Russia on Middle Eastern issues unless you're married to the idea of a new Cold War. Why Washington is so hell-bent on making Russians the enemies again is beyond me. ..."
    "... Russia - does it really need all that land? Wouldn't it be better if Vladivostok was Obamagrad and Ekaterinburg was Katemiddletown? ..."
    "... What exactly is the US now? a supplier of sophisticated weaponary to "rebels" or rather terrorists that the legitimate governnent ( with Russian help thankfully) is trying to defeat... ..."
    "... There is no moral equivalence here. Once you look at what western intel has been upto all these decades, nowhere could Russia be close to the evil that the US and UK are. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Gman13 2016-09-29

    Donny is the best chance for the lasting world peace and stability because he is more likely to work with Russians on key geopolitical issues.

    Hillary is the best chance for ww3 and nuclear anihilation of the mainland American cities because she is russophobic, demonizer of Russia, hell bent on messing with them and unexplicably encouraged to do so by supposedly "normal" people in mainstream media.

    vaclavers , 2016-09-29 01:12:44
    "Some people insist on disguising this Great Satan as the savior angel." -- Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei, referring to the United States, 2015.
    TruthOrBust , 2016-09-29 00:58:27
    Trump secretly encourages Muslim extremists. Trump is banking, and likely funding, ISIS, to propel him to WH out of fear.
    fragglerokk -> TruthOrBust , 2016-09-29 01:23:38
    The US has already been doing that for a long time. Your country is currently allied with al Qaeda in Syria and other so called moderates whose intention is to create a sharia law fundamentalist society as aopposed to Assad who is euro centric and secular.

    http://theduran.com/how-the-us-israel-al-qaeda-and-isis-work-together-in-the-war-against-syria/

    DogsLivesMatter , 2016-09-29 00:41:44
    From the article: We know from Wikileaks that she believed privately in the past that Saudi Arabia was the largest source for terrorist funding worldwide, and that the Saudi government was not doing enough to stop that funding.

    You know who else believes that about the KSA? Joe Biden.

    fragglerokk -> DogsLivesMatter , 2016-09-29 01:24:30
    and yet the Clinton Foundation benefits massively from KSA donations
    Charlie Lee , 2016-09-29 00:38:18
    I heard that Donald Trump speaks out against the USA funding extremists to overthrow leaders like Assad, while they couldn't care about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Tourists are being shot in Tunisia from extremists in Libya since we became involved in killing Gaddafi.

    The USA armed and trained extremists in Afghanistan to get one over on Russia, and despite more British troops and civilians being killed by USA friendly fire than the 'enemy' our media never make the same fuss about the USA. It wasn't long ago that many doctors were killed in a hospital by a USA bomb, but I only found out about it on the Doctors Without Borders facebook page.

    The USA didn't care for years when the government they helped implement in Afghanistan made women walk around in blue tents and banned them from education.

    JVRTRL , 2016-09-29 00:31:47
    The Ahmadinejad - Trump comparison is a weak comparison.

    Different political systems; two people who come from very different backgrounds with different views and experiences. Ahmadinejad was a social conservative with a populist economic agenda. Trump is all over the map, but in terms of his staff and advisers and his economic plans he's much more of a conventional Republican. David Duke's admiration is the main thing the two have in common.

    nicacio , 2016-09-29 00:10:06
    Clinton is tripe. She, and her kin, have a ponderous history of talk, and either inaction, or actions that generate disastrous results. Zero accomplishments across the board. Those who'd vote for Hillary must have a "horse" in this race.

    I won't be specific, but that horse, or horses, are generally the disenfranchised ones. What to say: I get their plight. But Hillary? Elected, she only make sure they stay that way so she'll be elected again. Time to wake up. There ain't no "pie in the sky", but with perserverance, all's possible, and likely. Trump's the guy.

    sokkynick , 2016-09-28 23:50:23
    Yawn... The Guardian has Trump and Putin bashing on the brain.
    ComradeSueII , 2016-09-28 23:41:21
    John Bolton as possible Secretary of State? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/john-bolton-no-regrets-about-toppling-saddam/article/2564463 Unless you're not talking about the guy who looks like a dead ringer for Mr Pastry that is a really terrifying proposition.
    oldsunshine , 2016-09-28 23:25:02
    USA and Britain are very directly responsible for Iran being ruled by the Islamic mafia which has been in power in Iran since 1979. Iran had a democratic government which for the benefit of its people and against the stealing of its oil by Britain, nationalised the oil. Britain then, desperate to carry on stealing the Iranian oil persuaded USA to collaborate with it to covertly organise a coup by MI5 and CIA to topple the legitimate democratic government and install a puppet dictatorship.

    All that happened in 1953, and Britain and USA totally admitted to all that 30 years later when the official secrets were declassified. One of the consequences of that criminal act was that it lead to the Islamic revolution which brought the Islam clergy to power which turned this most strategically, economically, and culturally important country of the region into an enemy of the west, supporter of terrorism, human rights abuser, arch enemy of Israel, total economic ruin, and eternal nuclear threat to the region- not to mention the Shia-Sunni sectarian division that it has perpetrated which to the large extent has contributed to the mighty mess that the Middle East is in now and potentially spreading to the outside of the region.

    oldsunshine -> oldsunshine , 2016-09-28 23:31:45
    ..., forgot to mention, Jimmy C1arter recently admitted that while he was the president, they contributed to the funding of the Khomeini gang against their own installed ally, the Shah in 1979 to topple him
    Carlb1501 -> oldsunshine , 2016-09-28 23:45:34
    Where do I find this reference?
    oldsunshine -> Carlb1501 , 2016-09-28 23:50:49
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
    Apollo2134 , 2016-09-28 23:22:17
    Trump makes George W Bush seem like an intellectual heavyweight and Hillary Clinton makes Bush seem as honest and truthful as a Girl Scout!

    What a shitty choice Americans have to make this time round. A compulsive liar warmonger or an ignorant buffoonish bigot....

    Fraxby , 2016-09-28 22:56:52

    Trump has said directly that the 2015 nuclear deal was "disastrous" and he would repudiate it, doubling and tripling sanctions

    He probably thinks he can point at it and tell it that it's fired.

    caravanserai , 2016-09-28 22:45:10
    US hatred for Iran is hard to fathom. Other adversaries have been forgiven: Germany, Italy, Japan, Vietnam, China. Iran is an outlier.
    ComradeSueII -> caravanserai , 2016-09-29 01:41:50
    I think it's mainly to keep US allies happy. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel regard Iran as their greatest enemy and the Syrian Civil War is largely a proxy conflict between the Saudis and the Iranians over their respective oil supplies, regional clout and religious affinity.

    Though the continuance of PNAC's schema shouldn't be discounted either. US policy hawks close to both Clinton and Trump still aim for dominance in Central Eurasia. I expect if they could press a button and magically summon up a new Shah for Iran they'd jump at the chance.

    Cuba spent over half a century living beneath the shadow of American wrath too for different reasons. Though perhaps burning revenge at the loss of a compliant puppet also played a role.

    finalcurtain , 2016-09-28 22:44:50
    Vote Clinton and absolutely nothing changes or improves. Hillary might as well take golf lessons from Barack, and saxophone lessons from bonking Bill, every day of her presidency.

    Vote Trump and things are going to change in America. No more pussyfooting around.

    HNS1684 -> UCManhattanP1945 , 2016-09-28 23:49:33
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if the CIA and/or the US Armed Forces do that sort of thing too actually! The CIA, after all, toppled the then democratically elected PM of Iran in 1953, forcibly installing the Shah in his place, the CIA helped bring the Taliban and Saddam to power in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively in the first place, unleashing decades of death and destruction on the peoples of those two countries.

    When the Iraqi people rose up against Saddam's brutal dictatorship back in 1991, the US actually helped him crush the rebellion, thus ensuring he stayed in power. So the US is arguably at least partly responsible for the crimes Saddam and the Taliban committed (in the case of Iraq, as well as murdering at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the US is probably also partly responsible for Saddam's DRAINING OF THE MARSHLANDS OF SOUTHER IRAQ).

    WalterCronkiteBot , 2016-09-28 21:49:48
    One of Trump's top advisors John Bolton wrote an article for the New York Times titled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" calling for a joint US-Israel strike on Iran, including regime change. He could well end up being Sec. Of State if Trump wins.

    Meanwhile Clinton is on record as saying that Iran are the world's main sponsor of terrorism and that if she became president she would obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel. Given that Hezbollah are always involved in tit for tat encounters with Israel, and Clinton feels Hezbollah is effectively the state of Iran, it wouldn't take much.

    Whoever wins Iran loses.

    jimcee33 -> WalterCronkiteBot , 2016-09-28 22:11:21
    Bolton is a vile neocon of the lowest order, what a charade if he gets a senior post and they call Hillary a warmonger? Just wait for Bolton, you mugs
    okthen , 2016-09-28 21:43:04
    Let's hope the Saudis defeat the Houthi uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Yemen. Oh, sorry this is the Guardian: let's hope the Russians defeat the Sunni uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Syria...
    StrangerInParadise -> okthen , 2016-09-28 21:46:13
    Have you ever actually read The Guardian? Look at Shaun Walker's Twitter if you think it is pro-Russian.
    nmccf -> okthen , 2016-09-28 22:21:51
    Yes. Trump is going to steal ISIS's oil. Only slight hole in that theory is that ISIS doesn't own any phucking oil. They aren't a nation state, just thieves. Stealing a thief's stolen goods is still stealing.
    wyngwili , 2016-09-28 21:31:27
    I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. They were complicit in 9/11, they hate the west and despise us.
    ID8701745 wyngwili , 2016-09-28 21:43:53
    >I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. Oil. Oil. And more Oil.
    PrinceVlad , 2016-09-28 21:23:25
    There's nothing bizarre about working with Russia on Middle Eastern issues unless you're married to the idea of a new Cold War. Why Washington is so hell-bent on making Russians the enemies again is beyond me.
    StrangerInParadise -> PrinceVlad , 2016-09-28 21:43:47
    Russia - does it really need all that land? Wouldn't it be better if Vladivostok was Obamagrad and Ekaterinburg was Katemiddletown?
    wallwoodgreen , 2016-09-28 21:22:07
    What exactly is the US now? a supplier of sophisticated weaponary to "rebels" or rather terrorists that the legitimate governnent ( with Russian help thankfully) is trying to defeat...
    Carlb1501 -> wallwoodgreen , 2016-09-28 22:39:01
    Both America and Russia have been supplying arms to terrorists or to destabilise elected Govts. Since the end of WW2. Neither country has a right to take the moral high ground especially not Russia at this time with the revelations coming out about shooting down passenger aircraft. You're both as bad as each other.
    GovernmentSin Carlb1501 , 2016-09-28 23:12:40
    There is no moral equivalence here. Once you look at what western intel has been upto all these decades, nowhere could Russia be close to the evil that the US and UK are.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Clinton describes Sanders supporters as basement-dwellers baristas in leaked recording - RT America

    Notable quotes:
    "... "There's just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we've done hasn't gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don't know what that means, but it's something that they deeply feel," ..."
    "... "bewildered" ..."
    "... "populist, nationalist, xenophobic, discriminatory" ..."
    "... "I am occupying from the center-left to the center-right. And I don't have much company there. Because it is difficult when you're running to be president, and you understand how hard the job is – I don't want to overpromise," said Clinton, who has customarily eschewed political spectrum labels. ..."
    "... "understanding" ..."
    "... "Some are new to politics completely. They're children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents' basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don't see much of a future," ..."
    "... "If you're feeling like you're consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn't pay a lot, and doesn't have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing." ..."
    "... "listening to the concerns" of "the most diverse, open-minded generation in history." ..."
    "... People who have the TV on all day and watch the news from the mainstream media are naturally going to get hoodwinked. They aren't the brightest, but they're also distracted and mislead. ..."
    "... She is the definition of implicit bias. ..."
    "... After all, they are the deplorables. HRC is truly the most despicable, scandal ridden, lying war monger to ever grace American politics. ..."
    "... Shame on Sanders for supporting that Nazi witch. ..."
    "... Millions of people were adversely harmed by her misguided policies and her "pay-to-play" operations involving favors in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.rt.com

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made forthright remarks about Bernie Sanders' supporters during a private meeting with fundraisers, an audio from which has been leaked following an email hack.

    "There's just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we've done hasn't gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don't know what that means, but it's something that they deeply feel," Clinton said during a Q&A with potential donors in McLean in Virginia, in February, when she was still in a close primary race with Sanders.

    The frontrunner to become the next US President said that herself and other election observers had been "bewildered" by the rise of the "populist, nationalist, xenophobic, discriminatory" Republican candidates, presumably Donald Trump, on the one side, and the radical left-wing idealists on the other.

    Clinton painted herself as a moderate and realistic contrast to the groundswell.

    "I am occupying from the center-left to the center-right. And I don't have much company there. Because it is difficult when you're running to be president, and you understand how hard the job is – I don't want to overpromise," said Clinton, who has customarily eschewed political spectrum labels.

    According to the Washington Free Beacon, which posted the audio of Clinton's remarks, the recording was attached to an email sent out by a campaign staffer, which has been hacked. It is unclear if the leak is the work of the same hackers who got hold of a trove of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails in July.

    ... ... ...

    In the session, Clinton called for an "understanding" of the motives of Sanders' younger backers, while describing them in terms that fluctuate between patronizing and unflattering.

    "Some are new to politics completely. They're children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents' basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don't see much of a future," said Clinton, who obtained the support of about 2,800 delegates, compared to approximately 1,900 for Sanders, when the results were tallied in July.

    "If you're feeling like you're consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn't pay a lot, and doesn't have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing."

    Despite well-publicized tensions, particularly between the more vocal backers, Sanders endorsed Clinton at the Democratic National Convention two months ago, and the two politicians have campaigned together this week, sharing the stage.

    Following the leak, the Clinton campaign has not apologized for the audio, insisting that it shows that the nominee and is "listening to the concerns" of "the most diverse, open-minded generation in history."

    "As Hillary Clinton said in those remarks , she wants young people to be idealistic and set big goals," said her spokesman Glen Caplin. "She is fighting for exactly millennial generation cares more about – a fairer, more equal, just world."

    In other parts of the 50-minute recording, Clinton spoke about US capacity to "retaliate" against foreign hackers that would serve as a "deterrence" and said she would be "inclined" to mothball the costly upgrade of the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) missile program.

    Read more

    PurpleSeaMan87
    And more votes for Trump it seems. Good
    Olive Sailboat 2h

    The more she runs her mouth the more support she loses.

    Gold Carrot -> Olive Sailboat 6m

    Well if somebody is supported by Soros, Warren Buffet, Walmart family, Gates, Moskowitz, Pritzker, Saban and Session what do you expect. Give me 8 names of other Americans who can top their money worth. And even so called financial supporters of Republican party like Whitman and Koch brothers are not supporting Trump. Whitman actually donate to Clinton. In fact most of the donation for Trump campaign is coming from people who donate at average less than 200 dollars. Clinton represent BIG MONEY that... See more

    GA 2h

    Clinton has a supremacist problem, she considers all americans under deserving people, she thinks she is a pharaoh and we are little people. Reply Share 15

    Red Ducky -> GA 23m

    you think trump is different? ask yourself this question: Why do Rich people spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a job that only pays $400K a year?

    Rabid Rotty -> Red Ducky 9m

    And Trump has stated several times that he will not take the Presidential Salary

    pHiL SwEeT -> Rabid Rotty 8m

    Uh, yah, Red Ducky just explained how it's not about the money, they're already rich. It's about power, status, control and legacy.

    Green Weights 2h

    if Clinton sends her followers and their families to concentration camps, they'll still continue supporting her. yes, that's how stupid they really are.

    Olive Basketball -> Green Weights 55m

    People who have the TV on all day and watch the news from the mainstream media are naturally going to get hoodwinked. They aren't the brightest, but they're also distracted and mislead.

    Cyan Beer 2h

    She is the definition of implicit bias.

    Norm de Plume
    Sure enough. The real Americans. Not people, like her, who have dedicated their lives to aggrandizing themselves living effectively tax-free at the people's expense.
    Seve141 7m
    After all, they are the deplorables. HRC is truly the most despicable, scandal ridden, lying war monger to ever grace American politics.
    Tornado_Doom 12m
    Shame on Sanders for supporting that Nazi witch.
    Green Band Aid -> Tornado_Doom 12m
    Sanders will be getting paid. All he does is for money.
    Tornado_Doom -> Green Band Aid 11m
    Does an old rich man like him need money?
    Green Leaf 43m
    Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State during Barack Obama's first term was an unmitigated disaster for many nations around the world. The media has never adequately described how a number of countries around the world suffered horribly from HC's foreign policy decisions. Millions of people were adversely harmed by her misguided policies and her "pay-to-play" operations involving favors in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative.

    Countries adversely impacted by HC's foreign policy decisions include Abkhazia, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, Malaysia, Palestine, Paraguay, South Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Venezuela, Western Sahara, Yemen - one would think they had a visit from the anti-Christ instead of HC. Or is HC the anti-Christ in disguise?

    Green Leaf 45m
    The majority of American's will vote Trump for 3 primary reasons.

    1. National Security: They trust him when it comes to protecting national security and to stop illegal aliens from entering US boarders along with stopping the mass importation of un-vetted refugees from the middle east.

    2. Economy: They know he knows how to get things done under budget and ahead of schedule.. and he knows how to make money. They want a successful businessman in office, not another political who is out to enrich his or herself at their expense. In addition he knows how to create jobs and he has a major plan to cut taxes to help the poor - no tax for anyone earning less then $50,000 and

    3. Hillary's severe covered-up health problems: With all of the problems that the US is experience they don't want someone who passes out from a seizure in the middle of the day running the country. This is a severely ill woman is, evidently, of the rare kind that requires a permanent traveling physician and a "mystery man" who rushes to her side whenever she has one of her frequent and uncontrollable seizure "episodes" (or otherwise freezes up with a brain "short-circuit" during a speech). She has Parkinson's. The pneumonia was just a symptom for something much more serious. She even had a mini seizure during the debate for those with a medical background to see.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Krugman trashed Sanders relentlessly using his soap box and now he is horrified the Hillary might lose. What a jerk

    Notable quotes:
    "... But Paul Krugman I have lost a lot of respect for. There was a candidate that people believed in and that stood up for working people and liberal values and that motivated people to come out and support him and his goals for the U.S.A. A candidate that would have neutralized Trump's appeal to the working class (which is mostly where I am). Krugman trashed him relentlessly using his very large soap box. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Jerry Brown : September 30, 2016 at 05:31 PM
    I won't say bad things about Clinton. Because she is far better than the alternative at this point. But Paul Krugman I have lost a lot of respect for. There was a candidate that people believed in and that stood up for working people and liberal values and that motivated people to come out and support him and his goals for the U.S.A. A candidate that would have neutralized Trump's appeal to the working class (which is mostly where I am). Krugman trashed him relentlessly using his very large soap box.

    Now he is horrified that the polls are so close.

    I can't say anything more without being negative. Except vote for Clinton- she's better than Trump. Which is a pathetic endorsement.

    [Oct 01, 2016] David Brock (Hilary Super-PAC) apparently got access to FoxAcid, the top secret NSA software Snowden exposed.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Forget the Bernie hack, this one shows David Brock (Hilary Super-PAC) in action. Apparently they got access to FoxAcid, the top secret NSA software Snowden exposed. ..."
    "... Honey for the conspiracy bears but this does smell right, and if it's real it's a bombshell: ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 1, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Forget the Bernie hack, this one shows David Brock (Hilary Super-PAC) in action. Apparently they got access to FoxAcid, the top secret NSA software Snowden exposed.

    Honey for the conspiracy bears but this does smell right, and if it's real it's a bombshell:

    http://www.realtruenews.org/single-post/2016/09/27/Inside-Correct-the-Record-Post-Debate-PLOT

    [Oct 01, 2016] Clinton should be beating Trump easily in the polls. Sanders would be. Trump is the worst candidate in history.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not because of policy, but because they *hate* Clinton's dishonest scumbags like Debbie Wasserman Shultz... They know them and hate them. ..."
    "... Clinton brags about how much she's done for the children meanwhile she's a millionaire who gives speeches to Goldman Sachs and does nothing but attend fundraisers thrown by rich donors. ..."
    "... a lot of Sanders supporters have a visceral dislike of Sanders people who lied to them and about us... The dishonesty is blatant, just how Hillary lied about Sanders during the primary. ..."
    "... wait until the election is over. The hatred toward Clinton and surrogates ... will come pouring out. That is if she wins. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. : September 30, 2016 at 06:35 AM Clinton should be beating Trump easily in the polls. Sanders would be. Trump is the worst candidate in history.

    Why isn't she don't better? It's because Clinton surrogates like PGL are hateful and obnoxious. The voters hate these people and don't agree with Clinton's centrism. The voters hate the BS we're expected to believe like how corporate trade is nothing but beneficial or that the Obama years were great.

    It's not simply because she's a woman or because of the media (which the Clintonites were happy to use against Sanders.)
    Reply Friday, September 30, 2016 at 06:35 AM Peter K. -> Peter K.... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 06:47 AM

    That's why Trump is appealing to Sanders voters.

    Not because of policy, but because they *hate* Clinton's dishonest scumbags like Debbie Wasserman Shultz... They know them and hate them.

    Clinton brags about how much she's done for the children meanwhile she's a millionaire who gives speeches to Goldman Sachs and does nothing but attend fundraisers thrown by rich donors.

    I'll vote for Hillary but a lot of Sanders supporters have a visceral dislike of Sanders people who lied to them and about us... The dishonesty is blatant, just how Hillary lied about Sanders during the primary. But Sanders knows policywise Trump is much, much worse than Hillary even if she's not that good.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , -1
    That's why Sanders is campaigning for Hillary. But wait until the election is over. The hatred toward Clinton and surrogates ... will come pouring out. That is if she wins.

    [Sep 28, 2016] The debate was very scripted, organised, funelled, etc. Much much more so than the public realises, by the promoters (network), the PTB, etc. Viperous bitter discussions take place about what can or cannot be mentioned

    Notable quotes:
    "... HRC, the PTB, deep state, neo-lib-cons, still think they can 'win' by using these kinds of blatant domineering tactics. ..."
    "... I was surprised, while watching the debate, at how subdued it all was. The subject matter was clearly circumscribed by previous agreement. The public can never escape the scripted product they receive; and another way of saying this, is that the agreed-upon lies, always make up the bulk of the debate. ..."
    "... The narrative is sanitized to an important degree, and just shows the effect of suffocating control. Neither person won the debate after all, for the oppressively scripted event was only meant to impress the public with the idea that the race is still a close one. And who, after all, knows what will happen. ..."
    "... To anyone awake and questioning the legitimacy of the 'arrangements' made for the election, especially the 'newborn' skeptics who abound at this point, this whole 'show' is just confirmation of their worst fears. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Noirette

    A last point about the debate. They are very scripted, organised, funelled, etc. Much much more so than the public realises, by the promoters (network), the PTB, etc. Viperous bitter discussions take place about what can or cannot be mentioned. (I presume as that is the case in other countries besides the US.) Trump tweeted he 'held back' because he did not want to embarass HRC, but imho he was muzzled in part by the ''deals' as the show itself illustrated, softball to HRC and interrupting DT etc. Imho HRC was given the questions beforehand, DT not (but who knows?) and basically everything was organised beforehand to put him at a disadvantage.

    HRC, the PTB, deep state, neo-lib-cons, still think they can 'win' by using these kinds of blatant domineering tactics. The point has been made by many: all these standard coercitive controlling moves can now backfire badly, they only serve to show up that the Establishment creeps use illegit. actions, and in any case Trump supporters won't be moved an inch, he could give out a recipe for Texas BBQ (as one pol I saw did but for rabbit, see previous posts), or flat out ask the moderator, well IDK, what do you think? and that would be peachy..

    Trump followed the no. 1 rule (campaign for myself not against the other), as he was surely advised to do. Various excuses, rationalisations are put forward for it: he wanted to appeal to the conventional Repub base, appear as a legit candidate to ppl who had never seen him 'live' before, he is holding back for the next debates, etc. Still, his performance was not tops, in the sense of a maverick breaking the mold, he fell down, was a disapointment. He was shown up to be low man on the pole, constrained by negotiations which he could not dominate, rules which he could not transgress. Of course many DT supporters and possible new ones perceived the manipulations quite clearly, and were thus on his side, so a mixed bag. (It's all optics so i wrote nothing about the real issues.)

    Copeland | Sep 28, 2016 4:35:03 PM | 95

    I agree with Noirette @ 94

    I was surprised, while watching the debate, at how subdued it all was. The subject matter was clearly circumscribed by previous agreement. The public can never escape the scripted product they receive; and another way of saying this, is that the agreed-upon lies, always make up the bulk of the debate.

    The narrative is sanitized to an important degree, and just shows the effect of suffocating control. Neither person won the debate after all, for the oppressively scripted event was only meant to impress the public with the idea that the race is still a close one. And who, after all, knows what will happen.

    jfl | Sep 28, 2016 7:01:02 PM | 96
    @94 n, @95 c

    Bruce Dixon recounts his experience outside the debate itself, Hundreds of Cops Divert and Foil Thousands of Protesters Outside NY Presidential Debate

    While inside the debate moderator Lester Holt failed to ask questions about joblessness, medical care, student loans, police murder or mass incarceration, New York police outside the debate showed the world how to suppress free speech with a soft hand, diverting more than two thousand protesters into "free speech zones" long lines and checkpoints and spaces artfully designed to prevent groups from concentrating in one place or finding each other.
    And Glen Ford points up its obvious, mobbed-up circumstances The Great Debate That Never Was on the inside
    If the Green Party's Jill Stein had been allowed in this week's presidential debate, it would have transformed the discussion and altered the race. That's why Democrats and Republicans kept it a duopoly-only affair. "The only circumstances in which either Trump or Clinton can muster a minimally compelling argument, is against each other."
    To anyone awake and questioning the legitimacy of the 'arrangements' made for the election, especially the 'newborn' skeptics who abound at this point, this whole 'show' is just confirmation of their worst fears.

    The Powers That Are can't do anything right any longer. Everything they do is wrong, and is immediately apparent as wrong, on the big screen and booming through the big megaphone. They'd do better just to lay off but, like all the extras brought on to push Xmas after Thanksgiving, there are just too many of them wound-up and let loose, stepping and slipping from one pile of dog-doo to another, as they tear down the streets of NYC and Hollywood.

    I think there's a very good chance that this is the year the extravaganza implodes.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Why Donald Trump is winning

    Notable quotes:
    "... Both were highly disciplined, one being a billionaire who has made it mostly on his own and the other having survived in public life for at least 45 years with no jail time. ..."
    "... Hillary's response was that Donald had used bad language in public, lacked the proper "temperament" to be president, and favored the rich whom she would hit with higher taxes to pay for her giveaways. That last line about the rich is a bit much given the fact that Hillary is the creature of Wall Street, Hollywood, and large donations. Whereas Donald relies on mostly modest donations. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.washingtontimes.com

    After Hillary's coughing spells, after her wobbly display at the Sept. 11 ceremony in New York City (she almost fell face forward on the running board of her van), after her admission to pneumonia and all the rumors that admission gave rise to, you had expected something highly dramatic. Perhaps the cough would return. Perhaps she might pass out under Donald Trump 's relentless barbs, possibly to be wheeled out on a gurney. Or perhaps you thought Donald might explode or go into a wild rant. Well, it did not happen. Both debaters pretty much played to form. Both were highly disciplined, one being a billionaire who has made it mostly on his own and the other having survived in public life for at least 45 years with no jail time.

    ... Donald had things under control. As he has done for weeks he was talking directly to the American public through the awkward stage prop of Hillary. He would start up the economy from its measly growth rate of barely 2 percent. He would get Americans working again. He would tear up trade agreements that favor crony capitalists and foreign governments. He would prevent companies from leaving America unscathed. Hillary had been a part of this system for decades. She was a standpatter and defender of the status quo. She had revealed bad judgment.

    Hillary's response was that Donald had used bad language in public, lacked the proper "temperament" to be president, and favored the rich whom she would hit with higher taxes to pay for her giveaways. That last line about the rich is a bit much given the fact that Hillary is the creature of Wall Street, Hollywood, and large donations. Whereas Donald relies on mostly modest donations. Oh, yes, and her needling him on his "temperament" - who was the last presidential candidate to be attacked for his temperament? Does the name Ronald Reagan come to mind?

    ... ... ...

    Perhaps Hillary did not notice it because Donald talks like an ordinary American rather than a standard-issue politician, but he was talking to America and she was talking to official Washington. Official Washington claimed he "missed opportunities." He could have done more with the Wall, Obamacare in free-fall, immigration and immigrant criminals, terrorism and Benghazi. He should have done more with her errant emails, the Clinton Foundation, her mishandling of classified documents. He could have cited her lies to Congress, the FBI and how FBI Director James Comey has contradicted her on her lies.

    [Sep 28, 2016] fairleft

    Notable quotes:
    "... The neoliberalist denial that anything was wrong with their economic model before or after 2008 could well create the perfect storm for chaos with either result ..."
    "... Trump was Trump, Hillary was Hillary, but the real Trump is a New York blowhard 'type' most Americans are very familiar with, a bit annoyed by, but definitely not 'scared' of. That's a very tough sale Hillary the mainstream media has for itself. On the other hand Hillary was Hillary. Same old same old Washington insider politician yada yada that most people are tired of, especially in these endless hard economic times. 'Cancel that show' is the natural reaction, as Demian says. ..."
    "... Who's Scarier: This has to be Clinton. Of course we know both will be obedient to the deep state, the militarist and financial elites, Israel, and so on. But look at the difference between Obama and Clinton. Obama sensibly held back from full on rape of Syria, he's been non-belligerent toward Iran. ..."
    "... So there are different grades of Neocon. Clinton would be the full on "we lied, we lied, he died" sort. My guess is that Trump, a know-nothing feeling his way, would be a less confident neocon and therefore more cautious, if not much more cautious, and would continue forward with the 'normal relations with Russia' concept he has made a big deal of. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | twitter.com
    | Sep 27, 2016 11:00:06 PM | 81
    ...The colluding media-commercial-complex getting properly rogered by one of the monsters it gave birth to. Poetic really.

    The neoliberalist denial that anything was wrong with their economic model before or after 2008 could well create the perfect storm for chaos with either result .

    Posted by: MadMax2 | Sep 27, 2016 8:26:25 PM | 79

    The main emotion of any sane and well-informed leftist is disgust after watching 45 minutes of the debatoid, and that's how I felt.

    Horserace Talk:

    Demian's point at 49 is excellent: "But Trump did not come across as beyond the pale in this debate. Thus, he took away the narrative that the public needs to believe in order not to do what it would usually do – vote out the incumbent party when it is unhappy with the status quo."

    Trump was Trump, Hillary was Hillary, but the real Trump is a New York blowhard 'type' most Americans are very familiar with, a bit annoyed by, but definitely not 'scared' of. That's a very tough sale Hillary the mainstream media has for itself. On the other hand Hillary was Hillary. Same old same old Washington insider politician yada yada that most people are tired of, especially in these endless hard economic times. 'Cancel that show' is the natural reaction, as Demian says.

    Who's Scarier: This has to be Clinton. Of course we know both will be obedient to the deep state, the militarist and financial elites, Israel, and so on. But look at the difference between Obama and Clinton. Obama sensibly held back from full on rape of Syria, he's been non-belligerent toward Iran.

    So there are different grades of Neocon. Clinton would be the full on "we lied, we lied, he died" sort. My guess is that Trump, a know-nothing feeling his way, would be a less confident neocon and therefore more cautious, if not much more cautious, and would continue forward with the 'normal relations with Russia' concept he has made a big deal of.

    But hey, his 'cut the taxes for the rich' insanity is a pretty horrible deform from an already horrible status quo. Anyway, vote for Jill as a protest is my half-hearted advice. It's depressing and disgusting and we are helplessly watching it roll on.

    /div>
    nothing will change | Sep 28, 2016 1:27:22 AM | 83
    The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said American support for the entity would remain strong regardless of who is elected president in November.
    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/netanyahu-us-presidential-vote-candidates-will-support-israel/

    Unfortunately he is right, and he knows that Iran will be the next target, "regardless of who is elected president in November"

    Eight yaars ago, Obama, "hope and change", the Nobel Prize... but Guantanamo is still open.

    /div>
    t
    t
    dahoit | Sep 28, 2016 9:03:20 AM | 89
    The Hell Bitch was nothing more than an edition of the Enquirer, bringing up long ago attacks on Trump, that have absolutely nothing to do with policy or Americas future.
    And her face was just too made up,with her false eyelashes fluttering behind a wall of pancake makeup,her eyes glittering with some demonic presence,as she lashed out like a furriner extolling all immigrants,weirdos and fat foreign beauty queens and not appealing one iota to US deplorables.
    And yeah,both genuflected to Israel,but is there a more powerful influential force in America than the dual citizen traitors?A sad and terrible fact,but they own every media outlet,witnessed by the fact there is not one MSM outlet pro Trump,a never before scenario in our history.
    And of course world leaders don't like Trump,as he will cut off the spigots and make them pay for their own defense,instead of US.
    But only those prejudiced rufus and America haters fail to note that.

    juliania | Sep 28, 2016 9:54:20 AM | 90
    Forgive me if this is a repeat, but it wouldn't hurt if so, since so rarely does a third candidate get mentioned. Amy Goodman did the American public a great service by publishing the transcript of the debate, with Jill Stein's answers (had she been permitted to attend) within the transcript - you really, really all should read this:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/27/expanding_the_debate_jill_stein_debates

    ProPeace | Sep 28, 2016 9:54:38 AM | 91
    So Hitlary is apparently alive and not in jail contrary to previous rumors.

    Lame-scream media announced her win in the debate as 1-0 - does it mean the establishment is not behind Trump, who received some strange endorsements recently from former enemies like Ted Cruz?

    What I consider interesting is that being that far in the game still any options seem to be opened:

    1) Killary wins (trough rigged votes or claim of Russian hacking in favor of Trump)

    2) Trump wins

    3) Congress appoints the president because of tie in the electoral votes

    4) Obama continues his presidency because of some "emergency": "Russian hackers" attacking the election systems, false flag massacre in the US, ME, Ukraine, "natural" disaster (is the constitution still suspended after 9/11 and COG in play? NDAA?)

    5) Bernie Sanders joins the race as an independent because of new grave evidence against Hitlary

    6) Hitlary withdraws "because of her sudden health problems" - Demockrats appoint Biden, Pence, Michelle Obama, ...?

    7) Military organizes a coup against Obama

    8) Security apparatus organizes a coup against Hitlary after her election

    9) Deep state organizes a coup against Trump after his election (remember "business plot" against FDR headed by Prescott Bush and defused by general Butler?)

    10) Third party wins because Trump and Clinton become unelectable

    Anyway many signals indicate that we are to see an "October Surprise" for sure.

    It seems that the plan is the keep people guessing until the very end.

    The crucial question is - which people?

    From The Hague | Sep 28, 2016 10:18:46 AM | 92
    The Debate: Trump's Three Points for Peace

    Better on nukes, better on entangling alliances, better on Russia

    http://russia-insider.com/en/debate-trumps-three-points-peace/ri16701

    Demian | Sep 28, 2016 2:15:47 PM | 93
    Ted Rall (author of the book Snowden ):
    The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
    Trump did great for a guy who has never run for political office before – and didn't cram for the debate. Hillary has debated at the presidential level so many times she could probably do it half of it in her sleep. If I go into the ring with heavyweight boxing champion Tyson Fury and manage to survive a round with all but one of my teeth, it's fair to say that I won. …

    Maybe the herd is right. Maybe it's a simple matter of she did better, he did worse. But I keep thinking, debates are graded on a curve. She was supposed to kick his ass. Yet there he is, dead even in the polls with her.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Occupy the DNC: A Bernie Delegate's account of the 2016 Democratic National Commercial

    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Kim Kaufman September 28, 2016 at 2:23 pm

    Occupy the DNC: A Bernie Delegate's account of the 2016 Democratic National Commercial

    https://medium.com/@5cottBrown/occupy-the-dnc-a-bernie-delegates-account-of-the-2016-democratic-national-commercial-85406db8cac7#.3a53g0q5q

    This is a very long read… and I haven't finished it yet but so far lots of good details.

    [Sep 28, 2016] THE NEW COMMON GROUND BETWEEN POPULIST LEFT AND RIGHT

    Sep 28, 2016 | baselinescenario.com

    Annie | August 27, 2016 at 7:26 pm |

    Well, "We The People" still have some time before the election to get the psycho-ops weapons we do not have – mental masturbators on behalf of our "populist" issues…

    From Robert Reich:

    THE NEW COMMON GROUND BETWEEN POPULIST LEFT AND RIGHT

    The old debate goes something like this:

    'You don't believe women have reproductive rights."

    "You don't value human life."

    Or this:

    "You think everyone should own a gun."

    "You think we're safer if only criminals have them."

    Or this:

    "You don't care about poor people."

    "You think they're better off with handouts."

    Or this:

    "You want to cut taxes on the rich."

    "You want to tax everyone to death."

    But we're seeing the emergence of a new debate where the populist left and right are on the same side:

    Both are against the rich to spend as much as they want corrupting our democracy.

    Both are against crony capitalism.

    Both are against corporate welfare.
    Both are against another Wall Street bailout.
    Both want to stop subsidizing Big Agriculture, Big Oil, and the pharmaceutical industry.

    Both want to close the tax loophole for hedge fund partners.
    Both want to ban inside trading on Wall Street.

    Both want to stop CEOs from pumping up share prices with stock buy-backs … and then cashing in their stock options.

    Both want to stop tax deductions of CEO pay over $1 million.

    Both want to get big money out of politics, reverse Citizens United, and restore our democracy,

    If we join together, we can make these things happen.

    1. publiustex | August 28, 2016 at 9:54 am | Hey Ray,

      Lots of words in your response, but I don't see where you identified the model candidate who meets your high standards. You just told us that HRC doesn't, which we already knew. Does no one meet your standards, or is there a reason you won't say who?

      Re "lesser of two evils"–if you don't like Trump or HRC, the election boils down to three choices:

      – you vote for the greater evil
      – you vote for someone who can't win, or you stay home, which is effectively a half vote for the greater evil
      – you vote for the lesser evil

      Not choosing is essentially half-ass choosing the greater evil.

    2. skunk | August 28, 2016 at 10:24 am | Pub, I don't think she has eight years left in her, she's about to croak on stage, limiting her ability to forget what happened yesterday so she or (another democrat) can carry the democratic mantra tomorrow. She has passed out, fallen, tripped like a Ford just not going down hill yet, had her intestines ripped out because of bad behavior, and this is just in public.
      Imagine how many blunders have occurred with her in private. She is a disaster just waiting to happen, a Nixon at a Kennedy debate. She hasn't held a press conference in almost 3/4 of a year, is trying to ride to the rescue of her own created problems under the guise of the Clinton foundation. 8 years, I want to see her survive the next eight weeks.
      Plus there is nothing left to choose from except 100% pure unadulterated, political evil.
    3. publiustex | August 28, 2016 at 11:10 am | Hahaha. You've mistaken her for Bill. He's the one on her left. She'll live to 90.

      Now, who's your ideal politician? We'll loosen the requirements. You can choose from life or literature. :-)

    4. skunk | August 28, 2016 at 11:56 am | I don't think so, I know her and Bill too well. She even got mad when I was going to send somebody over there to have Bill take the drug test. Like we really need politicians who are beholden to their drug dealers.
      As for ideal politician, I can't say we have ever had one beyond the founders, and life so is different today that the comparison is moot.
      Buddy Haley was on the right track, but since the wrong track is the majority it just goes to show how doomed politics really is.

      This country got outsmarted by the Germans and had to retaliate by out gunning them and never recognizing their grievances. Now that the tables have turned and we are the guilty ones, we turn to denial and war as the end of all solutions.
      Their is no political solution, hence the beating of the dead horse as it gets pitch black outside. And it's hard to fight the reaper coming up behind you with his surprise execution when you can no longer see where you are going.

    5. publiustex | August 28, 2016 at 12:50 pm | Which founder? Burr?
    6. skunk | August 28, 2016 at 1:23 pm | Haven't looked into it that closely. I first thought that the three 2 term succession administrations since the founding of the country was the greater consideration of the end of all, now that i've been proved wrong, I aint so sure what's goin on next.
    7. Ray LaPan-Love | August 28, 2016 at 6:26 pm | Pub,
      So, if only 25% of the eligible voters participate, as opposed to the usual 40something%, you believe that the additional non-voters are saying little or nothing?
      "Not choosing is essentially half-ass choosing the greater evil".

      But doesn't choosing the lesser of two evils simply perpetuate evil? Saying something like "yea, we know this is not really a democracy, the political parties do of course decide who we vote for, but ah shucks, it is fun to pretend, and yea, the system is obviously corrupt but my candidate promises that he/she will change that. And just because he/she takes money from bad people doesn't mean he/she'll do just like every other politician has done, always, my candidate will be different. To heck with Einstein's theory of insanity."

      So is it not conceivable that the lessor of two evil votes "is essentially half-ass choosing" to be duped over and over again? While a non-vote might say enough is enough?

      Anyway, you seem to represent living proof that the conditioning in regards to what a non-vote truly means is working quite well. The following being a solid example of that conditioning:

      "three choices:

      – you vote for the greater evil
      – you vote for someone who can't win, or you stay home, which is effectively a half vote for the greater evil
      – you vote for the lesser evil"

      But what if nobody voted other than a small number of political zombies, and of course the establishment?

    8. publiustex | August 28, 2016 at 7:19 pm | Ray,

      "Anyway, you seem to represent living proof that the conditioning in regards to what a non-vote truly means is working quite well. The following being a solid example of that conditioning"

      You know how self-righteous and condescending this is, right? And from what I've seen of your logic and the evidence you muster to support you're opinion, I see little reason for such arrogance other than possibly insecurity.

      If you can't name a single political leader from anywhere in time or space that meets your standards of righteousness, that says a lot. And I suspect I know what it says. You don't want to show your true colors, or you feel you can't back up your choice.

      Which is it?

    9. Ray LaPan-Love | August 28, 2016 at 8:44 pm | Wow, pub, you are even more of a zombie than I thought. I write ten times as many words on this board as you do, teeming with contentions that you could challenge, but you ignore nearly all of those opportunities to defend your champion of less evil only to keep coming back with some lame nonsense about who I might support.
      And by "condescending" do you mean like this:"Lots of words in your response, but I don't see where you identified the model candidate who meets your high standards".
      But of course telling me what we 'should' be talking about after suggesting that my "words" are not worthy of any effort on your part, is not just condescending but rudely so and evasive. As if the topic here is what you say it is, not HRC's questionable behavior, but instead this all important quest of yours to discover my "single political leader from anywhere in time or space". As if such folly matters in the actual time and space that we can do something about.
      And questioning my "true colors" as if suggest that I'm trolling or whatever. Should I now expect the name-calling and context tweaking to follow? Or must the moaning and chanting simply go on until election day.

      who is your dreammm can-di-da-te?", lessor of two evils, do you have an ideal can-di-date? you only have 3 choices, ya 'know. lessor of two evils. lessor of two evils. All leaders have flaws. not voting as I do is half-ass. wanna talk about the best candidate taken from all of history. lessor of two evils. don't be half-ass. lessor of two evils. I like standing in line, do you?

      But then too there is the big tell of big tells:
      "And from what I've seen of your logic and the evidence you muster to support you're opinion, I see little reason for such arrogance other than possibly insecurity".
      Do have any notion of how hypocritical and low-integrity it is to not provide 'any' support for such a claim? What logic! What evidence! What reason do you 'actually' see? Where be the 'why'? Did you flunk English all through school?

      I've written enough on this board that even the laziest blogger at the worst site could of found at least some sort of an example, or shred of evidence, to back up at least something. Crap like your comment just says "hey look, I don't know the first rule of sound analysis, or good writing in general, but I've analyzed you using low standards and I don't like you because you don't agree with me and that makes you insecure". Wow again.

    10. publiustex | August 28, 2016 at 10:43 pm | Ray,
      Sorry, man. the ratio of IQ to word count is too low to bear. Over and out.
    11. BRUCE E. WOYCH | August 29, 2016 at 1:46 pm | Closer to Homebase: "WHO CARES?"
      Department of Homeland Security Has Surprise for Bernie Supporters at DNC Lawsuit Hearing
      By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: August 29, 2016
      There are political issues not being covered by mainstream media http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/08/department-of-homeland-security-has-surprise-for-bernie-supporters-at-dnc-lawsuit-hearing/ …that have more to do with election questions concerning the DNC and its efforts to evade accountability for its conduct, along with certain too close for comfort insider support to keep things confused:
      (QUOTED)
      The lawsuit against the DNC is Wilding et al v DNC Services Corporation and Deborah 'Debbie' Wasserman Schultz. The case is being heard in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (Case Number 16-cv-61511-WJZ.) The Sanders supporters are being represented in the lawsuit by the following law firms: Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers of Miami; Cullin O'Brien Law, P.A. of Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and Antonino G. Hernandez P.A. of Miami.
      (QUOTED):
      "the first hearing on August 23 in the Federal lawsuit that has been filed by Senator Bernie Sanders' supporters against the Democratic National Committee and its former Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The lawsuit, which currently has more than 100 plaintiffs and more than a thousand in the wings with retainer agreements, is charging the DNC with fraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive conduct, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence."

      MAINSTREAM MEDIA FAILED TO COVER IT.
      Regardless of the voting; the exposure of corrupting political practice must be considered equal to the election voting itself.

    12. skunk | August 29, 2016 at 2:26 pm | Somebody get the 1984 air controllers on the phone, we're runnin on empty.
    13. thoughtful person | August 29, 2016 at 9:27 pm | "Some progressives seem to prefer purity over progress. This puts a millstone around the necks of pragmatic progressives, like HRC, who are warriors and make the compromises necessary to gain and then exercise power for progressive ends"

      The ends justify the means right? Barf!!!

    14. publiustex | August 29, 2016 at 11:02 pm | Person, yes. Thoughtful, no.
    15. Annie | August 31, 2016 at 8:50 pm | Donations and ideas….

      http://www.prisonplanet.com/video-bill-clinton-rebuild-detroit-with-syrian-refugees.html

    16. Bob Snodgrass | September 1, 2016 at 1:19 pm | Wow, I found your article OK although too much in the all pure or all evil genre. We can't deal with this kind of problem in isolation from the rest of our culture and government, any more than we can impose a nationally funded Medicare for all without changing our NASCAR, celebrity/millionaire worshipping, racialist- tribalist (not the same as racist which has lost most of its meaning, closer to Barry Goldwater's viewpoint) controlling central core. That's a tall order, not even Bernie has the answer although reducing financialization & imposing a security transaction tax would be a start. If we somehow snuck in Medicare for all or an improved and expanded Obamacare, the controlling central core which includes the Koch brothers, would ensure that it failed because of their stranglehold on Washington and federal + state budgets.

      Turing to the comments, there are many that make me cringe. This is a harmful side of the Internet, reading comments makes me feel that Armageddon is nigh. It is not in reality.

    [Sep 28, 2016] there are about 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.:

    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Vatch September 28, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    I'm all for reducing the unmanageably high levels of total immigration into the U.S., and I strongly believe in penalizing illegal employers, but I think you have exaggerated the number of illegal immigrants. According to Numbers USA, there are about 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.:

    https://www.numbersusa.org/pages/illegal-aliens-us

    The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the total immigrant population of the U.S. is about 42 million people:

    http://cis.org/Immigrant-Population-Hits-Record-Second-Quarter-2015

    [Sep 28, 2016] Heres a semi-CT saying that NBC tipped Clinton off to the debate questions a week in advance

    Notable quotes:
    "... Here's an interesting analysis someone posted to reddit (in annoying gif screenshot form) about Holt being biased in favor of Clinton: https://i.redd.it/jixd3s8d05ox.png ..."
    "... And here's a semi-CT saying that NBC tipped Clinton off to the debate questions a week in advance: http://baltimoregazette.com/clinton-received-debate-questions-week-debate/ ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    none September 27, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    Here's an interesting analysis someone posted to reddit (in annoying gif screenshot form) about Holt being biased in favor of Clinton: https://i.redd.it/jixd3s8d05ox.png

    And here's a semi-CT saying that NBC tipped Clinton off to the debate questions a week in advance: http://baltimoregazette.com/clinton-received-debate-questions-week-debate/

    I have no idea how partisan the Baltimore Gazette is, but it's apparently been around a long time.

    [Sep 28, 2016] TPP implies the increased protectionism, in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protections. which are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent on the protected items. As they apply to an ever growing share of the economy, the resulting economic losses might be huge.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is not clear what the NYT thinks it is telling readers with this comment. The economy grows and creates jobs, sort of like the tree in my backyard grows every year. The issue is the rate of growth and job creation. While the economy has recovered from the lows of the recession, employment rates of prime age workers (ages 25-54) are still down by almost 2.0 percentage points from the pre-recession level and almost 4.0 percentage points from 2000 peaks. There is much research ** *** showing that trade has played a role in this drop in employment. ..."
    "... It is not surprising that Ford's CEO would say that shifting production to Mexico would not cost U.S. jobs. It is likely he would make this claim whether or not it is true. Furthermore, his actual statement is that Ford is not cutting U.S. jobs. If the jobs being created in Mexico would otherwise be created in the United States, then the switch is costing U.S. jobs. The fact that Michigan and Ohio added 75,000 jobs last year has as much to do with this issue as the winner of last night's Yankees' game. ..."
    "... The piece goes on to say that the North American Free Trade Agreement has "for more than two decades has been widely counted as a main achievement of [Bill Clinton]." It doesn't say who holds this view. The deal did not lead to a rise in the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, which was a claim by its proponents before its passage. It also has not led to more rapid growth in Mexico which has actually fallen further behind the United States in the two decades since NAFTA. ..."
    "... It is worth noting that none of the analyses that provide the basis for this assertion take into the account the impact of the increased protectionism, in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which are a major part of the TPP. These forms of protection are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent on the protected items. As they apply to an ever growing share of the economy, the resulting economic losses will expand substantially in the next decade, especially if the TPP is approved. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    anne said... \ September 28, 2016 at 04:55 AM

    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/nyt-editorial-in-news-section-for-tpp-short-on-substance

    September 28, 2016

    NYT Editorial In News Section for TPP Short on Substance

    When the issue is trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the New York Times throws out its usual journalistic standards to push its pro-trade deal agenda. Therefore it is not surprising to see a story * in the news section that was essentially a misleading advertisement for these trade deals.

    The headline tells readers that Donald Trump's comments on trade in the Monday night debate lacked accuracy. The second paragraph adds:

    "His aggressiveness may have been offset somewhat by demerits on substance."

    These comments could well describe this NYT piece.

    For example, it ostensibly indicts Trump with the comment:

    "His [Trump's] first words of the night were the claim that "our jobs are fleeing the country," though nearly 15 million new jobs have been created since the economic recovery began."

    It is not clear what the NYT thinks it is telling readers with this comment. The economy grows and creates jobs, sort of like the tree in my backyard grows every year. The issue is the rate of growth and job creation. While the economy has recovered from the lows of the recession, employment rates of prime age workers (ages 25-54) are still down by almost 2.0 percentage points from the pre-recession level and almost 4.0 percentage points from 2000 peaks. There is much research ** *** showing that trade has played a role in this drop in employment.

    The NYT piece continues:

    "[Trump] singled out Ford for sending thousands of jobs to Mexico to build small cars and worsening manufacturing job losses in Michigan and Ohio, but the company's chief executive has said 'zero' American workers would be cut. Those states each gained more than 75,000 jobs in just the last year."

    It is not surprising that Ford's CEO would say that shifting production to Mexico would not cost U.S. jobs. It is likely he would make this claim whether or not it is true. Furthermore, his actual statement is that Ford is not cutting U.S. jobs. If the jobs being created in Mexico would otherwise be created in the United States, then the switch is costing U.S. jobs. The fact that Michigan and Ohio added 75,000 jobs last year has as much to do with this issue as the winner of last night's Yankees' game.

    The next sentence adds:

    "Mr. Trump said China was devaluing its currency for unfair price advantages, yet it ended that practice several years ago and is now propping up the value of its currency."

    While China has recently been trying to keep up the value of its currency by selling reserves, it still holds more than $4 trillion in foreign reserves, counting its sovereign wealth fund. This is more than four times the holdings that would typically be expected of a country its side. These holdings have the effect of keeping down the value of China's currency.

    If this seems difficult to understand, the Federal Reserve now holds more than $3 trillion in assets as a result of its quantitative easing programs of the last seven years. It raised its short-term interest rate by a quarter point last December, nonetheless almost all economists would agree the net effect of the Fed's actions is the keep interest rates lower than they would otherwise be. The same is true of China and its foreign reserve position.

    The piece goes on to say that the North American Free Trade Agreement has "for more than two decades has been widely counted as a main achievement of [Bill Clinton]." It doesn't say who holds this view. The deal did not lead to a rise in the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, which was a claim by its proponents before its passage. It also has not led to more rapid growth in Mexico which has actually fallen further behind the United States in the two decades since NAFTA.

    In later discussing the TPP the piece tells readers:

    "Economists generally have said the Pacific nations agreement would increase incomes, exports and growth in the United States, but not significantly."

    It is worth noting that none of the analyses that provide the basis for this assertion take into the account the impact of the increased protectionism, in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which are a major part of the TPP. These forms of protection are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent on the protected items. As they apply to an ever growing share of the economy, the resulting economic losses will expand substantially in the next decade, especially if the TPP is approved.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trade-tpp-nafta.html

    ** http://www.nber.org/papers/w21906

    *** http://economics.mit.edu/files/6613

    -- Dean Baker

    [Sep 28, 2016] Mook Spooked Clinton Campaign Manager, Other Top Dems Dodge Questions on Whether Hillary Wants Obama to Withdraw T

    www.breitbart.com
    Hillary Clinton's campaign manager Robby Mook and other top Democrats refused to answer whether Clinton wants President Barack Obama to withdraw the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) from consideration before Congress during interviews with Breitbart News in the spin room after the first presidential debate here at Hofstra University on Monday night.

    The fact that Mook, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon, and Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairwoman Donna Brazile each refused to answer the simple question that would prove Clinton is actually opposed to the Trans Pacific Partnership now after praising it 40 times and calling it the "gold standard" is somewhat shocking.

    After initially ignoring the question entirely four separate times, Mook finally replied to Breitbart News. But when he did respond, he didn't answer the question:

    BREITBART NEWS: "Robby, does Secretary Clinton believe that the president should withdraw the TPP?"

    ROBBY MOOK: "Secretary Clinton, as she said in the debate, evaluated the final TPP language and came to the conclusion that she cannot support it."

    BREITBART NEWS: "Does she think the president should withdraw it?"

    ROBBY MOOK: "She has said the president should not support it."

    Obama is attempting to ram TPP through Congress as his last act as president during a lame duck session of Congress. Clinton previously supported the TPP, and called it the "Gold Standard" of trade deals. That's something Brazile, the new chairwoman of the DNC who took over after Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) was forced to resign after email leaks showed she and her staff at the DNC undermined the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and in an untoward way forced the nomination into Clinton's hands, openly confirmed in her own interview with Breitbart News in the spin room post debate. Brazile similarly refused to answer if Clinton should call on Obama to withdraw the TPP from consideration before Congress.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Wolf Richter Negative Growth of Real Wages is Normal for Much of the Workforce, and Getting Worse – New York Fed naked cap

    Notable quotes:
    "... If you're wondering why a large portion of American consumers are strung out and breathless and have trouble spending more and cranking up the economy, here's the New York Fed with an answer. And it's going to get worse. ..."
    "... That the real median income of men has declined 4% since 1973 is an ugly tidbit that the Census Bureau hammered home in its Income and Poverty report two weeks ago, which I highlighted in this article – That 5.2% Jump in Household Income? Nope, People Aren't Suddenly Getting Big-Fat Paychecks – and it includes the interactive chart below that shows how the real median wage of women rose 36% from 1973 through 2015, while it fell 4% for men... ..."
    "... Nominal wages are sticky downwards but not real wages. That is why the FED, the banks, the corporate sector and the economists support persistent inflation, i.e. it lowers real wages. The "study" correlating wage growth with aging is one of those empirical pieces by economists to obscure the role of inflation in lowering real wages. ..."
    "... Real Wage Growth chart very interesting, crossing negative at about 55 for no college, and 43 for a Bachelor's degree. 43!! Not even halfway through a work-life, and none better since 2003 at best. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at Wolf Street.

    The New York Fed published an eye-opener of an article on its blog, Liberty Street Economics , seemingly about the aging of the US labor force as one of the big economic trends of our times with "implications for the behavior of real wage growth." Then it explained why "negative growth" – the politically correct jargon for "decline" – in real wages is going to be the new normal for an ever larger part of the labor force.

    If you're wondering why a large portion of American consumers are strung out and breathless and have trouble spending more and cranking up the economy, here's the New York Fed with an answer. And it's going to get worse.

    The authors looked at the wages of all employed people aged 16 and older in the Current Population Survey (CPS), both monthly data from 1982 through May 2016 and annual data from 1969 through 1981. They then restricted the sample to employed individuals with wages, which boiled it down to 7.6 million statistical observations.

    Then they adjusted the wages via the Consumer Price Index to 2014 dollars and divide the sample into 140 different "demographic cohorts" by decade of birth, sex, race, and education. As an illustration of the principles at work, they picked the cohort of white males born in the decade of the 1950s.

    That the real median income of men has declined 4% since 1973 is an ugly tidbit that the Census Bureau hammered home in its Income and Poverty report two weeks ago, which I highlighted in this article – That 5.2% Jump in Household Income? Nope, People Aren't Suddenly Getting Big-Fat Paychecks – and it includes the interactive chart below that shows how the real median wage of women rose 36% from 1973 through 2015, while it fell 4% for men...

    Sally Snyder September 28, 2016 at 7:22 am

    Here is an interesting article that looks at which Americans have left the workforce in very high numbers:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/08/exiting-workforce-growing-pastime-for.html

    The current real world employment experience of millions of Americans has shown little improvement since the end of the Great Recession.

    Damian September 28, 2016 at 7:35 am

    The number of public companies have been cut in half in the last 20 years. Just for one metric.

    So for those born in the 50's, reaching middle or senior management by the time they were in their mid 40's (1999) was increasingly harder as the probability of getting squeezed out multiplied. In the last ten years, the birth / death rate of startups / small business has reversed as well.

    There is probably ten other examples of why age is not the mitigating criteria for the decline in wages. It's not skill sets, not ambition, not flexibility. Pure number of chances for advancement and therefore associated higher wages has declined precipitously.

    Anti Trust Enforcement went out the window as Neo-Liberal policies converted to political donations for promoting consolidation.

    Now watch even those in their 20-30 age group will experience the same thing as H-1b unlimited takes hold with the Obama / Clinton TTP burning those at younger demographics. Are you going to say they are "too old" as well to write software?

    Tell me where you want to go, and I will focus on selective facts and subjective interpretation of those selective facts to yield the desired conclusions.

    Barack Peddling Fiction Obama – BS at the B.L.S. – has a multiplicity of these metrics.

    Jim A. September 28, 2016 at 7:37 am

    Hmm…Because wages are "sticky downwards" it would be helpful to see the inflation rate on that first chart.

    Reply
    Ignim Brites September 28, 2016 at 8:35 am

    Nominal wages are sticky downwards but not real wages. That is why the FED, the banks, the corporate sector and the economists support persistent inflation, i.e. it lowers real wages. The "study" correlating wage growth with aging is one of those empirical pieces by economists to obscure the role of inflation in lowering real wages.

    Steve H. September 28, 2016 at 8:05 am

    Real Wage Growth chart very interesting, crossing negative at about 55 for no college, and 43 for a Bachelor's degree. 43!! Not even halfway through a work-life, and none better since 2003 at best.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Trump was right about VAT subsidizing exports

    Sep 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    "The VAT export rebate is a huge subsidy to exporters who are exporting to non-VAT countries such as the US."
    MacAuley : , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 02:14 PM
    The VAT export rebate is a huge subsidy to exporters who are exporting to non-VAT countries such as the US. That's why nearly every large country has VAT. VAT rebates also give foreign producers a competitive advantage over US manufacturers in third-country markets.
    It's also a major incentive for US companies to supply the US market via Mexico or other VAT countries, since VAT countries rely on VAT for a huge chunk of their tax base. Since foreign profits of US companies are not taxed unless repatriated, the incentives against US production are compounded.
    sanjait -> MacAuley... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 02:42 PM
    Or ... VAT is just a sales tax collected on the production side. It's not like importers to the US get to avoid US sales taxes.
    MacAuley -> sanjait... , -1
    The difference is that VAT countries tend to rely much more heavily on the VAT than the US relies on sales taxes, so sales taxes are much less than VAT. Sales taxes in the US range from Zero in Indiana to 7.5% in California. VAT rates in the EU range between 20% and 25%. The VAT is 16% in Mexico and 17% in China.

    There may be some intellectual equivalence in your argument, but the real-world difference is huge.

    Dave Maxwell : , -1
    The VAT indirectly subsidizes exports. If you have country A that relies 100% on VAT for tax revenue then the exporting corporation in that country incurs and pays zero taxes on exports. If the company exports 100% of its product that company pays zero in taxes.

    In the US states generally exclude sales tax on materials purchased for manufacturing and on products sold for resale and for export outside that state (including to other states)so there is similarity with the VAT. The big difference is magnitude of the tax. States sales taxes average around 7% compared to VAT in the 15% to 20% range. VAT is a much bigger subsidy.

    Sanjait -> Dave Maxwell... , -1
    Well, I should have scrolled down before expressing disbelief.

    But if you want to talk facts, then note that no country relies 100% on a VAT. No country is even close:

    http://taxfoundation.org/article/sources-government-revenue-oecd-2014

    Mexico is actually the highest in reliance on consumption taxes generally (which is how the OECD classifies a VAT), but as the report notes, only part of the consumption tax mix is VAT. It also includes other excise taxes and fees. In Mexico I'd assume this includes oil industry revenues going to the government, which as of recently made up a third of the national government's total revenue mix.

    Anyway, what is the point you guys are really trying to make? Is it that the policy mix of taxes has some effect on export incentives? Well, yeah that's true. But consumption taxes aren't even the whole story there. How about the way the US handles international transfer pricing? Lots of things factor in.

    reason -> Dave Maxwell... , -1
    Actually most countries have VAT and when two countries with VAT trade, then VAT is always raised on all goods where they are sold to an end consumer. Simple. The issue comes when a country has no VAT and relies almost only on income tax. Income tax is then levied on exports but not on imports, so that the exports from such a country are at a relative disadvantage UNLESS the real exchange rate adjusts (as it should). Because the real exchange rate should adjust to equalize such effects, this argument is really just hot air. But of course, if he really wanted to do something about it, he could offer to institute a VAT himself, as most countries have.

    [Sep 27, 2016] Clinton-Trump debate shows emptiness, vapidity of US political election cycle

    Notable quotes:
    "... "They have a few pro-Trump voices, but pretty much the CNN as a network is for Clinton – just like Fox is for Trump. They are not really media outlets; they are echo chambers for the respective political campaign," ..."
    "... "The debate showed how vapid, how sensationalized, how empty the American political election cycle is – very expensive, but very long, and very empty. Both of them tried to outdo each other to show who had more support from the generals and admirals. It is not a good harbinger of where things are going in terms of American politics," ..."
    "... "unwitting agent" ..."
    "... "US national security." ..."
    "... "The attack on Russia, the attempt to blame Russia for all things, including for the hack of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] files that showed the DNC was violating its own rules and trying to tilt the election for Clinton, which happened on the first day of the Democratic national convention. Russia became a convenient punching bag, so that the Democratic Party could divert attention from its own wrongdoing. But it's manifested itself into something more than just a diversion," ..."
    "... "Clinton has the support of all of the neoconservatives: Robert Kagan, husband of Victoria Nuland; a hundred of Republican foreign policy elites. I think they represent the mainstream Washington consensus, which is the consensus of the military industrial complex, which wants to incentivize American public opposition or even hatred toward Russia as a pretext for building up the military armaments business. The expansion or escalation of tension with Russia is very good for the arms business, very good for the military industrial complex. So it is not just electoral politics. I think this is the Hillary Clinton presidency we see in the making. If she is elected, I think this bodes very badly for US- Russian relations," ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | www.rt.com

    RT Op-Edge

    The debate has shown how sensationalized, vapid and empty the US election cycle is, said Brian Becker, from the anti-war Answer Coalition, adding that the candidates' attempts to outdo each other on military support is not a good harbinger for US politics.

    A CNN/ORC poll shows that majority of voters feel Hillary Clinton won Monday night's debate over Donald Trump.

    According to Brian Becker of the anti-war Answer Coalition, one cannot judge who won by CNN polls as it has been actively campaigning for Clinton.

    "They have a few pro-Trump voices, but pretty much the CNN as a network is for Clinton – just like Fox is for Trump. They are not really media outlets; they are echo chambers for the respective political campaign," he told RT.

    "The debate showed how vapid, how sensationalized, how empty the American political election cycle is – very expensive, but very long, and very empty. Both of them tried to outdo each other to show who had more support from the generals and admirals. It is not a good harbinger of where things are going in terms of American politics," Becker said.

    Ahead of the election, Clinton and her supporters have been repeatedly using anti-Russia rhetoric and accusing Trump of being "unwitting agent" of President Putin and posing a threat to "US national security." On Monday, Clinton played her Russian card again to attack her opponent.

    In Becker's view, it's an attempt to divert public attention from the party's own wrongdoing and, also, the escalation of tensions with Moscow will only benefit the US military industrial complex who supports Clinton.

    "The attack on Russia, the attempt to blame Russia for all things, including for the hack of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] files that showed the DNC was violating its own rules and trying to tilt the election for Clinton, which happened on the first day of the Democratic national convention. Russia became a convenient punching bag, so that the Democratic Party could divert attention from its own wrongdoing. But it's manifested itself into something more than just a diversion," he said.

    "Clinton has the support of all of the neoconservatives: Robert Kagan, husband of Victoria Nuland; a hundred of Republican foreign policy elites. I think they represent the mainstream Washington consensus, which is the consensus of the military industrial complex, which wants to incentivize American public opposition or even hatred toward Russia as a pretext for building up the military armaments business. The expansion or escalation of tension with Russia is very good for the arms business, very good for the military industrial complex. So it is not just electoral politics. I think this is the Hillary Clinton presidency we see in the making. If she is elected, I think this bodes very badly for US- Russian relations," Becker added.

    .... .... ...

    [Sep 27, 2016] DeLong on helicopter money

    Sep 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. : September 27, 2016 at 06:45 AM DeLong on helicopter money: "The swelling wave of argument and discussion around "helicopter money" has two origins:

    First, as Harvard's Robert Barro says: there has been no recovery since 2010.

    The unemployment rate here in the U.S. has come down, yes. But the unemployment rate has come down primarily because people who were unemployed have given up and dropped out of the labor force. Shrinkage in the share of people unemployed has been a distinctly secondary factor. Moreover, the small increase in the share of people with jobs has been neutralized, as far as its effects on how prosperous we are, by much slower productivity growth since 2010 than America had previously seen, had good reason to anticipate, and deserves.

    The only bright spot is a relative one: things in other rich countries are even worse.
    ..."

    I thought Krugman and Furman were bragging about Obama's tenure.

    "Now note that back in 1936 [John Maynard Keynes had disagreed][]:

    "The State will have to exercise a guiding influence... partly by fixing the rate of interest, and partly, perhaps, in other ways.... It seems unlikely that the influence of banking policy on the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself.... I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment; though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will co-operate with private initiative..."

    By the 1980s, however, for Keynes himself the long run had come, and he was dead. The Great Moderation of the business cycle from 1984-2007 was a rich enough pudding to be proof, for the rough consensus of mainstream economists at least, that Keynes had been wrong and Friedman had been right.

    But in the aftermath of 2007 it became very clear that they-or, rather, we, for I am certainly one of the mainstream economists in the roughly consensus-were very, tragically, dismally and grossly wrong."

    DeLong sounds very much left rather than center-left. His reasons for supporting Hillary over Sanders eludes me.

    Hillary's $275 billion over 5 years is substantially too small as center-leftist Krugman put it.

    Now we face a choice:

    Do we accept economic performance that all of our predecessors would have characterized as grossly subpar-having assigned the Federal Reserve and other independent central banks a mission and then kept from them the policy tools they need to successfully accomplish it?

    Do we return the task of managing the business cycle to the political branches of government-so that they don't just occasionally joggle the elbows of the technocratic professionals but actually take on a co-leading or a leading role?

    Or do we extend the Federal Reserve's toolkit in a structured way to give it the tools it needs?

    Helicopter money is an attempt to choose door number (3). Our intellectual adversaries mostly seek to choose door number (1)-and then to tell us that the "cold douche", as Schumpeter put it, of unemployment will in the long run turn out to be good medicine, for some reason or other. And our intellectual adversaries mostly seek to argue that in reality there is no door number (3)-that attempts to go through it will rob central banks of their independence and wind up with us going through door number (2), which we know ends badly..."

    ------------

    Some commenters believe more fiscal policy via Congress is politically more realistic than helicopter money.

    I don't know, maybe they're right. I do know Hillary's proposals are too small. And her aversion to government debt and deficit is wrong given the economic context and market demand for safe assets.

    Some pundits like Krugman believe helicopter money won't be that effective "because the models tell him." We should try it and find out. Reply Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 06:45 AM

    reason -> Peter K.... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 08:40 AM

    "Moreover, the small increase in the share of people with jobs has been neutralized, as far as its effects on how prosperous we are, by much slower productivity growth since 2010 than America had previously seen, had good reason to anticipate, and deserves."

    ?????? The rate of (measured) productivity growth is not all that important. What has happened to real median income.

    And why are quoting from Robert Barro who is basically a freshwater economist. Couldn't you find somebody sensible?

    pgl -> reason ... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 09:08 AM
    Barro wants us to believe we have been at full employment all along. Of course that would mean any increase in aggregate demand would only cause inflation. Of course many of us think Barro lost it years ago.

    These little distinctions are alas lost on PeterK.

    Peter K. -> pgl... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 01:05 PM
    run a long stupid troll.

    Go read some hack Republican analyses.

    Peter K. -> reason ... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 01:06 PM
    DeLong is quoting Barro.
    Paine -> Peter K.... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 09:57 AM
    Really it's Delong on the context that has produced a return to HM fantasies

    I'm sure u agree

    He doesn't endorse HM in this post does he ?

    Peter K. -> Paine ... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 01:09 PM
    Sounds to me like he does:

    "Now we face a choice:

    [1] Do we accept economic performance that all of our predecessors would have characterized as grossly subpar-having assigned the Federal Reserve and other independent central banks a mission and then kept from them the policy tools they need to successfully accomplish it?

    [2] Do we return the task of managing the business cycle to the political branches of government-so that they don't just occasionally joggle the elbows of the technocratic professionals but actually take on a co-leading or a leading role?

    [3] Or do we extend the Federal Reserve's toolkit in a structured way to give it the tools it needs?

    Helicopter money is an attempt to choose door number (3). Our intellectual adversaries mostly seek to choose door number (1)-and then to tell us that the "cold douche", as Schumpeter put it, of unemployment will in the long run turn out to be good medicine, for some reason or other. And our intellectual adversaries mostly seek to argue that in reality there is no door number (3)-that attempts to go through it will rob central banks of their independence and wind up with us going through door number (2), which we know ends badly...""

    ---------------------
    Conservatives want 1 and 2 ends badly, so 3 is the only choice.

    [Sep 27, 2016] Was NAFTA smart? Smart for whom?

    Sep 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    jonboinAR September 27, 2016 at 7:22 pm

    Lambert: " "Smart" is one of those 10%-er weasel words. Was NAFTA smart? Why or what not? Smart for whom?"
    ----
    Indeed. Whether a deal is smart to make depends on one's real objective. Hows'about clearing that question up, Mrs C?

    [Sep 27, 2016] Globalization is gone as a main driving force, pan-European unity is gone, and whether the United States will stay united is far from a done deal

    Notable quotes:
    "... Global is gone as a main driving force, pan-European is gone, and whether the United States will stay united is far from a done deal. We are moving towards a mass movement of dozens of separate countries and states and societies looking inward. All of which are in some form of -impending- trouble or another. ..."
    "... And of course it's confusing that the protests against the 'old regimes' and the growth and centralization -first- manifest in the rise of faces and voices who do not reject all of the above offhand. That is to say, the likes of Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage may be against more centralization, but none of them has a clue about growth being over. They don't get that part anymore than Hillary or Hollande or Merkel do. ..."
    "... Dems in the US, Labour in the UK, and Hollande's 'Socialists' in France have all become part of the two-headed monster that is the political center, and that is (held) responsible for the deterioration in people's lives. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    fresno dan September 27, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    Why There is Trump ~Ilargi

    But nobody seems to really know or understand. Which is odd, because it's not that hard. That is, this all happens because growth is over. And if growth is over, so are expansion and centralization in all the myriad of shapes and forms they come in.

    Global is gone as a main driving force, pan-European is gone, and whether the United States will stay united is far from a done deal. We are moving towards a mass movement of dozens of separate countries and states and societies looking inward. All of which are in some form of -impending- trouble or another.

    What makes the entire situation so hard to grasp for everyone is that nobody wants to acknowledge any of this. Even though tales of often bitter poverty emanate from all the exact same places that Trump and Brexit and Le Pen come from too.

    That the politico-econo-media machine churns out positive growth messages 24/7 goes some way towards explaining the lack of acknowledgement and self-reflection, but only some way. The rest is due to who we ourselves are. We think we deserve eternal growth.

    And of course it's confusing that the protests against the 'old regimes' and the growth and centralization -first- manifest in the rise of faces and voices who do not reject all of the above offhand. That is to say, the likes of Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage may be against more centralization, but none of them has a clue about growth being over. They don't get that part anymore than Hillary or Hollande or Merkel do.

    So why these people? Look closer and you see that in the US, UK and France, there is nobody left who used to speak for the 'poor and poorer'. While at the same time, the numbers of poor and poorer increase at a rapid clip. They just have nowhere left to turn to. There is literally no left left.

    Dems in the US, Labour in the UK, and Hollande's 'Socialists' in France have all become part of the two-headed monster that is the political center, and that is (held) responsible for the deterioration in people's lives. Moreover, at least for now, the actual left wing may try to stand up in the form of Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders, but they are both being stangled by the two-headed monster's fake left in their countries and their own parties.
    ================================================
    This is from today's Links, but I didn't have a chance to post this snippet.
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RL1A225NBEA

    Long time since we had 5% – if the whole system is financial scheme is premised on growth, and there is less and less of it ever year, it doesn't look sustainable. How bad http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/09/200pm-water-cooler-9272016.html#comment-2676054does it have to get for how many before the model is chucked???

    In the great depression, even the bankers were having a tough time. If the rich are exempt from suffering, I think history has shown that a small elite can impose suffering on masses for a long time…

    'there is nobody left who used to speak for the 'poor and poorer'.

    Actually, there are plenty who SPEAK for the poor, there just is NONE who ACT.

    Reply
    jrs September 27, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    How would we measure this growth that is supposed to be over? Yes of course there are the conventional measurements like GDP, but it's not zero. Yes of course if inflation is understated it would overstate GDP, and yes GDP measurements may not measure much as many critics have said. But what about other measures?

    Is oil use down, are CO2 emissions down, is resource use in general down? If not it's growth (or groath). This growth is at the cost of the planet but that's why GDP is flawed. And the benefit of this groath goes entirely to the 1%ers, but that's distribution.

    The left failed, I don't know all the reasons (and it's always hard to oppose the powers that be, the field always tilts toward them, it's never a fair fight) but it failed. That's what we see the results of.

    fresno dan September 27, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    I agree

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 27, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    Someone very smart said "the Fed makes the economy more stable".
    He also quoted The Princess Bride: "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think".
    Definition of stable: firm; steady; not wavering or changeable.
    As in: US GDP growth of a paltry 1.22% per year.
    But hey it only took an additional trillion $ in debt per year to stay "stable".

    Softie September 27, 2016 at 5:42 pm

    there are plenty who SPEAK for the poor, there just is NONE who ACT.
    ========
    That's why in 1992 Francis Futurama refirmed the end of history that was predicted by Hegel some 150 years earlier.

    Lee September 27, 2016 at 5:58 pm

    Time to revisit Herman Daly's Steady-State Economy.

    [Sep 27, 2016] The Morning After the Debate, Donald Trump Goes on the Attack

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I don't believe she has the stamina to be the president," he said on Fox. "You know, she's home all the time." ..."
    "... Better late then never. This issue should be raised during the debates. Serious neurological disease that Hillary is suffering from should be a campaign issue. It is a fair game. ..."
    "... That does not make Trump immune from counter-attacks as he is older then Clinton and might have skeletons in the closet too, but voters have right to know the real state of health of candidates. ..."
    "... "Khan Gambit" was the most shameful part of Clinton attacks on Trump. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs : September 27, 2016 at 12:58 PM

    The Morning After the Debate, Donald Trump Goes on the Attack
    http://nyti.ms/2cSvOlO
    NYT - ALEXANDER BURNS - SEPT. 27, 2016

    A defensive Donald J. Trump lashed out at the debate moderator, complained about his microphone and threatened to make Bill Clinton's marital infidelity a campaign issue in a television appearance on Tuesday just hours after his first presidential debate with Hillary Clinton.

    And defying conventions of civility and political common sense, Mr. Trump leveled cutting personal criticism at a Miss Universe pageant winner, held up by Mrs. Clinton in Monday night's debate as an example of her opponent's disrespect for women.

    Mr. Trump insisted in the Fox News appearance that he had been right to disparage the beauty queen, Alicia Machado, for her physique.

    "She was the winner and she gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem," said Mr. Trump, who was the pageant's executive producer at the time. "Not only that - her attitude. And we had a real problem with her."

    Mrs. Clinton mentioned Ms. Machado by name, quoting insults that Ms. Machado has attributed to Mr. Trump and noting that the pageant winner had become a citizen to vote in the 2016 election. During the debate, he showed disbelief at the charge that he had ridiculed Ms. Machado, asking Mrs. Clinton repeatedly, "Where did you find this?"

    But Mr. Trump abruptly shifted course a few hours later, with comments that threatened to escalate and extend an argument that appeared to be one of his weakest moments of the debate.

    Mrs. Clinton assailed him late in the debate for deriding women as "pigs, slobs and dogs." Mr. Trump had no ready answer for the charge of sexism, and offered a muddled reply that cited his past feud with the comedian Rosie O'Donnell.

    His comments attacking Ms. Machado recalled his frequent practice, during the Republican primaries and much of the general election campaign, of bickering harshly with political bystanders, sometimes savaging them in charged language that ended up alienating voters. In the past, he has made extended personal attacks on the Muslim parents of an Army captain killed in Iraq and on a Hispanic federal judge.

    Trump aides considered it a sign of progress in recent weeks that the Republican nominee was more focused on criticizing Mrs. Clinton, and less prone to veering off into such self-destructive public feuds.

    Going after Ms. Machado may be especially tone deaf for Mr. Trump, at a moment in the race when he is seeking to reverse voters' ingrained negative views of his personality. Sixty percent of Americans in an ABC News/Washington Post poll this month said they thought Mr. Trump was biased against women and minorities, and Mrs. Clinton has been airing a television commercial highlighting his history of caustic and graphic comments about women.

    Mrs. Clinton pressed her advantage on Tuesday, telling reporters on her campaign plane that Mr. Trump had raised "offensive and off-putting" views that called into question his fitness for the presidency.

    "The real point," she said, "is about temperament and fitness and qualification to hold the most important, hardest job in the world."

    Both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton will strike out on the campaign trail on Tuesday with the goal of framing the debate's outcome to their advantage. While Mr. Trump is in Florida, Mrs. Clinton plans to campaign in North Carolina, a traditionally Republican state where polls show her and Mr. Trump virtually tied.

    It will likely take a few days to measure any shift in the race after the candidates' clash at Hofstra University on Long Island. Polls had shown the presidential race narrowing almost to a dead heat on the national level, with Mr. Trump drawing close to Mrs. Clinton in several swing states where she had long held an advantage.

    But Mr. Trump appeared thrown on Tuesday by his uneven performance the night before, offering a series of different explanations for the results. On Fox, he cited "unfair questions" posed by the moderator, Lester Holt of NBC News, and insinuated that someone might have tampered with his microphone.

    Moving forward in his contest with Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump said he might "hit her harder," perhaps raising the issue of "her husband's women." Should Mr. Trump opt for that risky approach, he could begin to do so during a campaign swing in Florida on Tuesday.

    And in another indication that Mr. Trump has little intention of shifting his tone, the Republican nominee repeated the attack on Mrs. Clinton that spurred their Monday exchange about gender in the first place: that she lacks the physical vigor to be president.

    "I don't believe she has the stamina to be the president," he said on Fox. "You know, she's home all the time."

    Mrs. Clinton was dismissive on Tuesday of Mr. Trump's barbs, shrugging off a question about his threat to go after Mrs. Clinton and her husband personally and his dismay about the microphone. "Anybody who complains about the microphone is not having a good night," she said. ...

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... Shamed and Angry: Alicia Machado, a Miss Universe
    Mocked by Donald Trump http://nyti.ms/2cSGwsk
    NYT - MICHAEL BARBARO and MEGAN TWOHEY - Sep 27

    For 20 years, Alicia Machado has lived with the agony of what Donald J. Trump did to her after she won the Miss Universe title: shame her, over and over, for gaining weight.

    Private scolding was apparently insufficient. Mr. Trump, at the time an executive producer of the pageant, insisted on accompanying Ms. Machado, then a teenager, to a gym, where dozens of reporters and cameramen watched as she exercised.

    Mr. Trump, in his trademark suit and tie, posed for photographs beside her as she burned calories in front of the news media. "This is somebody who likes to eat," Mr. Trump said from inside the gym. ...

    (The Donald is clearly no slouch in that department.)

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/728297587418247168

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... September 27, 2016 at 02:03 PM

    Trump, 'the candidate who almost always flies home in his private Boeing 757 to Trump Tower in New York or to his palatial Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla.' ...

    Donald Trump Means Business in Iowa: Night in Motel, and a Day in Church http://nyti.ms/1UlcJI3

    NYT - MAGGIE HABERMAN - JAN. 24, 2016

    MUSCATINE, Iowa - Donald J. Trump spent the last seven months saying he wanted to win. Now he is really acting like it. ...

    On Friday night, the candidate who almost always flies home in his private Boeing 757 to Trump Tower in New York or to his palatial Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., instead slept in a Holiday Inn Express in Sioux Center, Iowa. ("Good mattress," he said afterward. "Clean.") ...

    likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 02:57 PM
    "I don't believe she has the stamina to be the president," he said on Fox. "You know, she's home all the time."

    Better late then never. This issue should be raised during the debates. Serious neurological disease that Hillary is suffering from should be a campaign issue. It is a fair game.

    That does not make Trump immune from counter-attacks as he is older then Clinton and might have skeletons in the closet too, but voters have right to know the real state of health of candidates. This is a fair game.

    likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 03:01 PM
    "Khan Gambit" was the most shameful part of Clinton attacks on Trump.

    See http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/US_presidential_elections/Candidates/Trump/khan_gambit_at_democratic_convention.shtml

    [Sep 27, 2016] David Cay Johnston The Making of Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... The manner is which she secured the Democratic nomination is a signature of the Clinton style. The Clinton 'charitable foundation' is a beacon for everything that is wrong with the American economic and political system today. ..."
    "... I consider this upcoming national election to be the signal failure of the two party political system as it is today, choked by a self-referential elite, corrupted by a lust for power and big money. ..."
    Sep 25, 2016 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    "The narcissist devours people, consumes their output, and casts the empty, writhing shells aside."

    Sam Vaknin


    I make it no secret that I find Hillary Clinton to be both morally repugnant and appallingly dishonest.

    The manner is which she secured the Democratic nomination is a signature of the Clinton style. The Clinton 'charitable foundation' is a beacon for everything that is wrong with the American economic and political system today.

    But that does not mean that I am blind to what is being offered by The Donald.

    I consider this upcoming national election to be the signal failure of the two party political system as it is today, choked by a self-referential elite, corrupted by a lust for power and big money.

    watch-v=19KI_2X2Sfs

    [Sep 27, 2016] What Krugman doesnt get is that trade is resonating as a an issue and its resonating for a reason. Look at Brexit. Preaching to the choir that we should it ignore it - it makes corporations and the donor class happy - doesnt change that fact.

    Sep 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. -> anne... September 27, 2016 at 06:11 AM

    What Krugman doesn't get is that trade is resonating as a an issue and it's resonating for a reason. Look at Brexit. Preaching to the choir that we should it ignore it - it makes corporations and the donor class happy - doesn't change that fact.

    pgl -> Peter K.... September 27, 2016 at 07:01 AM

    Maybe you missed the simple point. Having a sales tax is not trade protection. Trump is either an idiot or he is playing people to be idiots. I guess you are OK with this.
    Paine -> Peter K.... , September 27, 2016 at 08:01 AM
    Yes

    The de bots need to jump on this hard if they want the wage class back

    Maybe not

    After all the MNC class might not donate as much

    Note they'll always donate something
    It's a hedge if nothing else

    But the collateral jobs and deals can be denied to a naughty Dembotic party

    Peter K. -> Paine ... , September 27, 2016 at 01:02 PM
    "After all the MNC class might not donate as much"

    And yes ignore PGL. He's not worth the time or energy.

    paine -> Peter K.... , September 27, 2016 at 01:55 PM
    I will
    reason -> anne... , September 27, 2016 at 06:23 AM
    I have repeatedly pointed out that if country A mostly uses VAT (which taxes imports but not exports) and country B mostly uses income tax (which taxes exports but not imports) then that affects the effective exchange rate.

    IN PRINCIPLE the exchange rate should adjust for this. The question is whether it does (but note also the incentive to export effects). The problem with all these issues is that it is complicated and for people who can't think in terms of more than 15 words at a time it is difficult.

    pgl -> reason ... , September 27, 2016 at 07:02 AM
    The US$ and Mexican peso do float with respect to each other so you are correct. Besides, the Republican plan to replace those massive income tax cuts for the rich that Trump wants is to hit the rest of us with sales (aka VAT) taxes.
    pgl -> pgl... , September 27, 2016 at 07:33 AM
    The peso appreciated after the debate. Wonder why!
    Paine -> reason ... , September 27, 2016 at 08:04 AM
    Yes. Pk should have attacked trump for blowing the try benefit of a vat in global market wars

    The corporate elites road block to a US vat is a great story in narrow class interests

    [Sep 27, 2016] The reason to win elections is not just to prevent disastrous conservative policies. Its to enact good policies.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bill Clinton's tenure wasn't all good. He said the "era of big government was over." He enacted Republican lite policies which helped lead to the financial crisis. He didn't enact policies that helped globalization's losers. The Clinton years ended in a tech-stock bubble and financial crisis in East Asia. ..."
    "... The reason to win elections is not just to prevent disastrous conservative policies. It's to enact good policies. Left policies are better than center-left. Hillary is center-left as Krugman pointed out. Corbyn is left. Yes the next 40 days has a contest between between the center-left and insane right, but that doesn't mean we cant' fact check the center-left pundits like Krugman. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. : September 27, 2016 at 06:31 AM

    Trump was proud he evaded taxes and yet he complains about the state of American infrastructure? He babbled incoherently about Yellen and the Fed.

    Yes Republicans and Bush squandered the fact that Clinton/Gingrich balanced the budget with tax cuts for the rich.

    Krugman has made the distinction between center-left and left in the context of attacking Bernie Sanders. Read Simon Wren-Lewis's blog post on UK Labour.

    Hillary rightly lambasted trickle-down economics last night and contrasted Republican economics with Democrats' "middle class" economics. But she mostly went after Trump at a personal level and I thought she was effective. Maybe in the next debates she'll talk more about economics.

    Her description of what caused the financial crisis wasn't really accurate but so what, it was close enough.

    She did brag about her husband's tenure (and how many times during the primary we were told by supporters that it wasn't fair to equate her with her husband.

    Which is where Trump would go off on NAFTA. Bill Clinton's tenure wasn't all good. He said the "era of big government was over." He enacted Republican lite policies which helped lead to the financial crisis. He didn't enact policies that helped globalization's losers. The Clinton years ended in a tech-stock bubble and financial crisis in East Asia.

    Simon Wren-Lewis's blog post doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe it's my fault. All he does is link to the Owen Smith piece which says Labour doesn't poll well and SWL complains Corbyn won't win elections.

    The reason to win elections is not just to prevent disastrous conservative policies. It's to enact good policies. Left policies are better than center-left. Hillary is center-left as Krugman pointed out. Corbyn is left. Yes the next 40 days has a contest between between the center-left and insane right, but that doesn't mean we cant' fact check the center-left pundits like Krugman.

    As even Krugman pointed out, Hillary's "investment" of $275 billion over 5 years is substantially too small. It will lead to a reliance on monetary policy from a shaky Fed which may create more asset bubbles if regulators and regulations aren't up to the task of preventing them.

    It was very center-left of Hillary to brag that her plan is revenue neutral. Maybe that's the smart thing to do politically, but not economically and it's not being honest with the voters.

    Reply Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 06:31 AM

    [Sep 27, 2016] Presidential Debate Part 1 Achieving prosperity in the U.S. economy - YouTube

    Sep 27, 2016 | www.youtube.com
    Jim Bob 4 hours ago
    I hate how shes smiling and at one part almost laughed at something serious like this is a game. she never directly responds to what lester or trump asks, but you see trump directly answering or responding to what she asks. One thing i want to know is, but will never know, does she want to destroy this country or is she so ignorant that she will destroy it by trying to help. Her views are wrong on economy, there may be somethings that i will agree with her but when it comes to economy she will wreck this country.
    somuchkooleronline. 30 minutes ago
    If Hillary is in the White House then we may as well has the Islamic flag above it instead of the stars & stripes. Craigslist has ads for protesters to be paid to show where there's a Trump rally to harass. In the paper a few months back a man woke to find windows of his car bashed in. The car had a Trump sticker. The anti Trump climate in networks NBC & MSNBC & CNN & Morning CBS. On YouTube Hillary is bringing 65K rufugees to US next year.
    dag let 7 hours ago
    This debate sealed it. I'm voting trump. Hillary just came across as an emotionless conniving snake. Trump at least looked somewhat human.

    [Sep 27, 2016] I don't think Trump was vastly different in the R primary debates (he was unfocused and narcissistic then as well), but I always suspected somehow that he would play softball rather than hardball when it came to the REAL showdown with Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yes, people kept saying how they wish Trump would win the R primaries because it would be so exciting when he took his attack to Hillary and gave her what she may very well deserve. And I was always "I'll believe it when I see it, not until then". ..."
    "... May be… He could easily bury her, but preferred not to. He was definitely unprepared. Also he might be afraid of Clinton clan. ..."
    "... He's 70 years old and can be knocked off balance defending !insults! about a beauty queen. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    jrs

    Yes, people kept saying how they wish Trump would win the R primaries because it would be so exciting when he took his attack to Hillary and gave her what she may very well deserve. And I was always "I'll believe it when I see it, not until then".

    I don't think Trump was vastly different in the R primary debates (he was unfocused and narcissistic then as well), but I always suspected somehow that he would play softball rather than hardball when it came to the REAL showdown with Clinton (no "little Rubio" here). Well I told ya so. Although there are 3 more debates so I guess I could still be proved wrong. But it's looking like I told you so.

    What so great or even fun and entertaining about Trump again? These circuses are completely boring!!! Well he's not Clinton I suppose there is always that.

    ----

    I guess the 10% think they got there by doing well on tests and not sheer luck and choosing the right parents. Hmm well screw em.

    likbez

    "I have seen people say he is saving it….?dry powder?"

    May be… He could easily bury her, but preferred not to. He was definitely unprepared. Also he might be afraid of Clinton clan.

    "A lot of people check out after the first 30 minutes of one debate and never come back."

    True -- It was pretty disgusting performance on both sides.

    ChiGal in Carolina

    Just had my first in-person encounter with an apparent Trump supporter, 40ish lifeguard at the community pool down here. He was very pleased with last night's debate, thought Trump showed he has self-control and was generally presidential (!).

    All my friends and family thought Clinton "won" but it's not gonna matter.

    charles leseau

    He's 70 years old and can be knocked off balance defending !insults! about a beauty queen.

    Amen. It takes very little wit to point out immediately how irrelevant such a thing is to a presidential debate, but instead he walked right into it like a rattled kid who doesn't think half a second before responding.

    [Sep 27, 2016] Hillary enters, as the Woman in Red. The stains of Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Syria and Yemen.

    Sep 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Carolinian September 27, 2016 at 7:12 pm

    Here's St. Clair's liveblog of the big debate. Sampler

    + Lester Holt needs to be extremely cautious tonight. Lots of police and armed security in the debate hall. No sudden movements. Holt must keep his hands firmly on the podium at all times.

    + Bill and Melania shake hands at center stage. Bill whispers something in her ear. I think it was: "Text me."

    + No national anthem. Kaepernick wins!

    + Hillary enters, as the Woman in Red. The stains of Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Syria and Yemen.

    Etc.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/27/idiot-winds-at-hofstra/

    [Sep 27, 2016] Economist's View Trump On Trade

    Sep 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RueTheDay : , Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 10:07 AM
    "Gah. A VAT is basically a sales tax. It is levied on both domestic and imported goods, so that it doesn't protect against imports - which is why it's allowed under international trade rules, and not considered a protectionist trade policy."

    I think what Trump was getting at was that exports are typically exempt from VAT. So while Krugman is correct that Mexican VAT applies equally to Mexican goods sold in Mexico and US goods imported into Mexico, it doesn't apply to Mexican goods exported to the US.

    But honestly, who cares? Trump is not espousing any sort of realistic solution to the problems facing the middle class. Imposing tariffs, tearing up trade agreements, and kicking out immigrants is baby talk intended to placate the ill-informed.

    Paine -> RueTheDay ... , -1
    Yes I think trump garbled his point
    In the briefing he got from his brain trust
    I suspect he heard something like this

    The vat advantage is more like an undervalued peso effect on lowering "the cost "
    of US exports
    But without the protectionist effect of raising the cost of US imports

    Perhaps his apparent ADHD
    Betrayed him here
    He heard the word protectionist and forgot the details and the precise fact
    There is no protectionist effect of the vat export rebate

    PRD -> pgl... , -1
    Correct me if I'm wrong but this is the arithmetic I'm picking up from Krugman which shows Trump's fallacy.

    If you have a $10,000 Mexican car that paid a $2,000 VAT, the exporter gets reimbursed for the $2,000 dollar paid in VAT which would normally get passed along to the consumer, thus making the price that it is exported at $8,000. That $8,000 dollar car would subsequently pay sales tax in the USA.

    If you have a $10,000 USA car being exported to Mexico, it would get the VAT tax added on to be passed along to the consumer, thus making it $12,500. That same car would pay sales tax in the United States on it being worth $10,000.

    So basically, the Mexican car is actually only worth $8,000 because the VAT that would have been passed along to the consumers (and had been paid already) is reimbursed to the exporter. The American car is worth $10,000 and must pay the VAT, because the Mexican car would pay the VAT in Mexico as well. Essentially he's equating an $8,000 Mexican car with a $10,000 American car.

    Shah of Bratpuhr : , -1
    I highly doubt Trump considers people that understand economics to be his target audience. Trump speaks only to his target audience not about issues, but rather how they feel right now at this exact moment. Perhaps his strategy is to keep people angry and fearful enough by Election Day?

    His message to his audience: "you feel badly because you're not rich", audience nods, "it's this scapegoat's fault", audience cheers, "Only I can rid you of this scapegoat and when I do, you'll feel better"

    Paine -> Shah of Bratpuhr... , -1
    Yes

    He has learned the devil can easily hide in the details

    JohnH : , -1
    "Trump's whole view on trade is that other people are taking advantage of us - that it's all about dominance, and that we're weak."

    You have to admit, Trump was right...he just doesn't understand who's taking advantage of whom. He really should understand this (and probably does)...the winners are all around him on Park Ave, Fifth Ave, and Wall Street. Of course, you'd never expect Trump to admit that he's part of the predatory class, would you?

    Ben Groves : , -1
    Trade agreements hurt a lot of country's that American "businesses" deal with more than America a good deal of the time. NAFTA killed Mexican farming. It was part of the package along with the 2002 subsidy agreement after 9/11 that started nationalizing agri-business. This also allowed drug production to take off and cartels to expand quickly, using the increased volume of business transactions to ship more drugs across the borders into Donald Trump supporters noses and veins.

    [Sep 27, 2016] I have seen people say he is saving it for later

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    fresno dan September 27, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    "After a shaky start, Clinton was mostly prepared, disciplined, and methodical in her attacks. By contrast, after landing some early blows on trade, Trump was mostly winging it" [NBC]. That's how it felt to me. Of course, 10%-ers like preparation. Preparation leads to passing your test! But in this case, they are right to do so.

    ====================================================
    Trump could have brought up:

    • deplorables – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
    • Goldman Sachs – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
    • email – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
    • bankers – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground

    I have seen people say he is saving it….?dry powder? A lot of people check out after the first 30 minutes of one debate and never come back.
    And I'm really into it – and I doubt I will waste my time again. Even though I am a big believer in judging people/politicians by what they do and not what they say, Trump's immaturity has frayed my last nerve. He's 70 years old and can be knocked off balance defending !insults! about a beauty queen.

    [Sep 27, 2016] No chief executive at the nation's 100 largest companies had donated to Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign through August,

    Notable quotes:
    "... Should Trump succeed in renegotiating US trade deals, corporations - currently at their most indebted level in history - will be deprived of revenues to service their debts. Some will default. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, realizing whatever benefits accrue from more domestic production takes time and capital to construct plants. That's a problem, when corporate leverage already is too high. ..."
    "... Most likely, the Business Roundtable will sit down for The Talk with Trump, and his wacky promises to restructure the global trade system will quickly be forgotten. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jim Haygood September 27, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    It's unanimous:

    No chief executive at the nation's 100 largest companies had donated to Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign through August, a sharp reversal from 2012, when nearly a third of Fortune 100 CEOs supported Mitt Romney.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/no-fortune-100-ceos-back-republican-donald-trump-1474671842

    One executive is quoted taking offense at Trump's ethnic slurs. But that doesn't explain the complete unanimity. What does explain it: overseas sales account for a third of large companies' revenues. Chart:

    http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/559eac5969bedd0d06679458-1200-900/cotd-sp500-foreign-revenue.png

    Should Trump succeed in renegotiating US trade deals, corporations - currently at their most indebted level in history - will be deprived of revenues to service their debts. Some will default.

    Meanwhile, realizing whatever benefits accrue from more domestic production takes time and capital to construct plants. That's a problem, when corporate leverage already is too high.

    Most likely, the Business Roundtable will sit down for The Talk with Trump, and his wacky promises to restructure the global trade system will quickly be forgotten.

    If Donnie's serious, then he's Herbert Hoover II, and the long-suffering Dr Hussman becomes a billionaire after the Crash Heard Round the World.

    [Sep 27, 2016] Trump supporters will not be converted

    Notable quotes:
    "... This is an impossible task. She is a war criminal, a stanch neoliberal (like her husband, who sold Democratic Party to Wall Street) and unrepentant neocon. ..."
    "... My feel is that Democrats lost the support of rank and file union members in this election cycle. Serial betrays starting from Bill Clinton "triangulation" and "third way" scams finally got under the skin of workers and they do not any longer consider Democratic Party as a political entity representing their interests. And financial oligarchy and professional classes voters are not numerous enough to secure the victory. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Chris G : September 27, 2016 at 07:59 AM

    Trump supporters will not be converted. What we need to do is 1) get people who lean Clinton to show up and vote for her and 2) convince fence-sitters that she's the better choice and to show up and vote for her. Towards that end, we need to establish what's important to them: policy positions, nice clothes, likes dogs? Find out what appeals to THEM, not necessarily you, and if Clinton has those traits even a little bit then make the pitch for her based on those traits. Engage those voters. Don't just speculate on what might or should appeal to them. Ask them what is important to them and ASK FOR THEIR VOTE!
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Chris G ... , September 27, 2016 at 12:52 PM
    I have come across a few Trump supporters in my travels and what they all have in common is what they have to say about Hillary, while about Trump they are mostly mute.
    Chris G -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , September 27, 2016 at 01:55 PM
    Hillary hate is strong.* It's not as widespread in eastern MA as it is in other parts of the country but where it exists it looks like it's just as intense.

    *There's no intellectual consistency to it. It's visceral.

    likbez -> Chris G ... , -1
    "convince fence-sitters that she's the better choice and to show up and vote for her"

    This is an impossible task. She is a war criminal, a stanch neoliberal (like her husband, who sold Democratic Party to Wall Street) and unrepentant neocon.

    Trump might be a crook and as bad as she is, but in a larger scale of things he did not committed the crimes she committed. Yet. And at least on the surface he is against neoliberal globalization.

    My feel is that Democrats lost the support of rank and file union members in this election cycle. Serial betrays starting from Bill Clinton "triangulation" and "third way" scams finally got under the skin of workers and they do not any longer consider Democratic Party as a political entity representing their interests. And financial oligarchy and professional classes voters are not numerous enough to secure the victory.

    And that might well spells doom for Demorats.

    On the other hand Trump could bury Clinton but choose do not even touch her most vulnerable points (Iraq war vote, emailgate, Libya, Clinton Foundation scam. health issues, Bill Clinton "legacy"). Is he afraid of something or just saving the shots ? Also he looked completely unprepared. Clinton relied on notes and pre-defined gambits, while Trump relied on intuition. It did not play well for him.

    [Sep 27, 2016] Personally, I came out of this feeling more sympathetic to Trump as a person, believe it or not.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Personally, I came out of this feeling more sympathetic to Trump as a person, believe it or not. I think he genuinely sees the infrastructural decay and it frosts him. ..."
    "... Same with "you had 30 years to solve it." Undeniably true; Clinton's whole "let's build on our success" schtick is such a steaming lot of 10%-er-ness. But if Trump wants to make this election a referendum on the political class, he's going to have to do a lot better than this ..."
    "... Hillary gave no indication she is going to change the course we are on now; in fact, reading between the lines, she thinks things are going great and there is no reason to change anything. ..."
    "... I think there is a better chance that Trump will actually try to fix things, but tax policy and several other things did not give me great hope that he has any idea how to fix things, or will learn & adapt quickly enough. On the plus side, some people talk better than they deliver; some people deliver better than they talk. At least there's a chance he's one of the latter. ..."
    "... I can't find where he would refuse "trade deals", only ones "These Morons running things" have negotiated. I'm betting he would push them with minor changes, as will HRC. ISDS is a foregone conclusion, with either. Jesus, one of his advisors is Larry f'n Kudlow. If the regulars here are not appalled by the guys he has surrounded himself with, I sure am. I can see it coming… ..."
    "... I think Trump's probably serious about trade. But if I understand the structural issues correctly, it doesn't really matter whether he is serious or not. Apparently the Republican base is now strongly opposed to free trade. ..."
    "... If my assessment is correct, TPP dies with a Trump win. There isn't an option to reopen negotiations, is there? A brand new "Trump style" treaty would take years to negotiate, and he has "one term" written all over him. This also would kill TISA, right? Is it technically contingent on TPP passing first? ..."
    "... The Democrats in opposition will be just as feckless as the Republicans have been effective. ..."
    "... One particular provision of TISA is as bad as anything in TPP (bar ISDS) and that is the prohibition on remunicipalization of privatized public resources. Governments would not be allowed to take back things such as British Rail that have been sold off to the private sector, and would be prohibited from nationalizing any other public good now in private hands. It's another hit to national sovereignty. ..."
    "... HRC, you knew from the beginning, who she was tied to/advised by/paid for by. She is a "known known". We are all seeking to know what or who DT represents, as he is harder to pin down. ..."
    "... I don't think Clinton won every category just most. I think Trump won on "there is no evidence Russia hacked the DNC". ..."
    "... How are we gonna survive 4 years with either of them at the helm? ..."
    "... That was my take exactly. Since I don't honestly think Stein is going to win, and I think Johnson might be worse than either of these, I was hoping one of them would give me a reason to feel optimistic that they would do a decent job. They … both failed horribly. ..."
    "... What universe are they living in? Half of these people used to be Bernie supporters. Are people that easily manipulated? Did I used to be that easily manipulated? Or have I gone completely insane now. This was some kind of masterful performance? She mouthed a lot of decent sounding platitudes with no specifics re: policy (while everyone praises her for specifics, and I think she championed the ideas of specifics themselves) while doing a decent but not great job of hitting Trump on some areas where he's very vulnerable. ..."
    "... He did a great job finding areas where she's vulnerable, but a terrible job of hitting her on them. ..."
    "... "Are people that easily manipulated?" Yes. Was I that easily manipulated? Probably. Don't feel bad though most of us were naďve enough to believe the BS for at least some period of time. ..."
    "... Uh it's scripted reality TV. The "debates" are vetted and agreed upon by the two parties who sponsored the darn thing via their little pretend front group. Anyone, at this point, who thinks these things matter is fooling themselves. It's a 90 minute infomercial, so if you find infomercials masterful then I guess. ..."
    "... Thank you for pointing out that as usual, the unconstitutional and illegitimate two-party duopoly has excluded other candidates who will be on the ballot. Who exactly gave them this privilege of exclusion? ..."
    "... Private enterprise, Jim. You can always put up the money for third party candidates to debate on prime time. Thought that was how the market "works". ..."
    "... I disagree strongly that Trump is incoherent; I saw him in Bangor. What he is, is discursive and improvisational. He has his main points that he always ..."
    "... However, that style doesn't work for him in this debate. He doesn't get to determine the structure, there's no time in a two minute answer to do the kind of excursions he likes to do, and the crowd was told not to react. ..."
    "... The format works very much against Trump, and very much for Clinton. Delivering bullet points successfully is a marker that a candidate is president-y. Considering what PowerPoint has done to the Pentagon, that might not be such a great idea, but it is what it is and we are where we are. ..."
    "... I'm surprised that no one mentioned the one best line to the non political junkie. They HATE political commercials. He nailed her on spending Millions attacking him and he came across gentlemanly saying he wouldn't / hasn't done that to her. ..."
    "... Honestly, I've seen 5 years olds who could resist the bait better than Trump… ..."
    "... I don't know why this is surprising, Trump is the narcissist he is regardless of what people want to project on him. Of course none of that makes Clinton any better. Whether it's effective, eh who knows, if it's authoritarians voting for him maybe that is what they like, but I don't think there are enough of them for him to win on that alone. If people are just casting random angry votes for anything but the status quo then maybe. ..."
    "... I disagree. I think both candidates are isolated within elite bubbles, leading to behaviors we consider narcissistic (armchair diagnosis, when you think about it. I mean, "I'm with her….") ..."
    "... So which one is the Grandiose and the other an Insecure type ..."
    "... ….Did anyone else notice how consistently Hillary looked down at the podium? I believe she was being fed "Cliff Notes" ON AN IPAD by her staff re every topic that was bought up….she was ALWAYS looking down and, I assume she was being fed CUES AND WORDS OR PHRASES that she should use….she not only looked down a lot before the time she was supposed to speak but also looked down a lot during her responses…… ..."
    "... OTOH, Trump was "winging it" and "shooting from the hip"…..Hillary won because the notes kept her on track….If trump had done any serious prep and could take advice, he could have destroyed her…But, he doesn't do prep, so he can't effectively respond……. ..."
    "... Hillary's closing comments were stronger, but by then I don't think their were many left watching who were "Persuadables"….those of us left were "political junkies" hoping for a last lap NASCAR worthy Candidate Crash….. ..."
    "... I think Trump had the opportunity to win the debate handed to him on a silver platter by Hillary, but his failure to Prepare and Do the Little Things that would have helped him be ready for her totally expected responses/statements/stalking points cost him dearly….. ..."
    "... He remains the Rich Guy, who does what he wants….. She remains the Robotic Gal, who will probably get what she wants…. ..."
    "... Yes she was looking down a lot. Were they allowed to have iPads to look at? ..."
    "... I think one of the CBS commentators said that Hillary appeared to be using notes. She did look down a lot, and I also thought she seemed unusually subdued. At times she appeared to look sleepy and bored. I don't think this "debate" changed anyone's mind. I think Trump was trying to "dial it back", and he did miss several opportunities to zing Clinton. It did confirm one thing for me – we're all screwed. ..."
    "... I don't think in the great scheme of things this matters much. If there was an iPad and it worked for Clinton, then why the heck didn't the Trump team give their guy an equivalent advantage? ..."
    "... Two impressions, on the bus where I could just hear them, it was pretty equal. Both spouted nonsense and both had decent points regarding the other. Home where I had visuals, before I switched, she looked relaxed and yes healthy. She even appeared amused by him.He was flustered and floundering. There were at least two opportunities where he could have landed blows on her policies which he lost by being defensive. His judgment is better than her's, but that is an incredibly low bar. Based on 2, she won. ..."
    "... Ironic that in this post-democratic world I watched my first political debate ever. Give the credit to the great entertainer: Donald Trump. Problem was: he wasn't the least bit entertaining tonight. I thought Clinton did well, however she is playing a losing hand. Trump is on the right side of all the issues that matter. Unfortunately(for everyone) the only reality Clinton and the entire western political establishment cares about is how many of the 1% will pay $500 a plate for a dinner and a speech. ..."
    "... Bottom line is, all Murica could do was cough up these two turds. Yeah, deliberately mixed metaphor. Main difference is, if Trump gets elected it will certify Murica before the whole world as a country full of arseholes who've finally got to elect their very own Arsehole in Chief. ..."
    "... One point made by a friend of the blog: Neither candidate appealed to anyone other than their base. And it's hard to see why anyone undecided would be moved. It's even harder to see why a voter committed to Johnson or Stein would move. ..."
    "... Watched the whole thing. Trump missed a good opportunity to respond to Hillary's comment that trickle down was the reason for the financial crisis. Trump could have spoken up and said it was Goldman Sachs and big banks that played the key role in bringing on the financial crisis – which would have lead many to think again about her speeches at GS. Outside of the fact that Hillary's comment made me super confused – and maybe Trump as well – it would have been great if he could have mentioned the banks and what did she promise the big banks during her speeches. ..."
    "... I was wondering if he's holding the GS speech transcripts in reserve? I was hoping for more of a pounding. I wonder if his team will do polling to determine how hard-hitting he can go before it gets too negative? The history of Glass-Steagall repeal is pretty damning. I'm also hoping to hear her defence of her cattle futures trading, but perhaps that is too ancient of history? ..."
    "... Also, was interesting wrt his usage of the word "secretary" - a la Scott Adams, I suspect he's hoping the average viewer will subconsciously associate Hillary with the office secretary, rather than Secretary of State. ..."
    "... Before I forget, Trump was very strong on trade, early. Nailed Clinton on NAFTA, nailed her on TPP. Fits right in with "you've had 30 years," but (B team, not top tier school) he didn't keep hammering that point. An early win (on the theory that debates are won early) but for me overshadowed by the rest of it). ..."
    "... Absolutely. If it had been a 35 minute debate, Trump would have won hands down. Of course, the minute they moved to taxes, the incoherence of Trump's economic policy becomes apparent. ..."
    "... Among others, 3 mistakes by Trump that a seasoned politician wouldn't have made. First, Clinton accuses him of not paying maids, contractors, architects, etc. and Trump basically agrees. He doesn't dispute this, instead says "maybe they didn't do the work." In a time of economic stagnation, this was a miss. (A seasoned politician would have just lied and said "not true.") Second, the tax stuff where Clinton outlines possible reasons he isn't releasing and he didn't do the simple thing and say "none of those are true." Instead, maybe not paying taxes is a "smart thing." Third, Trump can't even do the short work to memorize a story tying the creation of ISIS to Clinton's interventionism (and thus refugee crisis). Instead he bloviates about the Iran deal that very few Americans know enough about to judge good or bad. ..."
    "... Not having watched one second of this "debate," I think it's important to note that there are many different kinds of communication. As far as I can tell, Trump's a decent salesman. That's a very specific type of communication, that specifically is NOT about delivering information or or enhancing understanding. It's about establishing control of your target and leading them to do/buy what you want them to do/buy. It doesn't sound like he figured out a way to make this very different situation work for him, the way he apparently did the very different Republican debates. Note that I'm not claiming he IS a master communicator. I don't think either of them are. ..."
    "... Trump is giving mixed messages - that's his communication failure. We're supposed to be disgusted by Obama/Clinton foreign policy, but it's never clear why. Because the policy is failed at the start - intervening in Middle Eastern affairs is foolish? Or, we should be intervening for the sake of American power? Trump never articulates a policy goal either way. This is the empty rhetoric of "America first." He never argues a long term strategy of foreign policy for America or the world at large ..."
    "... I don't consider Hillary Clinton very smart. Her complete lack of morals and empathy are a far more significant factor in her success than her intelligence. Trump seems fairly bright in some ways, and he's certainly good at understanding certain kinds of non-verbal communication. (For example, all that gold that seems so vulgar to one audience is very appealing to another.) Beyond that, I have no strong opinion about him in this regard. Do I think he's a sizzling intellect? No. ..."
    "... I'm basically with Lambert: the best we can hope for is gridlock. But since Clinton is running as an efficient, bloodthirsty Republican, and what she really wants to do is wage war, which requires no Congressional action, Trump's the better bet for gridlock, even with a Republican majority. We'll get Democrats forced to playact the role of "Democrat;" it's something. ..."
    "... Clinton doesn't have her thumbs on the button yet she's just threatened Russia with a cyber-war in retaliation for purported Russian attacks on the DNC etc., 'hacks' for which there is less proof than there is an interest on Clinton's part in changing the channel away from what the 'hacks' revealed about her own nefarious doings. So, in retaliation for something that may not have happened at all Clinton's instinct is to hit what could well be the wrong guy because it suits her personal interest – more egregious still, in this instance the wrong guy happens to be engaged in an existential struggle for independent, sovereign survival on the same planet as the US Empire and quite desperately needs an American leader of calibre. ..."
    "... If he'd wanted to win he could've sat down with any high school coach to map out a strategy and a set of talking points that would not just defeat Clinton, but quite possibly send a bunch of people to jail. That's why it's Trump (or could've been Cruz). You could not draw a more perfect stereo-typically encumbered character beside which to contrast Clinton, whose entire public career persona has been premised on 'breaking down' same – even if her husband did send a million poor, mostly young black Americans away to rot in fantastically lucrative private prisons working for slave wages. ..."
    "... Trump doesn't have to play that "arrest the banker" card to win, and there are plenty of reasons why he would not, including he wants to stay alive. Plus, there's selling and then there's giving away. ..."
    "... Senior Romney strategist: Trump brought 20 minutes of material to a 90 minute show. ..."
    "... Personally, I'm not sure laziness is a disqualifying characteristic in a Presidential candidate. If a machine is so broken that all its outputs are bad, then it behooves one to turn the crank more slowly than faster. ..."
    "... This was a pathetic performance all around. Hillary looked like a polished turd in the debate, compared to Trump who came off as an unpolished turd. My feeling is that Hillary was the "winner" though that word doesn't seem suitable. ..."
    "... Yes she jabbed him to death, while Trump held his punches. The question is: why? Having already done the Foreman trick of KOing five guys in one night, was he guarding against punching himself out? Seeing he's already won debates with aggression, was he trying to win by playing defense? Am I simply reading into it what I want to – spinning for Trump to excuse a mediocre performance? ..."
    "... Did Trump suffer a mini-stroke on stage? After slurring a word, he began to answer questions for a while with incoherent, freely associated chains of slogans and phrases. This, about the time he blurted out about Hillary's stamina–, psychological projection perhaps? Then he began to list to his left and lean pronouncedly on his podium. After the debate, he left the hall rather too promptly. Was the elderly Trump physically fit enough to withstand a one-on-one 90 minute debate? ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    September 27, 2016 at 12:11 am

    I think he genuinely sees the infrastructural decay and it frosts him.

    Yes, and connects the $6 trillion invested in blowing up the Middle East to what it could have been used for instead, and repeatedly called out big bureaucracy for big mistakes.

    MojaveWolf September 27, 2016 at 12:15 am

    Personally, I came out of this feeling more sympathetic to Trump as a person, believe it or not. I think he genuinely sees the infrastructural decay and it frosts him.

    Same with "you had 30 years to solve it." Undeniably true; Clinton's whole "let's build on our success" schtick is such a steaming lot of 10%-er-ness. But if Trump wants to make this election a referendum on the political class, he's going to have to do a lot better than this

    Agreed here. My SO put it better than me: Hillary gave no indication she is going to change the course we are on now; in fact, reading between the lines, she thinks things are going great and there is no reason to change anything. " And Trump did do a good job of identifying a number of things that are wrong, even if he wasn't particularly articulate in discussing them.

    I think there is a better chance that Trump will actually try to fix things, but tax policy and several other things did not give me great hope that he has any idea how to fix things, or will learn & adapt quickly enough. On the plus side, some people talk better than they deliver; some people deliver better than they talk. At least there's a chance he's one of the latter.

    Hillary… we know what we are getting. She won't deliver better than she talks. I have nothing kind to say here, other than she did a good job of finishing her sentences, and her tax policy is better than Trump's. And that she used to be much, much better in debates. I remain flummoxed that people are giving her credit for doing well in this one.

    ilporcupine September 27, 2016 at 12:49 am

    Trump makes an occasional noise in that direction, IF there has been a related segment on the talk shows or one of the conservative sites. Where in his stated policy (ie on his website or in positions in writing) is anything to suggest he will fix any of that misery? Tax cuts and deregulation? Letting him negotiate trade deals, instead of Obama people?

    I can't find where he would refuse "trade deals", only ones "These Morons running things" have negotiated. I'm betting he would push them with minor changes, as will HRC. ISDS is a foregone conclusion, with either. Jesus, one of his advisors is Larry f'n Kudlow. If the regulars here are not appalled by the guys he has surrounded himself with, I sure am. I can see it coming…

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 1:35 am

    > if the regulars here are not appalled

    Henry Kissinger and George W. Bush set a pretty high bar not being appalled, amiright?

    aab September 27, 2016 at 1:53 am

    At least Trump has the good taste not to have Kudlow sit on his lap. Or vice versa.

    Reading liberals explain how George W. Bush is just a misunderstood patriot has been…educational. Not in the way they intend.

    I think Trump's probably serious about trade. But if I understand the structural issues correctly, it doesn't really matter whether he is serious or not. Apparently the Republican base is now strongly opposed to free trade. (I think most already were, but now they have permission to affirmatively say so, and pick up stragglers.)

    I know Obama is counting on getting votes from people thrown out of office and looking for lobbying work. But I don't think there will be enough of them, will there? The Dems aren't going to flip either house, it looks like - certainly not by large numbers. That means there won't be tons of "loose" Republican votes, Republicans returning won't be incentivized to betray their incoming President for Obama, and Democrats on their way out may see shrinking lobbying opportunities, as the Democratic Party - IF Clinton doesn't take power - will be very weak at both the federal and state level.

    If my assessment is correct, TPP dies with a Trump win. There isn't an option to reopen negotiations, is there? A brand new "Trump style" treaty would take years to negotiate, and he has "one term" written all over him. This also would kill TISA, right? Is it technically contingent on TPP passing first?

    I am looking forward to Democratic Senators using secret holds and such to stop Republican tax plans that benefit corporations and the wealthy.

    Okay, now that I've stopped laughing, I'll correct this. I'm assuming BERNIE will use holds and such to stop this stuff. But it will be entertaining to watch the Democrats explain why the Republican can top from the bottom, but they never can.

    Steve C September 27, 2016 at 6:53 am

    The Democrats in opposition will be just as feckless as the Republicans have been effective.

    John Zelnicker September 27, 2016 at 9:21 am

    @aab – "This also would kill TISA, right? Is it technically contingent on TPP passing first?"

    I don't think TISA depends on TPP being passed. As I understand it, they are being negotiated separately.

    One particular provision of TISA is as bad as anything in TPP (bar ISDS) and that is the prohibition on remunicipalization of privatized public resources. Governments would not be allowed to take back things such as British Rail that have been sold off to the private sector, and would be prohibited from nationalizing any other public good now in private hands. It's another hit to national sovereignty.

    ilporcupine September 27, 2016 at 3:07 am

    You are right, indeed. I just think DT is getting more "benefit of the doubt" than is warranted, given what I know of his past, and the sources he apparently uses, and the advisors he surrounds with.

    HRC, you knew from the beginning, who she was tied to/advised by/paid for by. She is a "known known". We are all seeking to know what or who DT represents, as he is harder to pin down.

    HRC and Bill are the most successful organized crime outfit since Wall St., and that is enough to categorize them, even without the obvious foreign policy horrors .

    jrs September 27, 2016 at 1:00 am

    I don't think Clinton won every category just most. I think Trump won on "there is no evidence Russia hacked the DNC".

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 1:36 am

    And trade.

    OIFVet September 26, 2016 at 11:25 pm

    Time to relax and forget the debate's ugliness: Pachelbel's Canon In D Major

    fresno dan September 26, 2016 at 11:40 pm

    OIFVet
    September 26, 2016 at 11:25 pm

    thanks for that – very soothing – and in the scheme of eternity, it doesn't much matter. And the pictures are great!

    MojaveWolf September 26, 2016 at 11:27 pm

    How are we gonna survive 4 years with either of them at the helm?

    That was my take exactly. Since I don't honestly think Stein is going to win, and I think Johnson might be worse than either of these, I was hoping one of them would give me a reason to feel optimistic that they would do a decent job. They … both failed horribly.

    And what is up with all the people on NBC and now in my twitter feed repeating this mantra that "We had high expectations for Hillary, and she exceeded them!"

    What universe are they living in? Half of these people used to be Bernie supporters. Are people that easily manipulated? Did I used to be that easily manipulated? Or have I gone completely insane now. This was some kind of masterful performance? She mouthed a lot of decent sounding platitudes with no specifics re: policy (while everyone praises her for specifics, and I think she championed the ideas of specifics themselves) while doing a decent but not great job of hitting Trump on some areas where he's very vulnerable.

    He did a great job finding areas where she's vulnerable, but a terrible job of hitting her on them.

    She did a better job of finishing her sentences, but … wow. That was the bar for coherence and specificity here.

    Meanwhile, my twitter feed is full of people who think one or the other landed telling blows. The pundits all think she was terrif. His partisans seem to think he did well.

    He looked like he was posing half the time. I don't even know what to say about her expressions. I hate when people talk about stuff like that but what else is there to say here?

    My SO and I were constantly covering our eyes and putting our heads down and occasionally laughing at each others expressions and occasionally laughing so hard we had tears running down our eyes at what (both) the candidates were saying. Now it's over I just want to cry.

    I know a lot of people here are not fans of the Green Party, but hate on Jill all you want, she would have almost certainly been better up there tonight than either of these people. It would have been hard to be worse.

    cwaltz September 26, 2016 at 11:43 pm

    "Are people that easily manipulated?" Yes. Was I that easily manipulated? Probably. Don't feel bad though most of us were naďve enough to believe the BS for at least some period of time.

    This was some kind of masterful performance?

    Uh it's scripted reality TV. The "debates" are vetted and agreed upon by the two parties who sponsored the darn thing via their little pretend front group. Anyone, at this point, who thinks these things matter is fooling themselves. It's a 90 minute infomercial, so if you find infomercials masterful then I guess.

    Personally, I'm boycotting these things until they actually allow ALL the candidates that qualify for the ballot on stage.

    Jim Haygood September 27, 2016 at 12:04 am

    Thank you for pointing out that as usual, the unconstitutional and illegitimate two-party duopoly has excluded other candidates who will be on the ballot. Who exactly gave them this privilege of exclusion?

    ilporcupine September 27, 2016 at 12:22 am

    Private enterprise, Jim. You can always put up the money for third party candidates to debate on prime time. Thought that was how the market "works".

    ilporcupine September 26, 2016 at 11:29 pm

    Trump can go off on 5 tangents in each sentence. I keep waiting for him to make his damn point, already. It all comes off as gibberish. I cannot wait for a verbatim transcript of this cluster****. It will be largely incomprehensible. As for "HER", I aint with her either. We are screwwwed.

    jrs September 27, 2016 at 12:44 am

    It was like that in the Republican debates for anyone who bothered to read the transcripts. Trump was incoherent, the other candidates were basically coherent (wrong, liars and horrible many of them, but able to form a coherent sentence. Trump stood out).

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 12:59 am

    I disagree strongly that Trump is incoherent; I saw him in Bangor. What he is, is discursive and improvisational. He has his main points that he always circles back to, but he riffs and reacts to the crowd.

    However, that style doesn't work for him in this debate. He doesn't get to determine the structure, there's no time in a two minute answer to do the kind of excursions he likes to do, and the crowd was told not to react.

    The format works very much against Trump, and very much for Clinton. Delivering bullet points successfully is a marker that a candidate is president-y. Considering what PowerPoint has done to the Pentagon, that might not be such a great idea, but it is what it is and we are where we are.

    Meteor2016 September 26, 2016 at 11:30 pm

    hmmm, time online poll says trump won 56-44.

    http://time.com/4506217/presidential-debate-clinton-trump-survey/

    Yves Smith September 26, 2016 at 11:58 pm

    Prediction markets are saying she killed him. I would look to see the results of multiple online polls. Both Hillary and Trump fans will be trying to game them but it will be hard to skew results across the entire web.

    Nelson Lowhim September 27, 2016 at 12:19 am

    how accurate were these during the primary?

    Yves Smith September 27, 2016 at 5:29 am

    Dunno with Rs, but the online polls showed Sanders to be a winner in debates where the MSM called him a loser, and Sanders continued gains in later, conventional polls v. Clinton seemed way more in line with the online polls than MSM takes.

    PhilU September 27, 2016 at 9:34 am

    I'm surprised that no one mentioned the one best line to the non political junkie. They HATE political commercials. He nailed her on spending Millions attacking him and he came across gentlemanly saying he wouldn't / hasn't done that to her.

    Frenchguy September 27, 2016 at 1:24 am

    Since the Brexit fiasco, I'm extremely skeptical when it comes to prediction markets (at least on political subjects…).

    fresno dan September 26, 2016 at 11:37 pm

    All I can think after I watched this is that I could have dismembered, dissected, discombobulated, and reduced Hillary not only to cells, not just to molecules, but to quarks.
    looking at it, I just can't see how anybody could think Trump is actually very smart, or smart, or much above ANY New York cabbie…or any or those horses in central park….or the south end of any of those horses….

    Honestly, I've seen 5 years olds who could resist the bait better than Trump…

    ilporcupine September 27, 2016 at 12:04 am

    The Donald can't even shut up for the HRC time allotment. "Debate?" Schoolyard tiff!

    EGrise September 27, 2016 at 12:13 am

    This.

    jrs September 27, 2016 at 12:17 am

    I don't know why this is surprising, Trump is the narcissist he is regardless of what people want to project on him. Of course none of that makes Clinton any better.

    Whether it's effective, eh who knows, if it's authoritarians voting for him maybe that is what they like, but I don't think there are enough of them for him to win on that alone. If people are just casting random angry votes for anything but the status quo then maybe.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 1:38 am

    > narcissist

    I disagree. I think both candidates are isolated within elite bubbles, leading to behaviors we consider narcissistic (armchair diagnosis, when you think about it. I mean, "I'm with her….")

    Skippy September 27, 2016 at 4:48 am

    So which one is the Grandiose and the other an Insecure type – ??????

    John S September 26, 2016 at 11:49 pm

    I watched the debate on CSPAN, where a split screen was used that showed the candidates at all times…

    ….Did anyone else notice how consistently Hillary looked down at the podium? I believe she was being fed "Cliff Notes" ON AN IPAD by her staff re every topic that was bought up….she was ALWAYS looking down and, I assume she was being fed CUES AND WORDS OR PHRASES that she should use….she not only looked down a lot before the time she was supposed to speak but also looked down a lot during her responses……

    OTOH, Trump was "winging it" and "shooting from the hip"…..Hillary won because the notes kept her on track….If trump had done any serious prep and could take advice, he could have destroyed her…But, he doesn't do prep, so he can't effectively respond…….

    She was told to smile when he attacked….she did this……this response aggravated me, but didn't hurt her with the public of "Undecideds"

    He was told to refrain from interrupting…he did an excellent job of interjecting comments at the beginning, but lost control as the night wore on…..

    Lester was about the worst Moderator I have listened/watched/prayed for during a Debate…..of course, the job is "thankless"

    Hillary's closing comments were stronger, but by then I don't think their were many left watching who were "Persuadables"….those of us left were "political junkies" hoping for a last lap NASCAR worthy Candidate Crash…..

    I think Trump had the opportunity to win the debate handed to him on a silver platter by Hillary, but his failure to Prepare and Do the Little Things that would have helped him be ready for her totally expected responses/statements/stalking points cost him dearly…..

    He remains the Rich Guy, who does what he wants….. She remains the Robotic Gal, who will probably get what she wants….

    Sad…….

    (and, thanks, Lambert)

    TheCatSaid September 27, 2016 at 12:06 am

    Yes she was looking down a lot. Were they allowed to have iPads to look at?

    I felt she was listening a lot–she had that look some newscasters have when their producers are telling them updated news or giving suggestions through an ear device. Could she have been wired up? Are there rules about this?

    Elizabeth September 27, 2016 at 12:31 am

    I think one of the CBS commentators said that Hillary appeared to be using notes. She did look down a lot, and I also thought she seemed unusually subdued. At times she appeared to look sleepy and bored. I don't think this "debate" changed anyone's mind. I think Trump was trying to "dial it back", and he did miss several opportunities to zing Clinton. It did confirm one thing for me – we're all screwed.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 12:47 am

    > Trump was trying to "dial it back"

    Yes, you could tell that from his tone of voice. I've heard him deliver the same talking points, but with more verve.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 12:33 am

    I don't think in the great scheme of things this matters much. If there was an iPad and it worked for Clinton, then why the heck didn't the Trump team give their guy an equivalent advantage?

    (If true, this shows the dangers of an overly lean campaign team.)

    Pat September 26, 2016 at 11:51 pm

    Two impressions, on the bus where I could just hear them, it was pretty equal. Both spouted nonsense and both had decent points regarding the other. Home where I had visuals, before I switched, she looked relaxed and yes healthy. She even appeared amused by him.He was flustered and floundering. There were at least two opportunities where he could have landed blows on her policies which he lost by being defensive. His judgment is better than her's, but that is an incredibly low bar. Based on 2, she won.

    Based on the nonsense they both reeled off the biggest loser tonight, election day and the future are the American people either way.

    Jim Haygood September 27, 2016 at 12:18 am

    J-Yel must be shocked that Trump ripped her early on. The earnest bureaucrats at the Fed are not used to being fodder for campaign criticism.

    Trump went on to call today's economy a "big fat Bubble." (I call it Bubble III.) He implied that one rate hike will be the pin that pops it, and he's probably right.

    Knowing this does not mean he can do anything about it. Currently J-Yel plans to hike in December during the interregnum, when the US political system is inert and the MSM is all focused on cabinet picks.

    Almost certainly, the next president will have a close-up, personal encounter with a harsh recession. The only advice from pros is "get it behind you early." That's why I have it penciled in for 2017-18.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 12:38 am

    > 2017-2018

    That's what the hotel people think (see yesterday's water cooler). Hotel bookings being a fine indicator of the animal spirits of the managing and investing classes. Whether they are a leading indicator remains to be seen….

    cm September 27, 2016 at 12:39 am

    Fed is political, no doubt about that:

    I quote :

    And in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson, who wanted cheap credit to finance the Vietnam War and his Great Society, summoned Fed chairman William McChesney Martin to his Texas ranch. There, after asking other officials to leave the room, Johnson reportedly shoved Martin against the wall as he demanding that the Fed once again hold down interest rates. Martin caved, the Fed printed money, and inflation kept climbing until the early 1980s.

    EoinW September 27, 2016 at 12:19 am

    Ironic that in this post-democratic world I watched my first political debate ever. Give the credit to the great entertainer: Donald Trump. Problem was: he wasn't the least bit entertaining tonight. I thought Clinton did well, however she is playing a losing hand. Trump is on the right side of all the issues that matter. Unfortunately(for everyone) the only reality Clinton and the entire western political establishment cares about is how many of the 1% will pay $500 a plate for a dinner and a speech.

    Regarding tonight's shenanagans, I thought Lester Holt was the winner. A good moderator should be virtually invisible, let the candidates do their thing. Clinton scored her debating points but I'm not convinced that won her any votes. Was Trump performing in a strait jacket? Seemed like he was more worried about appearing reserved and presidential. And holy repetitive! I was looking forward to Tyson-Spinks, instead I got Tyson-Douglas! Yet I wouldn't be surprised if it all worked and Trump comes out ahead in the polls. He certainly didn't look scary tonight. Boring yes, however doesn't boring deflate these ideas that he's an out of control amateur who can't be trusted?

    Brad September 27, 2016 at 12:34 am

    Bottom line is, all Murica could do was cough up these two turds. Yeah, deliberately mixed metaphor. Main difference is, if Trump gets elected it will certify Murica before the whole world as a country full of arseholes who've finally got to elect their very own Arsehole in Chief.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 12:44 am

    One point made by a friend of the blog: Neither candidate appealed to anyone other than their base. And it's hard to see why anyone undecided would be moved. It's even harder to see why a voter committed to Johnson or Stein would move.

    Therefore, we would not expect the polls to move. And what matters is a tiny population of voters in swing counties in swing states (not national polls), which data is not available to us.

    Of course, since the political class is all in for Clinton, they will portray it as an overwhelming win for Clinton (as did I, since I am a 10%-er manqué ). However, exactly as with TV advertising, the pronouncements of the political class have had greatly diminished returns this year….

    I'll be interested what old-school people like Nooners have to say….

    manymusings September 27, 2016 at 2:54 am

    I don't see them as playing only to their respective bases - it seems like they also were trying to affect overarching narratives. Clinton's case against Trump is that he's monstrous. I think he cut against that indictment tonight (and it wasn't a foregone conclusion that he would). Trump's case against Clinton is that she's a corrupt and dishonest version of politics as usual, which already is corrupt and dishonest. I don't know whether she moved the dial on that. Apart from immediate reactions, wonder if there will be any shifts.

    Susan C September 27, 2016 at 12:46 am

    Watched the whole thing. Trump missed a good opportunity to respond to Hillary's comment that trickle down was the reason for the financial crisis. Trump could have spoken up and said it was Goldman Sachs and big banks that played the key role in bringing on the financial crisis – which would have lead many to think again about her speeches at GS. Outside of the fact that Hillary's comment made me super confused – and maybe Trump as well – it would have been great if he could have mentioned the banks and what did she promise the big banks during her speeches.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 12:53 am

    Very good point on Goldman. In a way, it seems that Clinton threw the kitchen sink on Trump (her assault on his business dealings, using the income tax thing as a hook, was prepared but highly effective). But Trump didn't throw the kitchen sink back at her. Odd.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 27, 2016 at 2:56 am

    Rope-a-dope? There are still two more debates. America loves an underdog

    aab September 27, 2016 at 6:01 am

    Voting has already started. I don't see any benefit to going soft on her. He relied on free media in the primary, and he has much less money than she does. If he's serious about winning, this was an important opportunity that he apparently blew. The next one isn't even a pseudo-debate, is it? I read today it's a Town Hall - i.e., completely useless. Actually less than useless; it should be a very poor format for him, and a very protected format for her.

    By the time they get to the next direct confrontation, a lot of votes will have been banked.

    pretzelattack September 27, 2016 at 6:12 am

    i'm starting to try to mentally prepare myself for a clinton win. or steal, or whatever. "i survived reagan, i didn't totally lose it during the time of the chimp, i can do this. happy thoughts".

    aab September 27, 2016 at 6:52 am

    I can't. I'm too afraid of her. I can picture surviving Trump. But Clinton really scares me. I have a draft age child; that's a not insignificant element. That plus TPP.

    Sorry if I'm harshing your buzz.

    John Zelnicker September 27, 2016 at 9:39 am

    @aab – I feel your pain about your kid and the draft. I was in the first draft lottery in 1969 and came out with #27. Fortunately, I was able to avoid being drafted due to it being suspended for the first 90 days of 1972 because they had enough soldiers and were beginning to draw down the forces in Viet Nam.

    cm September 27, 2016 at 1:02 am

    I was wondering if he's holding the GS speech transcripts in reserve? I was hoping for more of a pounding. I wonder if his team will do polling to determine how hard-hitting he can go before it gets too negative? The history of Glass-Steagall repeal is pretty damning. I'm also hoping to hear her defence of her cattle futures trading, but perhaps that is too ancient of history?

    Also, was interesting wrt his usage of the word "secretary" - a la Scott Adams, I suspect he's hoping the average viewer will subconsciously associate Hillary with the office secretary, rather than Secretary of State.

    Old news (from May), but sad to see the "fact checkers" on the birther origins

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 12:50 am

    Before I forget, Trump was very strong on trade, early. Nailed Clinton on NAFTA, nailed her on TPP. Fits right in with "you've had 30 years," but (B team, not top tier school) he didn't keep hammering that point. An early win (on the theory that debates are won early) but for me overshadowed by the rest of it).

    relstprof September 27, 2016 at 1:07 am

    Absolutely. If it had been a 35 minute debate, Trump would have won hands down. Of course, the minute they moved to taxes, the incoherence of Trump's economic policy becomes apparent.

    relstprof September 27, 2016 at 1:03 am

    Among others, 3 mistakes by Trump that a seasoned politician wouldn't have made. First, Clinton accuses him of not paying maids, contractors, architects, etc. and Trump basically agrees. He doesn't dispute this, instead says "maybe they didn't do the work." In a time of economic stagnation, this was a miss. (A seasoned politician would have just lied and said "not true.") Second, the tax stuff where Clinton outlines possible reasons he isn't releasing and he didn't do the simple thing and say "none of those are true." Instead, maybe not paying taxes is a "smart thing." Third, Trump can't even do the short work to memorize a story tying the creation of ISIS to Clinton's interventionism (and thus refugee crisis). Instead he bloviates about the Iran deal that very few Americans know enough about to judge good or bad.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 1:11 am

    Trump's team needs to slap some sense into him (if that's possible and he can listen). So many winning arguments left on the table (and ripe for Trump's simple language, too).

    relstprof September 27, 2016 at 3:33 am

    Upon a second watch of the debate (ok, I'm crazy), he actually does make the point about the creation of ISIS. Unfortunately, his rhetoric ends on "we should have taken the oil." So he doesn't distinguish the story as the failure of Obama/Clinton foreign policy as a policy of interventionism . His argument is that interventionism must pay out in some way.

    Trump didn't help himself by claiming earlier that Clinton has been fighting ISIS her whole life. That obvious gaffe makes it hard to hear anything he says later in the debate.

    I'm in agreement with Corey Robin - Trump is not a master communicator. Pace Scott Adams.

    Also, it's not nice that Hillary buys negative ads

    aab September 27, 2016 at 3:54 am

    Not having watched one second of this "debate," I think it's important to note that there are many different kinds of communication. As far as I can tell, Trump's a decent salesman. That's a very specific type of communication, that specifically is NOT about delivering information or or enhancing understanding. It's about establishing control of your target and leading them to do/buy what you want them to do/buy. It doesn't sound like he figured out a way to make this very different situation work for him, the way he apparently did the very different Republican debates. Note that I'm not claiming he IS a master communicator. I don't think either of them are.

    So many people are saying she was obviously looking down a lot and reading from notes or possibly an iPad. If so, why wouldn't he call her out on it?

    relstprof September 27, 2016 at 4:32 am

    Trump is giving mixed messages - that's his communication failure. We're supposed to be disgusted by Obama/Clinton foreign policy, but it's never clear why. Because the policy is failed at the start - intervening in Middle Eastern affairs is foolish? Or, we should be intervening for the sake of American power? Trump never articulates a policy goal either way. This is the empty rhetoric of "America first." He never argues a long term strategy of foreign policy for America or the world at large .

    NATO is just a tool. For what? Not clear.

    If you think, well: America shouldn't be articulating a strategy for global politics. Fine. I'm happy to listen, but so far, Trump hasn't even made this idea coherent.

    relstprof September 27, 2016 at 4:38 am

    But I'm an internationalist socialist, so what do I know?

    aab September 27, 2016 at 5:12 am

    Bear in mind, I didn't watch tonight. I'm not an expert on Trump. But I'm so sick of all this discourse around "intelligence" and "communication" that defines both concepts in extremely limited and fundamentally false ways that align with the proclivities of those in the position to do the defining. I don't consider Hillary Clinton very smart. Her complete lack of morals and empathy are a far more significant factor in her success than her intelligence. Trump seems fairly bright in some ways, and he's certainly good at understanding certain kinds of non-verbal communication. (For example, all that gold that seems so vulgar to one audience is very appealing to another.) Beyond that, I have no strong opinion about him in this regard. Do I think he's a sizzling intellect? No.

    Again, salesmanship has nothing to do with messaging per se. In fact, one sales technique would be to using contradictory messaging at differing points in the sales path, to confuse the target. Salesmanship is about control and manipulation.

    Persuasion is a different process, where messaging, as the term is generally used, matters.

    I would have liked him to take her out tonight. But beyond the strategic goal of keeping her out of power, I don't know whether I'd prefer a smart and/or disciplined Trump over a less smart, less disciplined one. I'd like him to be smart enough not to be a stooge for the existing "bipartisan" elite, since merely resisting their desires and goals seems like it would good for the rest of us. But it's possible (probable?) he means all or part of that noxious traditional Republican swill he's offering up. In which case, being less smart and less disciplined might be better in terms of him acting as an obstacle to business as usual - as long as he's stubborn.

    I'm basically with Lambert: the best we can hope for is gridlock. But since Clinton is running as an efficient, bloodthirsty Republican, and what she really wants to do is wage war, which requires no Congressional action, Trump's the better bet for gridlock, even with a Republican majority. We'll get Democrats forced to playact the role of "Democrat;" it's something.

    That's why I focus mostly on the structural stuff. We know what Clinton is and will do, and it's horrendous. That's why throwing the Trump spanner into the works is worth doing. I would love for him to govern way to the left of how he ran, just as Obama governed way to the right of how he ran. But there really aren't a lot of incentives for Trump to do that, unlike for Obama. I'm not naive enough to count on Trump's human decency, although I do get the impression he may have a sliver of it, unlike both Obama and Clinton. But I also think he's sincerely racist. If Clinton wasn't such a profound and effectively violent racist, Trump's racism would really give me pause.

    Anyway, my key point is that doing very badly in the format and conditions of tonight's event does not prove he is a bad communicator in some overarching sense.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 1:12 am

    Corey Robin:

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 1:16 am

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 1:18 am

    Fiver September 27, 2016 at 1:19 am

    Now that's what I call talent. But as one of them is going to be President, I just want to point out the one thing worth noting she said all night.

    Clinton doesn't have her thumbs on the button yet she's just threatened Russia with a cyber-war in retaliation for purported Russian attacks on the DNC etc., 'hacks' for which there is less proof than there is an interest on Clinton's part in changing the channel away from what the 'hacks' revealed about her own nefarious doings. So, in retaliation for something that may not have happened at all Clinton's instinct is to hit what could well be the wrong guy because it suits her personal interest – more egregious still, in this instance the wrong guy happens to be engaged in an existential struggle for independent, sovereign survival on the same planet as the US Empire and quite desperately needs an American leader of calibre.

    I know it's hard to look past the enormous frozen smile, still, close your eyes and try to remember the look in her eyes, the downward cut of her mouth and clamped jaw when Trump briefly brushed past a sore spot – that person in there, that is the person who will be the next Leader of The Free World, that is to say, the woman who will lead the revolution of the globalists over the tyranny of nations. The effort to re-assert US hegemony will prove calamitous.

    jrs September 27, 2016 at 1:24 am

    It does seem to me that the voice that can proclaim with little evidence that Russia hacked into the DNC can easily become the same voice that can proclaim with little evidence that Iraq has WMDs (that is the modern version of that for the enemy du jour of course).

    Skippy September 27, 2016 at 4:55 am

    Yet Trump clearly said the – WORLD – owes tribute to America and some trade wars with them including China…

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 1:23 am

    TheCatSaid September 27, 2016 at 2:21 am

    mtaibbi : "This will go down as one of the signature events in the history of cocaine"

    John k September 27, 2016 at 1:40 am

    All trump has to do to win handily is say 'I will jail bankers that break the law'.

    Fiver September 27, 2016 at 2:54 am

    That's actually brilliant, and the fact he didn't/hasn't so far supports my thesis – so don't expect him to try it. Trump doesn't want to win – what he wants is to lose without being a 'loser'. It's been evident for a long time now.

    If he'd wanted to win he could've sat down with any high school coach to map out a strategy and a set of talking points that would not just defeat Clinton, but quite possibly send a bunch of people to jail. That's why it's Trump (or could've been Cruz). You could not draw a more perfect stereo-typically encumbered character beside which to contrast Clinton, whose entire public career persona has been premised on 'breaking down' same – even if her husband did send a million poor, mostly young black Americans away to rot in fantastically lucrative private prisons working for slave wages.

    jrs September 27, 2016 at 2:59 am

    I suspect if he wanted to win he would spend on advertising, just saying. It may or may not pan out, but why not make use of things that might help him win if winning was what he wanted?

    Fiver September 27, 2016 at 3:25 am

    Not to mention avoiding things clearly marked 'high explosives'.

    Cry Shop September 27, 2016 at 3:36 am

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-special-1474910731
    Trump doesn't have to play that "arrest the banker" card to win, and there are plenty of reasons why he would not, including he wants to stay alive. Plus, there's selling and then there's giving away.

    If he wanted to loose and yet come out a winner, then I'd expect him to take the high ground or stake a claim in a way that would allow him to claim the vote was rigged. Not seeing that at all.

    Steve C September 27, 2016 at 7:53 am

    No way is Cruz interested in jailing banksters.

    John k September 27, 2016 at 1:51 am

    The critical issue is, we're undecideds moved?
    How about this blog? By definition, undecideds don't much like either… Pretty much like NC. So who here is now decided? And which way?

    megamike48 September 27, 2016 at 1:53 am

    Senior Romney strategist: Trump brought 20 minutes of material to a 90 minute show.

    Lambert Strether Post author September 27, 2016 at 2:36 am

    Personally, I'm not sure laziness is a disqualifying characteristic in a Presidential candidate. If a machine is so broken that all its outputs are bad, then it behooves one to turn the crank more slowly than faster.

    OK, tongue in cheek, but not 100%

    eleanor rigby September 27, 2016 at 3:05 am

    Just finished watching. She cleaned his clock, and I wanted to see him prevail. The exchange early in the debate about Trump not paying people … that really came back to mind when he started talking about how the countries we support don't pay their fair share. Really hypocritical. Bad night for DT; he will be hopping mad, kind of like after that trip to Mexico. I wonder what his reaction will be in next day or two.

    ewmayer September 27, 2016 at 3:21 am

    Scott Adams on one particular claim Trump made tonight: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150979891156/trumps-african-american-reframing

    I think Adams is prone to tunnel vision – focusing on one thing he especially likes or dislikes – as exemplified by his recent switch in endorsement from Hillary ("for my safety, as I live in CA") to Trump, based on Hillary's endorsement (hard to tell if genuine or mere triangulation) of the estate tax.

    In tonight's case, I suspect any points Trump may have won for the statement Adams focuses on were more than negated by his stop-and-frisk inanity, but being white like Adams, I can't claim to speak for the AA community in any way.

    On a separate-but-related note, my sister – who strongly supported Bernie during the primaries – does seem to fit Adam's claim that subjective impressions rule, and we humans busily construct rational-sounding narratives to justify our gut takes. In her case, she appears to have been as off-put by Hillary's Martin-Shkreli-esque smug smirking as Yves was:

    I watched almost all of it and thought he did pretty well, in fact i thought he totally trounced her in many areas. I'm shocked to see every single mainstream media outlet say she was the clear winner and he was the total loser and unprepared. She was smug and ingenuous [sic – she clearly meant 'dis'-], can't stand her.

    Yves Smith September 27, 2016 at 5:51 am

    Sanders supporters are not representative of anything other than Sanders supporters…but they do constitute a decent chuck of Dem voters and bigger chunk of independents. The ones who were paying attention were painfully of the MSM misrepresentations re Sanders, the DNC putting its finger on the scale (confirmed only by Wikileaks), Clinton campaign totally bogus attacks (BernieBros, when he had more female millennial supporters than male AND Clinton supporters were more aggressive in social media than Sanders supporters), and the rampant cheating in NY and even worse in CA. So there is a burning resentment of Clinton in many Sanders voters looking for continued proof of Clinton's dishonesty and bad character.

    Having said all that, a contact who is a "pox on both their houses" type said the comments re Clinton's smugness were widespread. The question is then how big a demerit that is to different voters.

    jgordon September 27, 2016 at 3:52 am

    This was a pathetic performance all around. Hillary looked like a polished turd in the debate, compared to Trump who came off as an unpolished turd. My feeling is that Hillary was the "winner" though that word doesn't seem suitable.

    I will preface this by saying that substance and issues are completely irrelevant now. If you are someone who cares about that stuff then you're out of luck this time around.

    1) All the people who already like Trump thought he was great, while everyone who hates him will stick with Hillary. Independents, I don't know. I can't imagine that people are going to be motivated to do much of anything either way after that.

    2) Trump had multiple opputinites to destroy Hillary and end the race but passed them all up. The consequence is that this will continue dragging out. Hillary did about as well as she could have considering how compromised she is; she is lucky that Trump is was so unprepared.

    3) Trump had shown an ability to learn from his mistakes. I want to believe that he will immediately start doing preparation for the next debate rather than blowing this off. If he fails to, whether or not he can win will be in doubt.

    4) As someone else mentioned the one thing of actual import said tonight was by Hillary: she reiterated that she wants to get belligerent with Russia over these these cyber attacks, even though there is zero evidence of Russian involvement in them. This is a reaffirmation of of why Hillary scares the crap out of me, and the reason she is unfit to be president.

    5) We know something more about Trump's character now: He's a smart, lazy, loudmouthed braggart who relies on his very good intuition and people skills decide things. He wings everything because he can't be bothered to study anything too deeply. Hillary? She is a very well scripted psychopath with bad people skills. And she enjoys war. Lots and lots of war.

    6) I'm going to call this debate a wash even if it was slightly in Hillary's favor. Trump is still on a trajectory to win, he's just going to have to put in actual effort accomplish that–which he should realize now.

    7) We are screwed no matter who is president in 2017, but simply as a matter of survival we have to support Trump.

    8) surprisingly Hillary didn't keel over tonight. This is both good and bad. Good for Trump because Hillary is someone he's likely to win against, bad for us because there is still a slight chance that Hillary could win, meaning that war war and more war, including nuclear war, could be on the agenda from 2017 on. I don't believe we'll survive that.

    Lambert Strether September 27, 2016 at 3:53 am

    One more:

    Trump is talking about problems… Hillary is talking about solutions. Voters always want to hear solutions. #DebateNight - Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) September 27, 2016

    So Clinton stole Trump's clothes on law and order (which she would do; "super-predators," for-profit prisons).

    jrs September 27, 2016 at 4:00 am

    If voters always want to hear solutions Bernie Sanders would be on that stage tonight.

    aab September 27, 2016 at 4:20 am

    The reason Bernie is not on the stage is because Clinton stole the primary.

    Ian September 27, 2016 at 8:39 am

    + however many votes were stolen and however many voters disenfranchised.

    Michael Fiorillo September 27, 2016 at 6:23 am

    To use a boxing metaphor, Hillary by decision.

    EoinW September 27, 2016 at 9:11 am

    Yes she jabbed him to death, while Trump held his punches. The question is: why? Having already done the Foreman trick of KOing five guys in one night, was he guarding against punching himself out? Seeing he's already won debates with aggression, was he trying to win by playing defense? Am I simply reading into it what I want to – spinning for Trump to excuse a mediocre performance?

    I guess all politicians and non-politicians have their limitations. Trump's talent is he's a salesman and what he sells is himself. He's not an intellectual. He's likely not even a thoughtful person. What amused me most tonight was his egotism. Compared to Trump, if Narcissus looked at his reflection he'd be filled with self loathing.

    Hana M September 27, 2016 at 7:20 am

    "Personally, I came out of this feeling more sympathetic to Trump as a person, believe it or not. I think he genuinely sees the infrastructural decay and it frosts him. Same with "you had 30 years to solve it." Undeniably true; Clinton's whole "let's build on our success" schtick is such a steaming lot of 10%-er-ness. But if Trump wants to make this election a referendum on the political class, he's going to have to do a lot better than this. If you regard success in the debate as emitting presidential markers (like NATO Article 5), then Clinton unquestionably won."

    Well said and thanks for doing this, Lambert. I went to bed right after the debate so it's great to get a recap with this excellent comment thread. I watched on C-Span and after the debate the candidates went down to the foot of the stage and it seemed that apart from family no one wanted to shake Trump's hand. The whole crowd was around Clinton. Trump and his family just looked at each other and headed for the exit. It was weird and sad.

    stefan September 27, 2016 at 9:11 am

    Did Trump suffer a mini-stroke on stage? After slurring a word, he began to answer questions for a while with incoherent, freely associated chains of slogans and phrases. This, about the time he blurted out about Hillary's stamina–, psychological projection perhaps? Then he began to list to his left and lean pronouncedly on his podium. After the debate, he left the hall rather too promptly. Was the elderly Trump physically fit enough to withstand a one-on-one 90 minute debate?

    [Sep 27, 2016] A highly predictable debate between the worst US bipartisan couple for decades

    Notable quotes:
    "... Tonight's first US presidential debate involves two candidates who actually depict emphatically the high degree of the US politics degeneration: deeply pro-establishment, war-thirsty Hillary Clinton, against the reserve of the establishment , racist billionaire Donald Trump. ..."
    "... She knows that these voters, and especially the American youth, had enough of the neoliberal establishment in previous years, and therefore, it would be very hard to be persuaded that the warmongering Hillary has been "relocated" further to the Left. There is no need to expose her absolute commitment to conduct more dirty wars because the US deep state and the neocons know very well that she will focus on this policy, in case that she will be the next US president. Furthermore, it seems that she does not expect anything from the most conservative voters to the Right, who are clearly determined to support Trump. ..."
    "... It appears that after Sanders, the US voters are left with zero options, again. Yet, they do have options which the corporate media don't want to become known. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens

    ...Tonight's first US presidential debate involves two candidates who actually depict emphatically the high degree of the US politics degeneration: deeply pro-establishment, war-thirsty Hillary Clinton, against the reserve of the establishment, racist billionaire Donald Trump.

    No matter how they act, no matter what they say and what rhetoric they use, they can both be identified, more or less, by the few characteristics above. It would be rather pointless for someone to expect anything better from both.

    As we approach the day of the US elections, time is running out and the two candidates will naturally focus on one thing: fix their picture to attract more voters and increase their chances to win. As polls show that it will be a tight race, the two will try to attract as many voters as possible from the huge tank of undecided US citizens.

    Hillary took a good taste from the fight for the Democratic nomination against Bernie Sanders. She will probably try to retain a more progressive profile which was forced to exhibit during the race against Bernie, in order to gain voters from the tank of the mass movement he created. She knows that these voters, and especially the American youth, had enough of the neoliberal establishment in previous years, and therefore, it would be very hard to be persuaded that the warmongering Hillary has been "relocated" further to the Left. There is no need to expose her absolute commitment to conduct more dirty wars because the US deep state and the neocons know very well that she will focus on this policy, in case that she will be the next US president. Furthermore, it seems that she does not expect anything from the most conservative voters to the Right, who are clearly determined to support Trump.

    Trump has also a difficult job. He has to find a balance between the highly conservative audience, which is the core of his voters, and the more moderate, undecided ones, who may determine the outcome of the elections. Therefore, he is expected to smooth his extremely patriotic (to the point that becomes racist) rhetoric, in order to become "more presidential", as actually warned recently by the establishment. He knows that he can't win without taking a crucial percentage of the more moderate tank.

    It appears that after Sanders, the US voters are left with zero options, again. Yet, they do have options which the corporate media don't want to become known.

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 27, 2016] An Inconsequential Debate

    Notable quotes:
    "... My hunch is still that this election will come down to a deeply felt "not-Clinton" attitude in the general U.S. electorate. ..."
    "... Both candidates are obviously lying. Clinton proudly knows some very selective facts ..."
    "... The fate of the world should not be left in the hands of some Intellectuals but Idiots , to people who can not see beyond their noses, to "thinkers" for whom human history starts with their high school prom. ..."
    "... Trump started off horribly. He went after Hillary on foreign policy at the end which was pretty decent.. ..."
    "... Both went after each others shadiness. Very fun to watch. I'm not sure if it will amount to much of anything, but I at least enjoyed that she was gotten after for her atrocious policymaking. ..."
    "... Nothing of substance is allowed to be discussed. Their main function is to convince Americans that these two are the only possible choices to vote for on 8 November. ..."
    "... Spending energy on discussing presidential elections only feeds the established political psycopathy, and energizes the inherently corrupt status quo. I feel that my energy would be better spent reinforcing my local community, where a much higher degree of open democracy manifests. ..."
    "... The only countries I know about that still apply true and open democracy are Iceland and to a lesser degree Costa Rica. In Iceland at least, there is still a very valid reason to vote in the national elections. For the rest of us unfortunate souls I'm afraid that ship has sailed. ..."
    "... The idea that cataclysmic change is necessary for improvement is madness. A dramatic collapse of the Western economies will likely lead to the evil elite thrusting us into WW3. From which humanity may never recover. Collapse of the US economy has a good chance of them lashing out with their military to retain their hegemony, also leading to WW3, or a cataclysmic nuclear war. ..."
    "... Any dramatic political change will far more likely lead to the eventual rise of a fascist demagogues across western politics. The way US politics is headed, with Trump and Hitlery. ..."
    "... She fully intends to finish the annihilation of the Shia crescent from one end to the other for her Israeli/Saudi masters. The U.S. will be at war with Iran within a year if she is elected ..."
    "... If Trump wins, he too will eventually be convinced to start a war with them at the behest of his Israeli/Saudi/CIA handlers, but I expect that 'project' to take years before he's confident enough to commit to it. The U.S. might be gone by then. You would think Iranians would be a little more inclined to go with him in the interests of a few more years of Iranian self-preservation. ..."
    "... I'm somewhat convinced that if Clinton wins office (not an election); 2017 will make the last 15 years seem peaceful. My only question is; will it go nuclear? Given the insane development of small nukes, stupidly called tactical, too many have themselves convinced there is justification for their use. ..."
    "... You're link to a worldwide vote for U.S. president is interesting, but Iran voting for Clinton? yeah, that one threw me for a loop as well, but as you pointed out, 17 or so votes for Clinton out of 79 million Iranians is pretty much meaningless. probably just a cluster of 'progressive' exchange students. ..."
    "... Forcefully resisting the brand of globalization imposed on us by the thugs and slave drivers of disaster capitalism is a moral obligation all world citizens should embrace. When people in power live in the castle of their own lies, it is time to dismantle the fortress. When governance has lost all moral ground and reason, it is time to call for a revolution ..."
    "... The foundational myths of the United States are becoming less and less credible by the day. As more people stop believing them and, even more importantly, realize that others do not believe them either, compliance in the system becomes less and less. ..."
    "... People do not even need to think in terms of self sacrifice for some greater good, or in terms of being part of a revolution. They actually only have to realize that their own best interests are served better by non compliance than compliance. ..."
    "... In recent history 19.6% of Americans voted for neither Clinton nor Bush in 1992. A hard hurdle to beat I reckon, and frankly I can't see it happening. ..."
    "... Wrong, catalysmic collapse is what lies in stall for the US and probably Europe but it's not annihilation. Just that they got no money for hegemony anymore but they are still alive. And they still chose to remain alive just like in the Soviet Union. ..."
    "... The whole debate was unreal. Trump was bragging about his business successes with a sad grim while Hillary with a forever ironic botoxed smile and an empty look in her eyes looked like a worn out robot. It was more a scene from the Muppets show than a presidential debate! ..."
    "... I like Trump because he is hated by all the right people. ..."
    Sep 27, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    From the first reactions I see the show made no difference to the outcome of the U.S. election. Both sides spin that their paymasters won.

    My hunch is still that this election will come down to a deeply felt "not-Clinton" attitude in the general U.S. electorate.

    Would that be good or bad? I don't know. Both candidates are obviously lying. Clinton proudly knows some very selective facts . Her general plans can be inferred from her political history. They would be mostly bad for this world. Trump doesn't care about facts, nor do most voters. Nobody seems to know what his real plans would be. With him we all are in for a lot of surprises - likely bad ones.

    From a global perspective the election again shows why U.S. global influences must be cut to size. The fate of the world should not be left in the hands of some Intellectuals but Idiots , to people who can not see beyond their noses, to "thinkers" for whom human history starts with their high school prom. Their linear analysis, their inexperience with real life, their linear solutions are inadequate for our complex, non-linear world. This needs to change.

    Such a change requires some cataclysmic events. Both candidates seem well positioned to achieve such.

    From The Hague | Sep 27, 2016 2:22:58 AM | 1
    Hillary Clinton Lost? Or was that the other one?
    Penelope #93 in:
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/09/hillary-clinton-knows-that-she-lost.html
    lemur | Sep 27, 2016 2:30:48 AM | 2
    "Both candidates are obviously lying. Clinton proudly knows some very selective facts. Her general plans can be inferred from her political history. They would be mostly bad for this world. Trump doesn't care about facts, nor do most voters."

    good argument against democracy.

    bbbb | Sep 27, 2016 2:33:23 AM | 3
    Trump started off horribly. He went after Hillary on foreign policy at the end which was pretty decent.. All and all it was cringworthy but entertaining. I think I'll be writing Harambe instead of voting for these 2
    bbbb | Sep 27, 2016 2:39:33 AM | 4
    Trump also kept pimping his business.. He clearly wants to advertise! Both went after each others shadiness. Very fun to watch. I'm not sure if it will amount to much of anything, but I at least enjoyed that she was gotten after for her atrocious policymaking.
    jfl | Sep 27, 2016 2:54:02 AM | 5
    Missed the 'debate'. In the USA the Amalgamated Republicrat/Demoblican Party controls the debates and limits participation in them to themselves ... the Republicrat and Demoblican candidates. Nothing of substance is allowed to be discussed. Their main function is to convince Americans that these two are the only possible choices to vote for on 8 November.

    I hope that more of us than ever before choose a candidate other than one of these two, ideally that both of these trail the aggregate vote cast for candidates other than themselves. That's the cataclysmic event I'd like to see happen.

    dan | Sep 27, 2016 3:26:58 AM | 6
    These people and this system depend entirely on power that we the people give them. Spending energy on discussing presidential elections only feeds the established political psycopathy, and energizes the inherently corrupt status quo. I feel that my energy would be better spent reinforcing my local community, where a much higher degree of open democracy manifests.

    I am not from the US, but the same principle applies here. The only countries I know about that still apply true and open democracy are Iceland and to a lesser degree Costa Rica. In Iceland at least, there is still a very valid reason to vote in the national elections. For the rest of us unfortunate souls I'm afraid that ship has sailed.

    tom | Sep 27, 2016 4:08:43 AM | 7
    The idea that cataclysmic change is necessary for improvement is madness. A dramatic collapse of the Western economies will likely lead to the evil elite thrusting us into WW3. From which humanity may never recover. Collapse of the US economy has a good chance of them lashing out with their military to retain their hegemony, also leading to WW3, or a cataclysmic nuclear war.

    Any dramatic political change will far more likely lead to the eventual rise of a fascist demagogues across western politics. The way US politics is headed, with Trump and Hitlery.

    And if it's not as bad as the next to worst outcomes, then the time lost necessary over the short to midterm of combating climate change, Will mean chronic food and water shortages in the frayed will see humans are reverting to selfish struggle.

    john | Sep 27, 2016 4:23:20 AM | 8
    here's some more inconsequentness.
    jfl | Sep 27, 2016 4:25:28 AM | 9
    @6 dan

    Putting your head in a hole in the sand is not going to make your or my national government go away.

    Yes, certainly work at the more democratic, more local levels of government. But if we want to stop the wars - I do - we have to (re)gain control of the national government to do so. At least we citizens of the US - author of all war in this century - must do so.

    Paying attention to these two is a waste of time. The only way to deal with them, and their endless replacements, is to deal them out of the popular vote. No to Clinton, no to Trump on 8 November ... and every election year thereafter to their elephant and jackass replacements and to those in the House and Senate as well, until we can select a minimalist platform acceptable to us in our majority and replace such candidates from the menagerie with spokespeople chosen from among ourselves.

    It's a multiyear program, but that's what it will take, it seems to me. Alternatives welcome. But it does seem to me that change is essential, and that we're the only ones who can bring it about. I'm going to do my part. I hope my 229,000,000 fellows will too.

    PavewayIV | Sep 27, 2016 4:51:42 AM | 10
    john@8 - You're link to a worldwide vote for U.S. president is interesting, but Iran voting for Clinton? That's hard to believe. She fully intends to finish the annihilation of the Shia crescent from one end to the other for her Israeli/Saudi masters. The U.S. will be at war with Iran within a year if she is elected (and I regretfully but sincerely expect both to happen). Drinking the blood of live infants is only going to keep her corpse alive for - what - maybe a year or two? She is going to hit the ground running, and will not be satisfied until the Iranian death toll cracks two million. She came, she saw, they died [cackle, cackle!].

    If Trump wins, he too will eventually be convinced to start a war with them at the behest of his Israeli/Saudi/CIA handlers, but I expect that 'project' to take years before he's confident enough to commit to it. The U.S. might be gone by then. You would think Iranians would be a little more inclined to go with him in the interests of a few more years of Iranian self-preservation.

    Since the on-line fantasy election is in English and only 31 Iranians have voted so far, it's probably too early to tell. I'm thinking they are not representative of the other 78 million Iranians, but who really knows?

    V. Arnold | Sep 27, 2016 4:56:53 AM | 11
    dan | Sep 27, 2016 3:26:58 AM | 6

    Indeed, left port a decade ago.
    Posted by me @ Ian Welsh's;
    Didn't watch any of "it" (not a debate).
    With all that's going on in the world today, militarily,

    I'm somewhat convinced that if Clinton wins office (not an election); 2017 will make the last 15 years seem peaceful. My only question is; will it go nuclear? Given the insane development of small nukes, stupidly called tactical, too many have themselves convinced there is justification for their use.

    Us humans are not the brightest bulbs in the known universe; I've removed optimistic/optimism from my vocabulary.
    In my definition of intelligence; humans are not even in the top 100…
    That's my view at this time; voting is a very bad joke.

    nmb | Sep 27, 2016 5:40:53 AM | 14
    A highly predictable debate between the worst US bipartisan couple for decades
    john | Sep 27, 2016 6:12:19 AM | 15
    PavewayIV says:

    You're link to a worldwide vote for U.S. president is interesting, but Iran voting for Clinton? yeah, that one threw me for a loop as well, but as you pointed out, 17 or so votes for Clinton out of 79 million Iranians is pretty much meaningless. probably just a cluster of 'progressive' exchange students.

    john | Sep 27, 2016 6:29:10 AM | 16
    jfl says:

    It's a multiyear program,...

    blah, blah, blah

    All members of the fake left advocate that the system must be changed progressively from within and that a collapse would be mainly a disaster for the poor and weak. This notion is as valid as to claim that a building destroyed by an earthquake is in need of some fresh window dressing. Regardless of the global elite's arrogance, a systemic collapse is on its way and will exponentially take hold of the planet within two or three decades. The super-rich will eventually have nowhere to run or hide, and no private armies to protect them from the wrath of nature.

    Forcefully resisting the brand of globalization imposed on us by the thugs and slave drivers of disaster capitalism is a moral obligation all world citizens should embrace. When people in power live in the castle of their own lies, it is time to dismantle the fortress. When governance has lost all moral ground and reason, it is time to call for a revolution ( Gilbert Mercier )

    so vote however the fuck you want, but please spare us your tedious proselytizing.

    Lysander | Sep 27, 2016 7:17:48 AM | 19
    Dan's point in 12 is an excellent one. The foundational myths of the United States are becoming less and less credible by the day. As more people stop believing them and, even more importantly, realize that others do not believe them either, compliance in the system becomes less and less.

    People do not even need to think in terms of self sacrifice for some greater good, or in terms of being part of a revolution. They actually only have to realize that their own best interests are served better by non compliance than compliance.

    One early example is the housing crisis back in 2008. People simply stopped paying their mortgages while continuing to live in the houses. Banks were able to force a bailout, but that only encouraged more people to feel justified in defaulting. Ignore your debts to credit card companies, banks, etc and you are striking a serious blow against the system. While actually freeing yourself.

    That is just one more example of resistance. Dan mentioned many others. The system's best weapon is that they got most people to believe in it, which encourages semi voluntary obedience.

    Jules | Sep 27, 2016 7:19:57 AM | 20
    Re: Posted by: jfl | Sep 27, 2016 2:54:02 AM | 5
    I hope that more of us than ever before choose a candidate other than one of these two

    In recent history 19.6% of Americans voted for neither Clinton nor Bush in 1992. A hard hurdle to beat I reckon, and frankly I can't see it happening.

    What is Aleppo anyway?

    ThatDamnGood | Sep 27, 2016 7:48:58 AM | 21
    #7

    Wrong, catalysmic collapse is what lies in stall for the US and probably Europe but it's not annihilation. Just that they got no money for hegemony anymore but they are still alive. And they still chose to remain alive just like in the Soviet Union.

    ... .... ...

    virgile | Sep 27, 2016 8:00:27 AM | 23
    The whole debate was unreal. Trump was bragging about his business successes with a sad grim while Hillary with a forever ironic botoxed smile and an empty look in her eyes looked like a worn out robot. It was more a scene from the Muppets show than a presidential debate!
    Secret Agent | Sep 27, 2016 8:06:27 AM | 24
    I like Trump because he is hated by all the right people.

    [Sep 27, 2016] The Trump-Clinton Debate

    Sep 26, 2016 | The American Conservative
    That's it. Trump blew this thing, in my view. Hillary caught her stride about a half-hour in, and showed herself to be presidential. He came off as extremely unprepared. I cannot believe Trump helped himself tonight, though for all I know, the voters loved him. Hillary didn't have a big win, but she did win, and I believe that she stopped the bleeding for her campaign.

    I know that everybody has a different standard for Trump, but if Trump ends up judged the winner of this debate in the polls, I don't know what to say anymore. There is no way Donald Trump is ready to be President of the United States. No way. And I don't believe many undecided voters changed their mind to vote for Trump based on his performance tonight.

    [Sep 26, 2016] The key to winning debate might be touching deep emotional level of voters resentment with the neoliberal social system

    Notable quotes:
    "... The real standard will be, as it was for Obama in 2008, the capacity to touch people on an emotional level. Policy does not matter. Obama touched our desire for positive human solidarity (black and white together) The foundation of Trump's appeal is also on a emotional level. Trump, at his best, exudes a powerful resentment–a type of negative solidarity based on anger and contempt. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jim September 25, 2016 at 11:37 am

    "What standards do you think will matter for who really wins the debate, as in does better with voters."

    The real standard will be, as it was for Obama in 2008, the capacity to touch people on an emotional level. Policy does not matter. Obama touched our desire for positive human solidarity (black and white together) The foundation of Trump's appeal is also on a emotional level. Trump, at his best, exudes a powerful resentment–a type of negative solidarity based on anger and contempt.

    pretzelattack September 25, 2016 at 9:45 am

    i just saw a good comment at the guardian comparing trump to chemo, the "poison that we take to cure us of the dnc/rnc cancer in hope they don't kill us first".

    Reply
    fresno dan September 25, 2016 at 9:56 am

    pretzelattack
    September 25, 2016 at 9:45 am

    That is a very interesting observation and certainly strikes me as hitting the mark

    [Sep 26, 2016] Is Trump a Republican Obama which will be easily cooped by Republican establishment

    Notable quotes:
    "... Supposedly, per this Social Security Works advocate, Trump's advisor told Paul Ryan he will agree to cutting Social Security, ala 2008 0bama's advisor telling Canadian officials that 0bama wouldn't really negotiate NAFTA. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ProNewerDeal September 25, 2016 at 10:45 am

    Supposedly, per this Social Security Works advocate, Trump's advisor told Paul Ryan he will agree to cutting Social Security, ala 2008 0bama's advisor telling Canadian officials that 0bama wouldn't really negotiate NAFTA.

    fw http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-altman/trump-and-ryan-agree-lets_b_9992656.html

    Similarly, I wonder if Trump will flip-flop & support TPP, & cut Medicare?

    tgs September 25, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    I hope that Hillary and Trump are forced to come clean about their plans for SS in the debate.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Hillary preaches one dollar one vote rule via her huge advertizing spendings

    Notable quotes:
    "... "In terms of booked TV and radio ad time from today through election day, Team Clinton is tracking at roughly 33 times the outlay of Team Trump" [ Advertising Age ]. "To put all this another way, of the $149,912,723 millon in booked TV and radio spending through election day for these three presidential candidates, $145,299,727 is being spent by the Clinton campaign combined with pro-Clinton PACs." Wowsers. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "In terms of booked TV and radio ad time from today through election day, Team Clinton is tracking at roughly 33 times the outlay of Team Trump" [ Advertising Age ]. "To put all this another way, of the $149,912,723 millon in booked TV and radio spending through election day for these three presidential candidates, $145,299,727 is being spent by the Clinton campaign combined with pro-Clinton PACs." Wowsers.

    "Trump's ads last ran nearly a week ago in four battleground states: Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Since then, the GOP presidential nominee has ceded the airwaves to Hillary Clinton - and is only poised to launch a limited, less-targeted ad campaign in the days before next week's debate" [ Politico ].

    "Hillary Clinton is reserving $30 million in digital advertising as she seeks to connect with young voters" [Business Insider]. The quotes in this thing are pathetic, both Michelle Obama and Clinton's. Anybody who uses the trope "I get that" automatically doesn't.

    [Sep 24, 2016] Democracy's Last Chance

    Notable quotes:
    "... More power, more money, more control goes to a smaller group of people. We were disenfranchised, without noticing it. The financiers and their new nobility of discourse took over the world as completely as the aristocracy did in 11th century. ..."
    "... The last decisive battle for preservation of democracy now takes place in the US. Its unlikely champion, Donald Trump , is hated by the political establishment, by the bought media, by instigated minorities as much as Putin, Corbyn or Le Pen are hated. ..."
    www.unz.com
    More power, more money, more control goes to a smaller group of people. We were disenfranchised, without noticing it. The financiers and their new nobility of discourse took over the world as completely as the aristocracy did in 11th century.

    Russia with its very limited democracy is still better off: their nobility of discourse polled less than three per cent of the votes in the last elections, though they are still heavily represented in the government.

    The last decisive battle for preservation of democracy now takes place in the US. Its unlikely champion, Donald Trump , is hated by the political establishment, by the bought media, by instigated minorities as much as Putin, Corbyn or Le Pen are hated.

    [Sep 22, 2016] Negative Effects of Immigration on the Economy

    Notable quotes:
    "... I wonder if there is a simpler explanation. US immigration policy has come to be about suppressing wages. The suppressing wages operation has been great for those at the top of the food chain at the cost of overall growth. ..."
    "... As long as there exist Western countries to act as "safety valves" there is no incentive for immigrant source countries to correct the deficiencies in their economical / political / social systems or resolve ongoing conflicts. In fact, there is every incentive to maintain the status quo. ..."
    "... And when will the Wester polity finally figure out that if you destabilize a metastable regime by force, the result isn't stability but inevitably chaos and a further flood of refugee/immigrants? ..."
    "... Now most of the net immigration across the US-Mexican border comes from Central America: countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala destabilized by the Reagan regime in the 1980s. Now they're dominated by violent gangs trained in California prisons and repatriated to Central America. ..."
    "... Immigration across the U.S.-Mexican border is driven by Central American refugees fleeing gross instability, crime and violence in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala; not by Mexicans. The U.S. played a deep long-term role in creating the mess that Central America is today. ..."
    "... U.S. creates instability (war, coup) in a region. ..."
    "... The ensuing instability creates a class of desperate folks, who then seek bodily, economic, and political safety within the borders of the empire. This leads to a class of desperate workers, often undocumented and constantly at risk of deportation, willing to work for far less compensation than the native population. ..."
    "... Poorer countries suffer brain drain. They do receive large amount of remittances, but an economy which sends its best and the brightest to benefit the industrial countries and receives industrial products in exchange does not seem like it can develop very easily. ..."
    "... Here's a somewhat interesting backgrounder on American immigration. The author's premise is that US immigration policies were always about race (white Europeans welcome to stay, brown Mexicans welcome to do manual labor and leave) but this is undoubtedly a simplification as the discrimination in favor of high skills–talked about in the above post–undoubtedly a factor. ..."
    "... most other countries do not offer citizenship unless you have something valuable to offer them. An acquaintance who thought about becoming Canadian found this out. ..."
    "... It is dangerous for Trump to demonize undocumented immigrants without holding the corporations that attracted and hired them responsible and the system that allowed it. ..."
    "... I would argue that migration has both positive and negative impact on the receiving country. But at some point I believe the 'self' is selfish and not necessarily selfless. In a world of limited resources and opportunities it is normal for the 'self' to be highly selfish hence the contradictory nature of the theory of free market economy under globalization. ..."
    "... So the UK National Health system nurtured me through my early years, and the UK education system gave me primary, secondary and degree level education. I have spent most of my working life doing an R&D job in the US. The US has benefited from my work during my working life. If I should choose to retire back to the UK, I will remit my pension income back there, and because of the tax treaty, pay income taxes there, which I claim as a full credit against the US tax return. So I'm "taking money out of the US, to the detriment of social cohesion and economic growth". ..."
    "... H1-B visas tap larger, typically Asian populations than the U.S. for their best & brightest. ..."
    "... Roughly 50% of the undocumented are from Asia. Yet 90% of the deportations are Hispanic. ..."
    "... My experience is that the Asian population is either native or here on student visas. The chinese student population is quite large in Los Angeles. Student visas don't allow foreign students to work off-campus, so many of them are family-funded. So they're not taking jobs, but do impact the housing/rental market. (The California colleges love them for their out-of-state fees and strong study habits.) ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on September 21, 2016 by Yves Smith Yves here. I wonder if there is a simpler explanation. US immigration policy has come to be about suppressing wages. The suppressing wages operation has been great for those at the top of the food chain at the cost of overall growth.

    By Mike Kimel. Originally published at Angry Bear

    In a recent post , I showed that looking at data since 1950 or so, the percentage of the population that is foreign born is negatively correlated with job creation in later years. I promised an explanation, and I will attempt to deliver on that promise in this post.

    I can think of a few reasons for the finding, just about all of which would have been amplified since LBJ's Presidency due to two things: the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act and the launch of the Great Society. The Hart-Cellar Act may be better known as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It phased out country quotas in existence since the 1920s. As a result of these quotas, about 70% of all immigrants were coming from England, Germany and Ireland, with most of the remainder coming from elsewhere in Western Europe and from Latin America. The Great Society, of course, included a number of welfare programs, many of which (or their descendants) are still in existence.

    With that, reasons why the foreign born population is negatively correlated with subsequent job creation include:

    1. Immigrants who are sufficiently similar to the existing population when it comes to language, culture, skillsets and expectations will integrate more smoothly. Slower and more imperfect integration necessarily requires more expenditure of resources, resources which otherwise could go toward economic development.

    2. Naturally, skills and values that are more productive and efficient than those of the existing population are conducive toward growth. Conversely, bringing inferior technology and processes does not improve the economy. As the source of immigrants shifted away from sources of sources of high technology like England and Germany and toward the developing and not-developing world, the likelihood that a randomly selected new immigrant will improve productivity diminishes.

    3. Eligibility for welfare can change the incentive structure for existing and potential immigrants. An immigrant arriving in the US in 1890 certainly had no expectation of being supported by the state. It may be that most immigrants arriving in the US now also don't have that expectation. However, it is no secret that welfare exists so some percentage of potential immigrants arrive expecting to be supported to some degree by the state. In some (many?) cases, the expectation increases post-arrival. (Like any great economist, Milton Friedman got a lot of things wrong about how the economy works but he had a point when he said you can have a welfare state or open borders but not both.)

    4. Rightly or wrongly, reasons 1 – 3 above may combine to create resentment in the existing population. Think "my grandparents came to this country with nothing and nobody gave them anything " Resentment can break down trust and institutions necessary for the economy to function smoothly.

    5. Over time, transportation has become cheaper and easier. As a result, the likelihood that an immigrant has come to the US to stay has diminished. Many immigrants come to the US for several years and then go back to their country of origin. This in turn leads to four issues that can have negative impacts on the economy:

    5a. Immigrants that expect to leave often send back remittances, taking resources out of the US economy. For example, in 2010, remittances from workers in the US amounted to 2.1% of Mexican GDP .

    5b. Relative to many non-Western countries, the US taxpayer invests heavily in the creation of a state that is conducive toward acquiring useful skills and education. Often, the acquisition of such skills and education is heavily subsidized. When people acquire those tools and then leave without applying them, the value of the resources could have been better spent elsewhere.

    5c. Immigrants who don't expect to stay can have less reason to integrate culturally and economically; any real estate investor can tell you that all else being equal, a neighborhood made up largely of homeowners is almost always nicer than a neighborhood made up largely of renters.

    5d. Immigrants who arrive with a non-negligible expectation of leaving are, on average, more likely to take risks which generate private gains and social losses. If the bet goes well, congratulations. If the bet goes bad, "so long suckers!" The bet may even involve a crime.

    6. (This one is more conjecture than the others – I think it is true, but I haven't given it enough thought, particularly whether it is entirely separate from the previous reasons.) The non-existence of a lump of labor does not mean there isn't a population to labor multiplier, or that the multiplier cannot change over time. In an era of relatively slow economic growth, economies of scale, and outsourcing abroad, the number of new employment opportunities per new customer (i.e., job creation per resident) can shrink. We've certainly seen something resembling that since about 2000.

    None of this is to say that immigration is good or bad, or even that it should be opposed or encouraged. In this post I simply tried to explain what I saw in the data. I will have one or more follow-up posts.

    financial matters , September 21, 2016 at 6:13 am

    I think one of the best things the US can do re immigration is to develop policies that make it easier for people to stay in their country of origin which many probably want to do. Our policies have tended to have the opposite effect such as

    NAFTA "An influx of highly subsidized corn flooding the Mexican market has displaced millions of rural farmers" ( http://economyincrisis.org/content/illegal-immigration-and-naftaz )

    and Syria/Libya etc "An estimated 11 million Syrians have fled their homes since the outbreak of the civil war in March 2011. Now, in the sixth year of war, 13.5 million are in need of humanitarian assistance within the country. " ( http://syrianrefugees.eu/ )

    We are also very much in need of a job guarantee paying a living wage which would put pressure on major employers such as Walmart and McDonalds and get their executives off of government subsidies. (they pay a wage so low their workers are forced into food stamps and medicaid) (One of the major beneficiaries of the nation's food-stamp program is actually a hugely profitable company: Walmart .) ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/walmart-food-stamps_n_4181862.html )

    Hayek's Heelbiter , September 21, 2016 at 6:15 am

    Another great post, read word-for-word, and I very much look forward your subsequent ones.

    You've cogently explored the "yin" of immigration, but what about the "yang"?

    As long as there exist Western countries to act as "safety valves" there is no incentive for immigrant source countries to correct the deficiencies in their economical / political / social systems or resolve ongoing conflicts. In fact, there is every incentive to maintain the status quo.

    And when will the Wester polity finally figure out that if you destabilize a metastable regime by force, the result isn't stability but inevitably chaos and a further flood of refugee/immigrants?

    IMHO

    Jim Haygood , September 21, 2016 at 7:25 am

    'As long as there exist Western countries to act as "safety valves" there is no incentive for immigrant source countries to correct the deficiencies in their economical / political / social systems or resolve ongoing conflicts.'

    After a mere ten years, NAFTA succeeded in reversing net immigration from Mexico.

    http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

    Now most of the net immigration across the US-Mexican border comes from Central America: countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala destabilized by the Reagan regime in the 1980s. Now they're dominated by violent gangs trained in California prisons and repatriated to Central America.

    Increasingly Mexico will focus on its own southern border with Guatemala, as it becomes more of a destination country rather than simply a transit country, as detailed here:

    https://www.wola.org/files/mxgt/report/

    Immigration across the U.S.-Mexican border is driven by Central American refugees fleeing gross instability, crime and violence in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala; not by Mexicans. The U.S. played a deep long-term role in creating the mess that Central America is today.

    Mark John , September 21, 2016 at 9:20 am

    Yes. It is a pernicious cycle with something like these dimensions. . .

    1. U.S. creates instability (war, coup) in a region.
    2. The ensuing instability creates a class of desperate folks, who then seek bodily, economic, and political safety within the borders of the empire. This leads to a class of desperate workers, often undocumented and constantly at risk of deportation, willing to work for far less compensation than the native population.
    3. Native population sees the contours of its society change with the influx along with a lessening in quality of living standards, which leads to dangerous, xenophobic mental associations. Xenophobic politics begin to take root and thrive.

    The real solution is for our country to stop doing step 1.

    tony , September 21, 2016 at 8:03 am

    Poorer countries suffer brain drain. They do receive large amount of remittances, but an economy which sends its best and the brightest to benefit the industrial countries and receives industrial products in exchange does not seem like it can develop very easily.

    Its clear that the emigree benefits, and the receiving country receives a subsidy in the form of valuable human capital. But how does the originating country develop? Invest in education and the best leave. Invest in industry and you compete with the products of the developed countries.

    And of course, the rich in unstable countries have little reason to care about the long term consequences of their actions if they can take their loot and run. There is a reason so many rich Chinese are emigrating.

    David Harvey once told a story about how he warned investment bankers that if things keep getting worse, the US could end up a failed state like Mexico. In typical Wall Street fashion they asked Harvey if they should buy villas in France.

    Mark John , September 21, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    And now climate change will only increase the numbers of those seeking refuge, most likely fueling xenophobia in the west further.

    fresno dan , September 21, 2016 at 7:16 am

    I think this is the first article I have EVER read that even supposes there might be negative ECONOMIC effects of immigration.

    I would note that if there ever was a jobs program with the explicit goal of reducing unemployment to 4% (and not pretending the people who have dropped out don't want a job because they CAN'T get a job) and providing a job to any and all applicants – well, I think the immigration from South America that has slowed would amp right up again – of course.

    You know, I have been reading some of the Davos Man class going on and on about how they didn't really do enough to ameliorate the negative effects of "free" trade on those who don't benefit from trade. But NAFTA is going on a quarter of a century – and in every subsequent trade deal such promises are either never kept or never effectively implemented.

    I suspect that to REALLY provide jobs of equal pay and equal benefits is not economically feasible. Think of it this way – people who worked as landscapers, when displaced by immigrants, may not have the aptitude, skills, or even desire to change careers – if you work outside, why in the hell do you want to have to start working indoors???
    Go to college and become a computer programmer .H1b .

    What are you gonna do keep these people employed – have the same lawn mowed twice every week? Have the same computer code written twice?????

    Again, the whole scenario has struck me as not being ever critically thought through. The benefits to consumers getting low prices are endlessly pointed out, but the negative effect of fewer jobs at low pay are glossed over or NOT ACKNOWLEDGED. The whole deal is that less income to workers and more income to capital – is it REALLY unforseeable that eventually there will be a demand dearth?? Decades of experience of jobs shipped overseas and not replaced are not acknowledged. Ever growing inequality. We have been sold a load of bullsh*t because it benefited a very, very narrow slice at the top only.

    Northeaster , September 21, 2016 at 7:38 am

    Go to college and become a computer programmer .H1b .

    Over 100K H-1B Visas issued so far for 2016 alone, over 10% of those were issued in my state of Massachusetts. The Mathworks Inc. of Natick was given a $3 million dollar state tax subsidy in return for "creating" 600 new jobs – they created jobs alright, 386 H-1B jobs so far, Americans need not apply.

    nowhere , September 21, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    Hmmm a reason to stop using MATLAB?

    timbers , September 21, 2016 at 7:27 am

    The HB-1 Indian workers that have flooded Boston's labor market seem to fit this part because they get on and off Public transportation enmass at stops with clusters of rental buildings -- "5c. Immigrants who don't expect to stay can have less reason to integrate culturally and economically; any real estate investor can tell you that all else being equal, a neighborhood made up largely of homeowners is almost always nicer than a neighborhood made up largely of renters."

    gardener1 , September 21, 2016 at 8:04 am

    Some first person anecdotal observances –

    As a lifelong blue collar worker for nearly 40 years, I found my ability to remain employed competing against a never-ending influx of 22 year old immigrants to be a sinking, and finally sunk quagmire. I lost. I cannot be 22 forever.

    Coming up in the 1970's many of my acquaintances and I were skilled laborers, we got up in the morning and went out everyday to work hard for a living. None of us would even be considered for any of those entry level positions any more. They all go to immigrants from somewhere else or another. As a native born white American you don't even get a chance at those jobs anymore, no employer would even bother talking to you.

    The US has all but done away with apprenticeship programs for the skilled trades. We just bring in exploitable people from all over the world to build our stuff, and then when we're done with them, they go back to where they came from. I know this is true because I've asked them, I've worked with them – they have no intention of staying in America longer than it takes to educate their kids, build up a nest egg, and go back home. A lot of them don't really like it here.

    But we Americans don't have those options. We can't go to Guatemala or Germany or the Philippines to work for 10 or 20 years to return to America with saved money on which we can survive for the rest of a lifetime.

    This deal is a one-way street.

    As an American, I challenge you to get a job abroad. I challenge you to get a foreign residency visa or a work visa. I challenge you to do any of the things that immigrants do in our country. You can't.

    I'm not anti-immigrant. I'm pro- our people first. Us first, and then when we need other folks they're welcome too. But that's not what has been happening in my work lifetime of the last 40 years.

    Carolinian , September 21, 2016 at 8:31 am

    Here's a somewhat interesting backgrounder on American immigration. The author's premise is that US immigration policies were always about race (white Europeans welcome to stay, brown Mexicans welcome to do manual labor and leave) but this is undoubtedly a simplification as the discrimination in favor of high skills–talked about in the above post–undoubtedly a factor.

    For example most other countries do not offer citizenship unless you have something valuable to offer them. An acquaintance who thought about becoming Canadian found this out.

    In any case the below author does talk about how the notion of "illegal" immigrants is a more recent phenomenon and in earlier periods Mexicans were freely allowed to come across and work.

    http://mondediplo.com/openpage/is-trump-an-aberration

    financial matters , September 21, 2016 at 9:07 am

    I think it's also useful to consider private prison labor. This article notes that half this revenue comes from undocumented immigrants but that means the other half comes from US citizens. private prisons

    ""Private prisons bring in about $3 billion in revenue annually, and over half of that comes from holding facilities for undocumented immigrants. Private operations run between 50% to 55% of immigrant detainment facilities. The immigration bill battling its way through Washington right now might also mean good things for private prisons. Some estimate that the crackdown on undocumented immigrants will lead to 14,000 more inmates annually with 80% of that business going to private prisons.

    The prison industry has also made money by contracting prison labor to private companies. The companies that have benefited from this cheap labor include Starbucks (SBUX), Boeing (BA), Victoria's Secret, McDonalds (MCD) and even the U.S. military. Prison laborers cost between 93 cents and $4 a day and don't need to collect benefits, thus making them cheap employees.""

    Ping , September 21, 2016 at 10:11 am

    It is dangerous for Trump to demonize undocumented immigrants without holding the corporations that attracted and hired them responsible and the system that allowed it.

    Now that they are here and have settled with families, it is deplorable to speak of mass deportation. As has been noted with the Walmart expample, those that massively profit from this abberation should bear the major cost of public services required for a 'Shadow Workforce'.

    And Hillary Clinton and her neocon crowd, whose policies have created chaos resulting in mass immigration of refugees offers no apology but more of the same. Insanity doing the same thing over and over for a different result?

    Huruyadzo Chikwanha , September 21, 2016 at 10:17 am

    I would argue that migration has both positive and negative impact on the receiving country. But at some point I believe the 'self' is selfish and not necessarily selfless. In a world of limited resources and opportunities it is normal for the 'self' to be highly selfish hence the contradictory nature of the theory of free market economy under globalization.

    I argue that the theory is self contradictory because it is normal human nature being selfish hence anti competition. When threatened by the influx of seemingly hard working, creative and passive immigrants, I tend to gravitate towards conservatism. I start taking necessary steps towards protecting myself, my immediate family and hence my domestic market. These rules are typically borrowed from nature. How to balance the impulsive theory of free market economics vs the reality of limited resources and opportunities is a unique challenge to governments, policy and decision makers worldwide hence globalization in the short run presents unique challenges (conflicts) sometimes.

    Vatch , September 21, 2016 at 10:22 am

    Johnson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson#Private_prisons

    Johnson supports private, for-profit prisons. As Governor of New Mexico he dealt with overcrowded prisons (and approximately seven hundred prisoners held out-of-state due to a lack of available space) by opening two private prisons, later arguing that "building two private prisons in New Mexico solved some very serious problems – and saved the taxpayers a lot of money."

    He could have saved the taxpayers even more money by releasing non-violent prisoners convicted of minor crimes. But that would have offended some of his campaign donors.

    Clinton: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-will-ban-private-prisons_b_9297568.html

    Bernie's goal is to ban private prisons. Hillary has a similar goal, but takes money from prison lobbyists. Does this make sense to you?

    According to Lee Fang of The Intercept, Private Prison Lobbyists Are Raising Cash for Hillary Clinton.

    After pressure from civil rights groups, Vice News explains Hillary Clinton Shuns Private Prison Cash, Activists Want Others to Follow Suit.

    The Huffington Post writes "Lobbying firms that work for two major private prison giants, GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America, gave $133,246 to the Ready for Hillary PAC, according to Vice."

    Do you trust Clinton?

    I guess this means that we should vote for Sanders in the primary. Oh gosh, there's a minor problem. The primaries are over, and Clinton is the nominee.

    Trump: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/why-trumps-support-for-private-prisons-and-mass-incarceration-should-worry-you/

    "I do think we can do a lot of privatizations, and private prisons it seems to work a lot better," said Trump when asked how he planned to reform the country's prison system.

    Stein: http://www.jill2016.com/fb_ad_cannabis_legalization_landing_page

    As president, Jill Stein will:

    3.) Abolish private prisons

    So Stein of the Green Party is best on this issue.

    no one in particular , September 21, 2016 at 11:19 am

    For more research on the topic – I found the following very readable, gave me a lot of insight into the factors influencing whether or when immigration is good or bad from which point of view:

    Paul Collier Exodus, ca. 2011 .

    efschumacher , September 21, 2016 at 11:55 am

    So the UK National Health system nurtured me through my early years, and the UK education system gave me primary, secondary and degree level education. I have spent most of my working life doing an R&D job in the US. The US has benefited from my work during my working life. If I should choose to retire back to the UK, I will remit my pension income back there, and because of the tax treaty, pay income taxes there, which I claim as a full credit against the US tax return. So I'm "taking money out of the US, to the detriment of social cohesion and economic growth".

    Question is, how much of the pension and/or social security and/or investment gains do I owe to the US, and how much to the UK? I think I owe more there than I do here. Particularly in light of the fact that the UK paid for my college education, but my nephews and nieces have to pay for their own, so I have hitherto been a drain on the UKs social investment strategy.

    I see it as much a moral question as an economic one that I should help support my family's education directly, and the UK social system through future taxes paid from pension. I have after all supported the US social and military-industrial systems through work done and taxes paid during my working life.

    Adam Eran , September 21, 2016 at 11:56 am

    1. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for welfare they can barely get emergency room care.

    2. H1-B visas tap larger, typically Asian populations than the U.S. for their best & brightest. Could India actually make use of its intelligent people? Is it moral for the U.S. to, in effect, bribe them to leave their native country? (A point made by Ralph Nader in answering a libertarian at his Google talk )

    3. Roughly 50% of the undocumented are from Asia. Yet 90% of the deportations are Hispanic.

    Anon , September 21, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    Roughly 50% of the undocumented are from Asia .

    Got a link on this? My experience is that the Asian population is either native or here on student visas. The chinese student population is quite large in Los Angeles. Student visas don't allow foreign students to work off-campus, so many of them are family-funded. So they're not taking jobs, but do impact the housing/rental market. (The California colleges love them for their out-of-state fees and strong study habits.)

    Gary , September 21, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    I can only speak for Texas, but the nail salons, massage parlors, dry cleaners, restaurants, fishing boats and electronics refurbishing can't ALL be H1-B visas. And that isn't even counting all the people from India I see. Most of them are too old to be students.

    Dave , September 21, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    Trump's statement that he will issue an executive order forcing employers to use E-Verify for all new employees is a good start. While that program has a few flaws, the net effect would be massive for favoring citizens over illegals.

    To be fair, employers should still have the option of using illegals, however, they should put their money where their mouths and labor savings are, by not being able to deduct the non E-Verifiable wages from their income for taxation purposes.

    sgt_doom , September 21, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    Add to the author's stuff from Johnson Administration: his Border Industrialization Program.

    Interesting article.

    [Sep 22, 2016] Conservative Christians arent going to stop voting Republican. Theyre just going to offer a different reason for doing it, when asked

    BenOp is unrealistic. conservative Christians will not stop voting Republicans.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Conservative" Christians aren't going to stop voting Republican. They're just going to offer a different reason for doing it, when asked. ..."
    "... Well, I think you're right that about 3/4 of the readers would lose their minds if that was stated as an explicit political goal. It would confirm in the minds of many the suspicion that the primary strategy of the religious right is the establishment of an anti-democratic, theocracy or Caesaropapist regime. ..."
    "... A lot of people are tired of the Religious Right's attempt to gain political power in order to impose Christian views of morality. ..."
    "... A lot of people believe that there should be a separation of church and state, not only in the Constitutional sense of having no state-established religion, but also in the general sense that morality should be a private matter, not the subject of politics. ..."
    "... So basically this boils down to you asking us to trust that your gut is right in spite of what we can see with our lying eyes? Yeah, no thanks. ..."
    "... Conservative Christians danced with the Republican Party for a long-time, but past a certain point had to stop pretending that the Republican Party cared more about them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and the MIC mainly). ..."
    "... Liberal Christians, some of them, danced with the other side of Mammon (big government and social programs, etc) and perhaps just got absorbed. But the point is I think you are returning to a better place, reverting to some sort of norm, the alliance with the GOP was a strange infatuation that wasn't going to sustain anyway. ..."
    "... So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double intensity? ..."
    "... Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over? ..."
    "... Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, I concluded that libertarianism and either the current Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that those of us with traditional religious and moral convictions can hope for in a decidedly post-Christian America. ..."
    "... "Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump?" ..."
    "... My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a Republic if our government creates the conditions for a thriving middle class: the most important condition being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live an independent existence. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and even higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development) are increasingly being outsourced as well. ..."
    "... Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without a thriving middle class, democracy is unsustainable. Struggling people filled with hate and resentment are ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces. ..."
    "... Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well. His goal was to make it unthinkable for his country to descend into civil war ever again. He achieved this ..."
    "... When Franco died, Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and the second-fastest growing economy in the world (behind only Japan). It became a liberal democracy almost overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked what he thought his most important legacy was. He replied, "The middle class." Franco was not a democrat, but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy in Spain. ..."
    "... The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in and of itself isnt necessarily bad. However, the annihilation of culture, religion, and autonomy at the hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian elite certainly is – and that is what is happening under what is referred to as globalization. The revolt against the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington has now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the rebels be swift and complete. ..."
    "... "You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should continue paying for it." ..."
    "... "BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up." ..."
    "... Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed. They claim that they hate Disneyworld because of their pro-gay policies, but when they have to choose between Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses. ..."
    "... The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are waking up to it. ..."
    "... We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone can pretty much agree that the traditionalists lost. ..."
    "... "Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on that notion. Trump merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing about her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was is to engage in the same sort of dishonesty for which Clinton is so well known. ..."
    "... Well, back then, the government was doing stuff for the common people. A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA, Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered the "forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to multinationals and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and women that make up the backbone of our economy have been forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember them - with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump. ..."
    "... The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both parties reminds me of this quote from C.S. Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast": "…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same." ..."
    "... Globalism is just swell for the multinational corporation, but it is nothing more or less than Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it, like Frankenstein, will turns on its creator and imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence. ..."
    "... If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman. His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most people are already at - he would not be the nominee. ..."
    "... Good article. I think Mitchell identifies the right ideas buried within Trump's rhetoric. But even if it were true that Trump had no ideas, I would still vote for him. After all, where have politic ideas gotten us lately? ..."
    "... "Conservative principles" espoused by wonks and political scientists culminated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ideology told us that democracy was a divine right, transferable across time and culture. ..."
    "... In fact, Larry Kudlow, the crassest exponent of both those ideas is one of Trump's economic advisors. ..."
    "... We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables." ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Troy, September 18, 2016 at 11:33 am

    VikingLS: It's been decades since there was a white riot in this country.

    That is such a funny meme I had to share this http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/white-people-rioting-for-no-reason.html

    Joseph , September 18, 2016 at 12:16 pm

    "Conservative" Christians aren't going to stop voting Republican. They're just going to offer a different reason for doing it, when asked.

    I will bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in Rod's pockets that there will NEVER, in either of our lifetimes, be a time when he feels compelled by his principles to vote for a Democratic candidate for federal office over a Republican one.

    And finally, I note that someone above asked a version of the same question I've periodically had: What does Dreherdom look like? If orthodox Christians controlled the levers of power, what do you propose to DO with your (cultural AND legal) authority? And what will be the status of the "other" in that brave new world?

    [NFR: They will be captured and enslaved and sent to work in the boudin mines. And I will spend whatever percentage of the Gross National Product it takes to hire the Rolling Stones to play "Exile On Main Street" live, from start to finish, in a national broadcast that I will require every citizen to watch, on pain of being assigned to hard labor in the boudin mines. Also, I will eat boudin. - RD]

    WAB , September 18, 2016 at 1:15 pm [

    Connor:

    While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics. The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state which governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be necessary.]

    That's interesting. Well, I think you're right that about 3/4 of the readers would lose their minds if that was stated as an explicit political goal. It would confirm in the minds of many the suspicion that the primary strategy of the religious right is the establishment of an anti-democratic, theocracy or Caesaropapist regime. I would consider that the extreme "utopian" or some would even say "totalitarian" position of religious conservatives and not "conservative" in any sense that I understand "Conservatism".

    Saltlick's minimal requirement seems to moderate that goal to "a national reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God the Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of conception, and that the traditional family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and economic health.", but even in that he regards it as only a half-measure for Saltlick. Needless to say, what a "traditional" family is would need some definition.

    If nothing short of establishing the City of God on earth would secure the comfort of some Christians then that is a pretty high bar and you have every right to feel insecure… as do the rest of us.

    I would be curious to know how many of your co-religionists on these boards share your view? And how many would reject it?

    Conserving What? , September 18, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Mr Dreher, I always read your articles with great interest, although I often disagree with you. For example, I don't think anybody of any political persuasion is going to try to stamp out Christianity or those who espouse it. Indeed, I think many people will be delighted if all Christians would exercise the Benedict Option.

    A lot of people are tired of the Religious Right's attempt to gain political power in order to impose Christian views of morality.

    A lot of people believe that there should be a separation of church and state, not only in the Constitutional sense of having no state-established religion, but also in the general sense that morality should be a private matter, not the subject of politics.

    [NFR: That's incredibly naive. Aside from procedural laws, all laws are nothing but legislated morality. Somebody's morality is going to be reflected in law. It is unavoidable. - RD]

    William Burns , September 18, 2016 at 2:50 pm
    Amazing how people write about the Atlantic Coast as if South Carolina wasn't on it.
    Michelle , September 18, 2016 at 4:05 pm
    Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over?

    Sharpton isn't running for president and I didn't vote for him when he was. Same for Jesse Jackson. I'm well aware of antisemitism within the black community but doubt it comes anywhere close to that of the alt-right and nationalist groups, who foment hate against both blacks and Jews.

    And duh, of course there's plenty of anti-semitism among Muslims. Who's pretending otherwise. It also appears that you didn't read what I wrote. I favor strong borders but think you can do so without demagoguery and appealing to people's baser instincts and hatreds, which is what Trump does.

    I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to recognize the danger the man poses. I don't care as long as there are enough people who do to keep him out of the presidency.

    Neguy , September 18, 2016 at 4:29 pm
    Rod, you clearly have unresolved cognitive dissonance, because if your vote is based on which candidate is best with religious liberty and the right of Christians to live as Christians, the answer is clear and unambiguous: Trump. Yet you refuse to vote for him.

    The author of this piece actually has you nailed perfectly, which is why it makes you so uncomfortable. He sees that you are absolving yourself from the consequences of political engagement by acting like you can stay firm on your principles, while refusing to choose from the only two real sides on offer. That choice is the messy business of politics, and inevitably imperfect because politics is a human practice and humans are fallen. Because you are unwilling to make that choice, you are out of the politics business whether you realize it or not.

    What you have not abandoned, but I believe should when it comes to the topics of politics, is the public square.

    You recognize that your generation failed to fight. You very clearly have no intention of fighting even now. You have decided to build a Benedict Option because you think that's the only viable option. That's fine. In fact, I heartily approve.

    But other people have chosen differently. They have chosen to fight. Donald Trump for one. You might not like his methods. But he's not willing to see his country destroyed without doing everything he can to stop it. He's not alone. Many people are standing up and recognizing that though the odds are long, they owe it to their children and grandchildren to stand up and be counted. That choice deserves respect too, Rod.

    The problem with you is not the BenOp, but your active demonization of those who actually have the temerity to fight for their country instead of surrendering it to go hide in your BenOp bunker with you.

    Trump, the alt-right, etc. may be wrong metaphysically and they may be wrong ethically, but they are right about some very important things – things that you, Rod Dreher, and your entire generation of conservatives were very, very wrong on. Rather than admit that, you want to stand back from the fight, pretending you're too gosh darned principled to soil your hands voting for one of the two candidates who have a shot to be our president, and acting like you're a morally superior person for doing so.

    You should focus on the important work of building and evangelizing for BenOp, and leave the field of political discourse to those who are actually willing to engage in the business of politics.

    Ralph , September 18, 2016 at 5:41 pm
    No lengthy cerebral essay will cover up the fact that Trump is a crude, belligerent, and unethical con-artist. Clinton for her part has her own problems but both are a blot on American history. No amount of blabber will put a shine on Trump's character. He is for himself, and no one else.
    mrscracker , September 18, 2016 at 5:43 pm
    I guess Mrs. Clinton is still not feeling well and/or on medication, but her reaction to the bombing in NYC was like someone sleepwalking.
    VikingLS , September 18, 2016 at 10:47 pm
    "I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to recognize the danger the man poses. I don't care as long as there are enough people who do to keep him out of the presidency."

    So basically this boils down to you asking us to trust that your gut is right in spite of what we can see with our lying eyes? Yeah, no thanks.

    Herenow , September 17, 2016 at 10:53 am
    fwiw, my sense is that the Benedict Option (from the snippets that you have shared with us particularly in the posts on Norcia and other communities already pursuing some sort of "option") represents a return of conservative Christians to a more healthy, hands-off relationship with national politics.

    Conservative Christians danced with the Republican Party for a long-time, but past a certain point had to stop pretending that the Republican Party cared more about them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and the MIC mainly).

    Liberal Christians, some of them, danced with the other side of Mammon (big government and social programs, etc) and perhaps just got absorbed. But the point is I think you are returning to a better place, reverting to some sort of norm, the alliance with the GOP was a strange infatuation that wasn't going to sustain anyway.

    Alex (the one that likes Ike) , September 17, 2016 at 10:55 am
    So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double intensity?
    Skip , September 17, 2016 at 10:56 am
    Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over?
    Skip Rigney , September 17, 2016 at 11:03 am
    Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly why I have reluctantly become a libertarian:

    -"On a practical level, that means that I will no longer vote primarily on the social issues that have dictated my vote in the past, but I will vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting my community's right to be left alone."-

    Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, I concluded that libertarianism and either the current Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that those of us with traditional religious and moral convictions can hope for in a decidedly post-Christian America.

    I wrote about why I believe this to be so at http://www.skiprigney.com/2015/04/29/how-the-ssm-debate-made-me-a-libertarian/

    I don't believe for a minute that the majority of elected officials in the Republican Party have the backbone to stand up for religious liberty in the face of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how the Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the protection of religious liberty.

    There are many libertarians who are going to work to protect the rights of people to do things that undermine the common good. But, I have more faith that they'll protect the rights of a cultural minority such as traditionalist Christians than I have in either the Republicans or the Democrats.

    Egypt Steve , September 17, 2016 at 11:29 am
    It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics. It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There are white people, and there are blah people. White people will be in charge, and blah people can have a piece of the pie to the extent they agree to pretend to be white people.
    Viriato , September 17, 2016 at 11:44 am
    Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump?"

    My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a Republic if our government creates the conditions for a thriving middle class: the most important condition being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live an independent existence. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and even higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development) are increasingly being outsourced as well.

    If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you will see that the vast majority of new jobs are in retail trade, health care and social assistance, waitresses and bartenders, and government. Most of these jobs are part-time jobs. None of these jobs produce any goods than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive independently. This is why more Americans aged 25-34 live with their parents than independently with spouses and children of their own. It is also why many people now must work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. As for government jobs, they are tax-supported, and thus a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian. I recognize that government provides many crucial services. But it is unproductive to have too many bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.

    Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without a thriving middle class, democracy is unsustainable. Struggling people filled with hate and resentment are ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.

    Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well. His goal was to make it unthinkable for his country to descend into civil war ever again. He achieved this. Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued by radical ideologies like communism, regional separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism had its following as well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain, though it was not really fascist, as it was profoundly Christian and rejected Nietzschean neo-paganism) was irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one of the three pillars that supported the regime (the other two being monarchists and Catholics), but it was never the most influential pillar.] When Franco died, Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and the second-fastest growing economy in the world (behind only Japan). It became a liberal democracy almost overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked what he thought his most important legacy was. He replied, "The middle class." Franco was not a democrat, but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy in Spain.

    To get back to the US, we now have a Third World economy. We can't too surprised that our politics also look increasingly like those of a Third World country. Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the SJW's, Black Lives Matter, etc.

    connecticut farmer , September 17, 2016 at 12:11 pm
    @ Michael in Oceania

    The evolution of the MSM into an American version of Pravda/Izvestia has been a lengthy process and dates back at least to the days of Walter Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom Roosevelt, Truman and JFK had no qualms about calling for advice).

    With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon of the blogosphere, the MSM has no choice but to cast off whatever pretensions to objectivity they may have had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can keep themselves viable in an increasingly competitive market where more people get their news from such as Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the WaPo

    dan , September 17, 2016 at 12:35 pm
    Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the PC police, and generally stood for these same 6 principles, and did so in a much more coherent and rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished within no time at all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle instead of capturing an undefined spirit, if he tried to answer the charges against him in a rational manner, all it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC charges to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model for future conservative candidates when running in a nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them. If you engage in the argument with them, they'll destroy you.
    BlairBurton , September 17, 2016 at 12:45 pm
    @Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who support him. Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump ?

    Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine about?

    By any standard, conditions then were worse for the white working class than is the case today, and yes, my grandparents were working class: one grandfather worked for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And yes, there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and suicide amongst the populace in the 1930s.

    The role of religion was more pervasive then, but to tell the truth, I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both side as Moral Therapeutic Deists; by Rod's standard I believe that is true for most Christians throughout history.

    Just what is different about today, that brings all this rage and resentment? Could it be that racial and ethnic and religious minorities, and women now have a piece of the pie and a good part of the white working class cannot stand it?

    And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the fact that so very many Americans support him, whether wholeheartedly swallowing his poison, or because they close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind of a man he is.

    Nate , September 17, 2016 at 1:12 pm
    The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in and of itself isnt necessarily bad. However, the annihilation of culture, religion, and autonomy at the hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian elite certainly is – and that is what is happening under what is referred to as globalization. The revolt against the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington has now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the rebels be swift and complete.
    Abelard Lindsey , September 17, 2016 at 1:28 pm
    How can anyone right in the head argue against entreprenuership and decentralization? All of our problems are due to a lack of these two things.
    Baldy , September 17, 2016 at 1:58 pm
    "You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should continue paying for it."

    If we all accept your definition then we can't argue with you. Whatever you want to call it, there is an entire industry (most conservative media) that feeds a victimization mentality among whites, conservatives, evangelicals etc (all those labels apply to me by the way) that closely resembles the grievance outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is taken seriously. Why else do so many of us get so bent out of shape when employees have the audacity to say "happy holidays" at the department store. As made apparent on this blog we do need to be realistic and vigilant about the real threats and the direction the culture is going, but by whining about every perceived slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of "Christian America" (while anointing a vile figure like Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting the legitimate grievances we do have.

    Roland P. , September 17, 2016 at 2:05 pm
    Everyone has heard how far is moving small car production to Mexico and forwarded saying no one in America will lose their jobs because the production will be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.

    That's not the problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not helping Americans.

    I'm all for a 35% tariff on those cars.

    Roland P. , September 17, 2016 at 2:06 pm
    Darn predictive text program it should say Ford.
    Greg in PDX , September 17, 2016 at 2:14 pm
    "BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up."

    Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed. They claim that they hate Disneyworld because of their pro-gay policies, but when they have to choose between Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.

    Clint , September 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm
    What happens when the status quo media turns a presidential election into a referendum regarding the media's ability to shape public opinion and direct "purchasing" choices?

    The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are waking up to it.

    Nelson , September 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    This will almost always mean voting for the Republicans in national elections, but in a primary situation, I will vote for the Republican who can best be counted on to defend religious liberty, even if he's not 100 percent on board with what I consider to be promoting the Good. If it means voting for a Republican that the defense hawks or the Chamber of Commerce disdain, I have no problem at all with that.

    How is this different than cultural conservatives voted before Trump?

    WAB , September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm
    We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone can pretty much agree that the traditionalists lost.

    Now whether Dreher et all lost because the broader culture refused to listen or because they simply couldn't make a convincing argument is a question that surrounds a very particular program pursued by conservatives, traditionalists and the religious right. It is certain that the Republican Party as a vehicle for those values has been taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It seems to that Josh Stuart has pulled a rabbit out of the hat. Trump is, if anything, pretty incoherent and whatever "principles" he represents were discovered in the breach; a little like bad gunnery practice, one shot low, one shot lower and then a hit. If Trump represents anything it is the fact that the base of the party was not who many of us thought they were. Whatever Christian values we thought they were representing are hardly recognizable now.

    What truly puzzles me more and increasingly so is Rod's vision of what America is supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what that regime looks like? Behind all the theological underpinning and high-sounding abstractions what does a ground-level political and legislative program for achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly participate in look like?

    Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is responsive to politics. What political order does the Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the one we have now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect our life and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He says Christians just want to be left alone but they seem to have made and are still making a lot of noise for people who want to be left alone so I have to assume they want something over and above being left alone.

    I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?

    Joe the Plutocrat , September 17, 2016 at 4:41 pm
    a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no value in speculating or establishing a number) are deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad) Trump's we don't have time to be politically correct mantra is ignored when his opponent (a politician who helped establish the concept of politically correctness) steals a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the "irony" hammer from the toolbox? ever the shrewd, calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny barker, Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like any politician) put his finger in the air and decided to "run" from the "nationalist, racist, nativist, side of the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable folks on the Clinton bandwagon; it's just (obviously) not in her interests to expose these "boosters" at HER rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to the lesser of two evils is still evil "idea". politics – especially national campaigns are not so much about which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather which is less deplorable.
    Annek , September 17, 2016 at 5:01 pm
    Michelle:

    "Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might feel for the folks globalism has left behind."

    One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily quelled.

    Ben H , September 17, 2016 at 5:52 pm
    The most interesting part of the essay is near the end, where he briefly discusses how non-whites might react to our political realignment.

    After all, will the white liberal be able to manipulate these groups forever?

    For example, we are seeing the 'official black leaders' who represent them on TV shift from being activist clergymen to being (white paid and hosed) gay activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of black culture. How long can this continue?

    Connor , September 17, 2016 at 6:12 pm
    Red brick
    September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    "Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.

    "thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated."

    They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them."

    The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign peoples for the better part of 2 millennia, have always been on the receiving end of racial hatred. As a result many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of nationalist movements and a natural tendency towards globalism.

    The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump as the next Hitler, so, understandably, there's a lot of fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified of the man.

    I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue) will probably vote for Trump, even though I have no love for the man himself. I think the "Trump the racist" meme is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I understand where the fear comes from.

    Connor , September 17, 2016 at 6:26 pm
    John Turner
    September 17, 2016 at 7:46 am

    "I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives into irrelevant enclaves.

    To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience. Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.

    If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite cultural institutions."

    Bingo.

    If you want to fundamentally transform the culture, you have to withdraw from it, at least partially. But there's no need to wall yourself off. A Benedict Option community can and should be politically active, primarily at the local level, where the most good can be done.

    The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls, and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ.

    Mapache , September 17, 2016 at 6:31 pm
    "Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on that notion. Trump merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing about her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was is to engage in the same sort of dishonesty for which Clinton is so well known.

    I never cared much for Trump but he has all the right enemies and is growing on me.

    VikingLS , September 17, 2016 at 6:56 pm
    "It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics. It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There are white people, and there are blah people. "

    They love Ben Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men were white.

    Viriato , September 17, 2016 at 7:02 pm
    "Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine about?"

    Well, back then, the government was doing stuff for the common people. A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA, Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered the "forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to multinationals and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and women that make up the backbone of our economy have been forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember them - with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.

    JR , September 17, 2016 at 7:22 pm
    The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both parties reminds me of this quote from C.S. Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast": "…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same."

    Globalism is just swell for the multinational corporation, but it is nothing more or less than Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it, like Frankenstein, will turns on its creator and imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.

    Michael Guarino , September 17, 2016 at 7:24 pm

    One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily quelled.

    And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well, evidence that is not stale by nearly a century). It wasn't Trump supporters beating up people in San Jose. And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen in America, things start looking far, far worse.

    Connor , September 17, 2016 at 7:37 pm
    WAB
    September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    "I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?"

    While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics. The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state which governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be necessary.

    I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly, or laid out a concrete plan, because he is writing a book for Christians in general. And if you get into too many specifics, you are going to run right into the enormous theological and philosophical differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

    Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social Reign of Christ the King", 3/4 of you would lose your minds.

    Of course, the current prospect for a Christian culture and state look bleak, to say the least. But we can play the long game, the Catholic Church is good at that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman Empire. It was 700 years from the founding of the first Benedictine monastery until St. Thomas Aquinas and the High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.

    ludo , September 17, 2016 at 7:52 pm
    I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that Trump is a simulacrum within a simulacrum with a simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic" presidential electoral race (if limited to the two "mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no presidential election tout court, ergo there is no democracy at the presidential election level in the U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in any case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.

    http://www.juancole.com/2016/09/parrot-presidential-election.html

    Howard , September 17, 2016 at 8:08 pm
    All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a different favorite deadly sin. We've had pride, avarice, and the current favorite is lust; the new favorite appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not been absent, but they have not been the driving force in politics recently.
    Viriato , September 17, 2016 at 8:42 pm
    To add to my previous comment:

    Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke the fires of class conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's goal was not to overturn the existing social order but rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR was the moderate leader the country needed at the time. Without him, we might well have succumbed to a demagogic or perhaps even dictatorial government under Charles Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast, Hillary and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM, alt-right) for their own agendas. Let's hope whoever wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained, but courting extremists is always a risky business. Indeed, Hillary may be worse than Trump in this respect, since there appears to be no daylight between her and the SJW's.

    Siarlys Jenkins , September 17, 2016 at 8:43 pm
    To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience. Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.

    Ben Op or not, its always a great notion. And you don't have to withdraw from the culture, THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We just need to reaffirm it.

    So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double intensity?

    Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid contractors suing her… of course that's because she never built hotels, and I don't think she ever declared bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in Milwaukee who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for building violations, declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of thousands of dollars buying up distressed property at sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all of them have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I wouldn't vote for any of them for dogcatcher, much less president.

    That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze, and I wouldn't vote for her if she were running against almost anyone but Trump.

    Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since there was a white riot in this country.

    There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite a while. And no, that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't count. A few dozen thugs burning four black-owned businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood denounces then falls short of a riot.

    I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing "white" mobs posing much of a threat to anyone… they're mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it is true that until the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging through a black neighborhood. And there have been very few black riots that went deep into a "white" neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods too.

    This is an election about feeling under siege.

    But we're not, and most of the adults in the room know it.

    Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits peddling a point of view.

    I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its not who he is, what he says, or what he does or will do, its what they think they SEE in him. I have to admit, I did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in a long time, but that's a rather low bar.

    M_Young , September 17, 2016 at 8:50 pm
    Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis!
    EliteCommInc. , September 17, 2016 at 9:10 pm
    "There are, then, two developments we are likely to see going forward. First, cultural conservatives will seriously consider a political "Benedict Option," dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining their "principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the battle for the political soul of America. …"

    You know, people spout this stuff as if the Republican party is conservative. It started drifting from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an entrenched band of strategics concerned primarily with winning to advance policies tat have little to do with conservative thought.

    I doubt that I will become a member of a book club. And I doubt that I will stop voting according to my conservative view points.

    I generally think any idea that Christians are going to be left to their own devices doubtful or that they would want to design communities not already defined by scripture and a life in Christ.

    _______________
    "If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon politics altogether, it does call on them to recalibrate their (our) understanding of what politics is and what it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than statecraft. Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a post-Christian culture - that is, a culture that no longer shares some key basic Christian values . . ."

    I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who claims to live in Christ already calibrates their lives in the frame of Christ and led by some extent by the Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to become more worldly will change that. What may happen is that a kind of christian spiritual revival and renewal will occur.

    " . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as threats to the common good, simply because of the views we hold and the practices we live by out of fidelity to our religion. . ."

    If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat to the state, unless that threat is just to their participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres christians hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a realistic. If christians are considered a threat – then most likely the ultimate goal will be to get rid of them altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or you do what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on the campuses. You inundate them with how backward their thinking until the student and then proceed to tell them they are just like everyone else.

    Believers are expected to be in the world and not of it. And by in it, I think Christ intended them to be active participants.

    Stephen Gould , September 17, 2016 at 10:24 pm
    @Mapache: Trump merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd.

    It is not hypocrisy for someone in favour of gun control to think that the greater the actual risk, the more acceptable the carrying of guns.

    Stephen Gould , September 17, 2016 at 10:30 pm
    The question is this: what do you do when the policies or ideas you stand for or at least, agree with, are advanced by someone with as appalling a character as Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well.

    I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards, Trump's fans said "Vote for the swindler, it's important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity to defend him.

    Richard Williams , September 18, 2016 at 12:12 am
    I read this on Friday and have thought much about it since. I came by earlier this evening and had about half of a long post written in response, but got too caught up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also determined that it wouldn't matter what I said. The conservatives would continue to harp about the evils of identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long history of conservatives engaging in identity politics in both Europe and America from roughly the high Middle Ages to the present. It seemed more rational to delete what I had written rather than save it and come back to finish it.

    It just so happened that as the game ended, I clicked on Huffingtonpost to check the headlines. Lo and behold, the top story was this one about Jane Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics in the animal kingdom:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-chimpanzee_behavior_us_57ddb84fe4b04a1497b4e512?section=&amp ;

    As the kicker to the headline says, "Well, she's the expert."

    Maryland My Maryland , September 18, 2016 at 12:13 am
    "What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well."

    I don't defend his vile character. I readily admit it. So do most of those I know who intend to vote for him.

    It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.

    For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character" issue is at best a wash, so the choice boils down to other things.

    The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton.

    Elijah , September 18, 2016 at 7:01 am
    "I'm all for a 35% tariff on those cars."

    I would agree with you, except who will that hurt? Ford? Mexico? Why not just legislate manufacturing jobs back into existence?

    saltlick , September 18, 2016 at 7:02 am
    WAB
    September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    "I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?"
    ------
    I think those are good questions, and read in the best light possible, might be interpreted as being asked by someone honestly seeking to understand the concerns of traditional Christians today.

    I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers are,

    "1) In present America, I don't think there are any "cultural change" possible which might reassure Christians, because we are in a downward spiral which has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary posted here by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak of what government and technology will do to the lives of believing Christians.

    2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future - vision that would allow me to relax would be a national reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God the Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of conception, and that the traditional family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and economic health. I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.

    Clint , September 18, 2016 at 8:13 am
    Re:DavidJ,

    In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton defended partial-birth abortions again and voiced her support for late-term abortions up until birth, too.

    She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund these abortions by repealing the Hyde Amendment. The amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding of abortion in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that 33,000 more babies will be aborted every year in the U.S.

    Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.

    EliteCommInc. , September 18, 2016 at 9:40 am
    "Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any fertile soil to grow in."

    I think far too much credit is being given to Mr. Trump. The reason he can stand is because the people he represents have been fed up with the some of what he stands for long before he entered the fray.

    If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman. His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most people are already at - he would not be the nominee.

    There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a supporter. As a supporter, I would be curious to know what lies I have used to support him. We have some serious differences, but I think my support has been fairly above board. In fact, i think the support of most have been fairly straight up I am not sure there is much hidden about Mr. Trump.

    EliteCommInc. , September 18, 2016 at 9:46 am
    The only new issue that has been brought up is the issue of staff accountability. Has he neglected to pay his staff, is this just an organizational natter or complete nonsense.

    The other factor that has played out to his advantage are the news stories that repeatedly turn out false, distorted or nonexistent.

    The media already in the credibility hole seems very content to dig themselves in deeper.

    VikingLS , September 17, 2016 at 10:40 am
    @Michelle

    I didn't see the post where you disavowed liberals as well, so I was too hasty with the "your side"

    Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since there was a white riot in this country.

    VikingLS , September 17, 2016 at 10:49 am
    "For thise who think Trump is harmless, here he is, tonight, riffing on his Clinton assassination fantasies. "

    That's a pretty common point about the hypocrisy of anti-gun politicians who have the luxury of armed professionals to protect themselves.

    Herenow , September 17, 2016 at 10:53 am
    fwiw, my sense is that the Benedict Option (from the snippets that you have shared with usm particularly in the posts on Norcia and other communities already pursuing some sort of "option") represents a return of conservative Christians to a more healthy, hands-off relationship with national politics. Conservative Christians danced with the Republican Party for a long-time, but past a certain point had to stop pretending that the Republican Party cared more about them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and the MIC mainly). Liberal Christians, some of them, danced with the other side of Mammon (big government and social programs, etc) and perhaps just got absorbed. But the point is I think you are returning to a better place, reverting to some sort of norm, the alliance with the GOP was a strange infatuation that wasn't going to sustain anyway.
    Alex (the one that likes Ike) , September 17, 2016 at 10:55 am
    So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double intensity?
    Skip , September 17, 2016 at 10:56 am
    Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over?
    Skip Rigney , September 17, 2016 at 11:03 am
    Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly why I have reluctantly become a libertarian:

    -"On a practical level, that means that I will no longer vote primarily on the social issues that have dictated my vote in the past, but I will vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting my community's right to be left alone."-

    Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, I concluded that libertarianism and either the current Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that those of us with traditional religious and moral convictions can hope for in a decidedly post-Christian America. I wrote about why I believe this to be so at http://www.skiprigney.com/2015/04/29/how-the-ssm-debate-made-me-a-libertarian/

    I don't believe for a minute that the majority of elected officials in the Republican Party have the backbone to stand up for religious liberty in the face of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how the Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the protection of religious liberty.

    There are many libertarians who are going to work to protect the rights of people to do things that undermine the common good. But, I have more faith that they'll protect the rights of a cultural minority such as traditionalist Christians than I have in either the Republicans or the Democrats.

    Egypt Steve , September 17, 2016 at 11:29 am
    It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics. It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There are white people, and there are blah people. White people will be in charge, and blah people can have a piece of the pie to the extent they agree to pretend to be white people.
    Viriato , September 17, 2016 at 11:44 am
    Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump?"

    My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a Republic if our government creates the conditions for a thriving middle class: the most important condition being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live an independent existence. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and even higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development) are increasingly being outsourced as well.

    If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you will see that the vast majority of new jobs are in retail trade, health care and social assistance, waitresses and bartenders, and government. Most of these jobs are part-time jobs. None of these jobs produce any goods than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive independently. This is why more Americans aged 25-34 live with their parents than independently with spouses and children of their own. It is also why many people now must work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. As for government jobs, they are tax-supported, and thus a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian. I recognize that government provides many crucial services. But it is unproductive to have too many bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.

    Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without a thriving middle class, democracy is unsustainable. Struggling people filled with hate and resentment are ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.

    Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well. His goal was to make it unthinkable for his country to descend into civil war ever again. He achieved this. Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued by radical ideologies like communism, regional separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism had its following as well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain, though it was not really fascist, as it was profoundly Christian and rejected Nietzschean neo-paganism) was irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one of the three pillars that supported the regime (the other two being monarchists and Catholics), but it was never the most influential pillar.] When Franco died, Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and the second-fastest growing economy in the world (behind only Japan). It became a liberal democracy almost overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked what he thought his most important legacy was. He replied, "The middle class." Franco was not a democrat, but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy in Spain.

    To get back to the US, we now have a Third World economy. We can't too surprised that our politics also look increasingly like those of a Third World country. Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the SJW's, Black Lives Matter, etc.

    connecticut farmer , September 17, 2016 at 12:11 pm
    @ Michael in Oceania

    The evolution of the MSM into an American version of Pravda/Izvestia has been a lengthy process and dates back at least to the days of Walter Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom Roosevelt, Truman and JFK had no qualms about calling for advice).

    With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon of the blogosphere, the MSM has no choice but to cast off whatever pretensions to objectivity they may have had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can keep themselves viable in an increasingly competitive market where more people get their news from such as Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the WaPo

    dan , September 17, 2016 at 12:35 pm
    Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the PC police, and generally stood for these same 6 principles, and did so in a much more coherent and rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished within no time at all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle instead of capturing an undefined spirit, if he tried to answer the charges against him in a rational manner, all it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC charges to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model for future conservative candidates when running in a nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them. If you engage in the argument with them, they'll destroy you.
    BlairBurton , September 17, 2016 at 12:45 pm
    @Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who support him. Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump ?

    Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine about? By any standard, conditions then were worse for the white working class than is the case today, and yes, my grandparents were working class: one grandfather worked for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And yes, there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and suicide amongst the populace in the 1930s. The role of religion was more pervasive then, but to tell the truth, I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both side as Moral Therapeutic Deists; by Rod's standard I believe that is true for most Christians throughout history.

    Just what is different about today, that brings all this rage and resentment? Could it be that racial and ethnic and religious minorities, and women now have a piece of the pie and a good part of the white working class cannot stand it?

    And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the fact that so very many Americans support him, whether wholeheartedly swallowing his poison, or because they close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind of a man he is.

    Nate , September 17, 2016 at 1:12 pm
    The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in and of itself isnt necessarily bad. However, the annihilation of culture,religion, and autonomy at the hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian elite certainly is – and that is what is happening under what is referred to as globalization. The revolt against the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington has now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the rebels be swift and complete.
    Abelard Lindsey , September 17, 2016 at 1:28 pm
    How can anyone right in the head argue against entreprenuership and decentralization? All of our problems are due to a lack of these two things.
    Baldy , September 17, 2016 at 1:58 pm
    "You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should continue paying for it."

    If we all accept your definition then we can't argue with you. Whatever you want to call it, there is an entire industry (most conservative media) that feeds a victimization mentality among whites, conservatives, evangelicals etc (all those labels apply to me by the way) that closely resembles the grievance outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is taken seriously. Why else do so many of us get so bent out of shape when employees have the audacity to say "happy holidays" at the department store. As made apparent on this blog we do need to be realistic and vigilant about the real threats and the direction the culture is going, but by whining about every perceived slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of "Christian America" (while anointing a vile figure like Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting the legitimate grievances we do have.

    Roland P. , September 17, 2016 at 2:05 pm
    Everyone has heard how far is moving small car production to Mexico and forwarded saying no one in America will lose their jobs because the production will be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.

    That's not the problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not helping Americans.

    I'm all for a 35% tariff on those cars.

    Roland P. , September 17, 2016 at 2:06 pm
    Darn predictive text program it should say Ford.
    Greg in PDX , September 17, 2016 at 2:14 pm
    "BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up."

    Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed. They claim that they hate Disneyworld because of their pro-gay policies, but when they have to choose between Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.

    Clint , September 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm
    What happens when the status quo media turns a presidential election into a referendum regarding the media's ability to shape public opinion and direct "purchasing" choices?

    The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are waking up to it.

    Nelson , September 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    This will almost always mean voting for the Republicans in national elections, but in a primary situation, I will vote for the Republican who can best be counted on to defend religious liberty, even if he's not 100 percent on board with what I consider to be promoting the Good. If it means voting for a Republican that the defense hawks or the Chamber of Commerce disdain, I have no problem at all with that.

    How is this different than cultural conservatives voted before Trump?

    grumpy realist , September 17, 2016 at 2:35 pm
    If we elect Trump as POTUS, we deserve everything that happens to us.

    Don't blame the progressives when Trump says something about defaulting on the US debt and the stock market crashes.

    Don't blame the progressives when China moves ahead us by leaps and bound in science and technology because we pull a Kansas and cut taxes left right and center, then decide to get rid of all government-funded research.

    Don't blame the progressives when The Wall doesn't get built, Trump says "who, me? I never promised anything!" Ditto for the lack of return of well-paid coal-mining jobs.

    And don't blame the progressives when you discover Trump has sold you down the river for a song, refuses to appoint "conservatives" as SCOTUS judges, and throws the First Amendment out the window.

    WAB , September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm
    We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone can pretty much agree that the traditionalists lost. Now whether Dreher et all lost because the broader culture refused to listen or because they simply couldn't make a convincing argument is a question that surrounds a very particular program pursued by conservatives, traditionalists and the religious right. It is certain that the Republican Party as a vehicle for those values has been taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It seems to that Josh Stuart has pulled a rabbit out of the hat. Trump is, if anything, pretty incoherent and whatever "principles" he represents were discovered in the breach; a little like bad gunnery practice, one shot low, one shot lower and then a hit. If Trump represents anything it is the fact that the base of the party was not who many of us thought they were. Whatever Christian values we thought they were representing are hardly recognizable now.

    What truly puzzles me more and increasingly so is Rod's vision of what America is supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what that regime looks like? Behind all the theological underpinning and high-sounding abstractions what does a ground-level political and legislative program for achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly participate in look like?

    Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is responsive to politics. What political order does the Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the one we have now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect our life and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He says Christians just want to be left alone but they seem to have made and are still making a lot of noise for people who want to be left alone so I have to assume they want something over and above being left alone.

    I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?

    Joe the Plutocrat , September 17, 2016 at 4:41 pm
    a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no value in speculating or establishing a number) are deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad) Trump's we don't have time to be politically correct mantra is ignored when his opponent (a politician who helped establish the concept of politically correctness) steals a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the "irony" hammer from the toolbox? ever the shrewd, calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny barker, Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like any politician) put his finger in the air and decided to "run" from the "nationalist, racist, nativist, side of the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable folks on the Clinton bandwagon; it's just (obviously) not in her interests to expose these "boosters" at HER rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to the lesser of two evils is still evil "idea". politics – especially national campaigns are not so much about which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather which is less deplorable.
    Liam , September 17, 2016 at 4:41 pm
    Btw, Rod, as my mind goes in stray places as I battle as I on my fourth day of a strep infection, I had the following idea for you:

    New Age Trump.

    Imagine The Possibilities.

    Way.

    Donald Trump as the avatar of the Human Potential Movement.

    est, Landmark Forum, the Rule of Attraction, the Secret: Eat your empty hearts out.

    Annek , September 17, 2016 at 5:01 pm
    Michelle:

    "Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might feel for the folks globalism has left behind."

    One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily quelled.

    Ben H , September 17, 2016 at 5:52 pm
    The most interesting part of the essay is near the end, where he briefly discusses how non-whites might react to our political realignment.

    After all, will the white liberal be able to manipulate these groups forever?

    For example, we are seeing the 'official black leaders' who represent them on TV shift from being activist clergymen to being (white paid and hosed) gay activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of black culture. How long can this continue?

    Connor , September 17, 2016 at 6:12 pm
    Red brick
    September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    "Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.

    "thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated."

    They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them."

    The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign peoples for the better part of 2 millennia, have always been on the receiving end of racial hatred. As a result many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of nationalist movements and a natural tendency towards globalism.

    The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump as the next Hitler, so, understandably, there's a lot of fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified of the man.

    I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue) will probably vote for Trump, even though I have no love for the man himself. I think the "Trump the racist" meme is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I understand where the fear comes from.

    Connor , September 17, 2016 at 6:26 pm
    John Turner
    September 17, 2016 at 7:46 am

    "I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives into irrelevant enclaves.

    To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience. Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.

    If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite cultural institutions."

    Bingo.

    If you want to fundamentally transform the culture, you have to withdraw from it, at least partially. But there's no need to wall yourself off. A Benedict Option community can and should be politically active, primarily at the local level, where the most good can be done.

    The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls, and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ.

    Mapache , September 17, 2016 at 6:31 pm
    "Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on that notion. Trump merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing about her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was is to engage in the same sort of dishonesty for which Clinton is so well known.

    I never cared much for Trump but he has all the right enemies and is growing on me.

    VikingLS , September 17, 2016 at 6:56 pm
    "It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics. It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There are white people, and there are blah people. "

    They love Ben Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men were white.

    Viriato , September 17, 2016 at 7:02 pm
    "Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine about?"

    Well, back then, the government was doing stuff for the common people. A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA, Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered the "forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to multinationals and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and women that make up the backbone of our economy have been forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember them - with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.

    JR , September 17, 2016 at 7:22 pm
    The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both parties reminds me of this quote from C.S. Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast":
    "…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same."

    Globalism is just swell for the multinational corporation, but it is nothing more or less than Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it, like Frankenstein, will turns on its creator and imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.

    Michael Guarino , September 17, 2016 at 7:24 pm

    One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily quelled.

    And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well, evidence that is not stale by nearly a century). It wasn't Trump supporters beating up people in San Jose. And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen in America, things start looking far, far worse.

    Connor , September 17, 2016 at 7:37 pm
    WAB
    September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    "I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?"

    While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics. The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state which governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be necessary.

    I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly, or laid out a concrete plan, because he is writing a book for Christians in general. And if you get into too many specifics, you are going to run right into the enormous theological and philosophical differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

    Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social Reign of Christ the King", 3/4 of you would lose your minds.

    Of course, the current prospect for a Christian culture and state look bleak, to say the least. But we can play the long game, the Catholic Church is good at that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman Empire. It was 700 years from the founding of the first Benedictine monastery until St. Thomas Aquinas and the High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.

    ludo , September 17, 2016 at 7:52 pm
    I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that Trump is a simulacrum within a simulacrum with a simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic" presidential electoral race (if limited to the two "mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no presidential election tout court, ergo there is no democracy at the presidential election level in the U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in any case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.

    http://www.juancole.com/2016/09/parrot-presidential-election.html

    Howard , September 17, 2016 at 8:08 pm
    All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a different favorite deadly sin. We've had pride, avarice, and the current favorite is lust; the new favorite appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not been absent, but they have not been the driving force in politics recently.
    Viriato , September 17, 2016 at 8:42 pm
    To add to my previous comment:

    Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke the fires of class conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's goal was not to overturn the existing social order but rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR was the moderate leader the country needed at the time. Without him, we might well have succumbed to a demagogic or perhaps even dictatorial government under Charles Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast, Hillary and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM, alt-right) for their own agendas. Let's hope whoever wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained, but courting extremists is always a risky business. Indeed, Hillary may be worse than Trump in this respect, since there appears to be no daylight between her and the SJW's.

    Siarlys Jenkins , September 17, 2016 at 8:43 pm
    To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience. Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.

    Ben Op or not, its always a great notion. And you don't have to withdraw from the culture, THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We just need to reaffirm it.

    So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double intensity?

    Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid contractors suing her… of course that's because she never built hotels, and I don't think she ever declared bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in Milwaukee who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for building violations, declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of thousands of dollars buying up distressed property at sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all of them have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I wouldn't vote for any of them for dogcatcher, much less president.

    That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze, and I wouldn't vote for her if she were running against almost anyone but Trump.

    Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since there was a white riot in this country.

    There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite a while. And no, that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't count. A few dozen thugs burning four black-owned businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood denounces then falls short of a riot.

    I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing "white" mobs posing much of a threat to anyone… they're mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it is true that until the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging through a black neighborhood. And there have been very few black riots that went deep into a "white" neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods too.

    This is an election about feeling under siege.

    But we're not, and most of the adults in the room know it.

    Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits peddling a point of view.

    I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its not who he is, what he says, or what he does or will do, its what they think they SEE in him. I have to admit, I did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in a long time, but that's a rather low bar.

    M_Young , September 17, 2016 at 8:50 pm
    Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis!
    EliteCommInc. , September 17, 2016 at 9:10 pm
    "There are, then, two developments we are likely to see going forward. First, cultural conservatives will seriously consider a political "Benedict Option," dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining their "principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the battle for the political soul of America. …"

    You know, people spout this stuff as if the Republican party is conservative. It started drifting from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an entrenched band of strategics concerned primarily with winning to advance policies tat have little to do with conservative thought.

    I doubt that I will become a member of a book club. And I doubt that I will stop voting according to my conservative view points.

    I generally think any idea that Christians are going to be left to their own devices doubtful or that they would want to design communities not already defined by scripture and a life in Christ.

    _______________
    "If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon politics altogether, it does call on them to recalibrate their (our) understanding of what politics is and what it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than statecraft. Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a post-Christian culture - that is, a culture that no longer shares some key basic Christian values . . ."

    I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who claims to live in Christ already calibrates their lives in the frame of Christ and led by some extent by the Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to become more worldly will change that. What may happen is that a kind of christian spiritual revival and renewal will occur.

    " . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as threats to the common good, simply because of the views we hold and the practices we live by out of fidelity to our religion. . ."

    If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat to the state, unless that threat is just to their participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres christians hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a realistic. If christians are considered a threat – then most likely the ultimate goal will be to get rid of them altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or you do what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on the campuses. You inundate them with how backward their thinking until the student and then proceed to tell them they are just like everyone else.

    Believers are expected to be in the world and not of it. And by in it, I think Christ intended them to be active participants.

    Mia , September 17, 2016 at 9:45 pm
    "Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but National Review has a small piece about Archbishop Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to become more engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as well."

    Let me answer it for him. Perhaps just like not everyone is called to the contemplative life in a monastery but are called to the secular world, so is the church as a whole these days individually called to different arenas. That said, the basic principles of the Ben Op are hardly opposed to being active in the broader community. It just means there has to be some intentionality in maintaining a Christian worldview in a hostile larger culture.

    Mia , September 17, 2016 at 9:55 pm
    "The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls, and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ."

    Just a technical comment. You have to pay attention to which orders you are referring to, because many of them were indeed founded to retreat from the world. At one time, the idea of a monk wandering outside of the monastery, or a nun particularly, was considered scandalous. I read alot of monastic history about 20 years ago, and I seem to recall the Benedictines were actually focused on prayer and manual labor/work within the monastery area. It was later with orders like the Dominicans that were sent out into the community, and they caused the bishops a lot of headaches because they competed with priests and bishops in preaching publicly. It took awhile to sort out who was allowed to do what. Modern religious orders founded since the 18th century are quite different from the old orders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Order

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Saint_Benedict

    Another area of interest you could check out, besides reading some of the religious rules of life of many of these old orders just for the sake of comparison, is the differences between the cenobitic and eremitic monastic communities of the very early church. The original founding of religious orders even back then was also considered a direct challenge to the church hierarchy and took a lot of time sorting out that they weren't some kind of troublemakers, too. Modern Catholics have entirely too little knowledge of the development and maybe too pious a view of it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermit

    Stephen Gould , September 17, 2016 at 10:24 pm
    @Mapache: Trump merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd.

    It is not hypocrisy for someone in favour of gun control to think that the greater the actual risk, the more acceptable the carrying of guns.

    Stephen Gould , September 17, 2016 at 10:30 pm
    The question is this: what do you do when the policies or ideas you stand for or at least, agree with, are advanced by someone with as appalling a character as Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well.

    I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards, Trump's fans said "Vote for the swindler, it's important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity to defend him.

    Richard Williams , September 18, 2016 at 12:12 am
    I read this on Friday and have thought much about it since. I came by earlier this evening and had about half of a long post written in response, but got too caught up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also determined that it wouldn't matter what I said. The conservatives would continue to harp about the evils of identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long history of conservatives engaging in identity politics in both Europe and America from roughly the high Middle Ages to the present. It seemed more rational to delete what I had written rather than save it and come back to finish it.

    It just so happened that as the game ended, I clicked on Huffingtonpost to check the headlines. Lo and behold, the top story was this one about Jane Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics in the animal kingdom:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-chimpanzee_behavior_us_57ddb84fe4b04a1497b4e512?section=&amp ;

    As the kicker to the headline says, "Well, she's the expert."

    Maryland My Maryland , September 18, 2016 at 12:13 am
    "What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well."

    I don't defend his vile character. I readily admit it. So do most of those I know who intend to vote for him.

    It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.

    For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character" issue is at best a wash, so the choice boils down to other things.

    The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton.

    Elijah , September 18, 2016 at 7:01 am
    "I'm all for a 35% tariff on those cars."

    I would agree with you, except who will that hurt? Ford? Mexico? Why not just legislate manufacturing jobs back into existence?

    saltlick , September 18, 2016 at 7:02 am
    WAB
    September 17, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    "I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and company to relax?"
    ------
    I think those are good questions, and read in the best light possible, might be interpreted as being asked by someone honestly seeking to understand the concerns of traditional Christians today.

    I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers are,

    "1) In present America, I don't think there are any "cultural change" possible which might reassure Christians, because we are in a downward spiral which has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary posted here by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak of what government and technology will do to the lives of believing Christians.

    2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future - vision that would allow me to relax would be a national reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God the Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of conception, and that the traditional family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and economic health. I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.

    Clint , September 18, 2016 at 8:13 am
    Re:DavidJ,

    In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton defended partial-birth abortions again and voiced her support for late-term abortions up until birth, too.

    She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund these abortions by repealing the Hyde Amendment. The amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding of abortion in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that 33,000 more babies will be aborted every year in the U.S.

    Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.

    EliteCommInc. , September 18, 2016 at 9:40 am
    "Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any fertile soil to grow in."

    I think far too much credit is being given to Mr. Trump. The reason he can stand is because the people he represents have been fed up with the some of what he stands for long before he entered the fray.

    If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman. His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most people are already at - he would not be the nominee.

    There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a supporter. As a supporter, I would be curious to know what lies I have used to support him. We have some serious differences, but I think my support has been fairly above board. In fact, i think the support of most have been fairly straight up I am not sure there is much hidden about Mr. Trump.

    Clint , September 16, 2016 at 7:03 pm
    Hillary Clinton,
    "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

    Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.

    Matt in AK , September 16, 2016 at 7:07 pm
    That's a shame RD, because I was looking forward to joining a like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining our "principles." With fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the battle for the political soul of America.

    [NFR: You can still have your Ben Op book group. - RD]

    T.S.Gay , September 16, 2016 at 7:18 pm
    I'm going to start and end with globalization by referring to G.K.Chesterton in Orthodoxy(pg 101).
    "This is what makes Christendom at once so perplexing and so much more interesting than the Pagan empires;…If anyone wants a modern proof of all this, let him consider the curious fact that, under Christianity, Europe has broken up into individual nations. Patriotism is a perfect example of this deliberate balance of one emphasis against another emphasis. The instinct of the Pagan empire would have said, 'You shall all be Roman citizens, and grow alike; let the German grow less slow and reverent; the Frenchmen less experimental and swift.' But the instinct of Christian Europe says, 'Let the German remain slow and reverent, that the Frenchman may the more safely be swift and experimental. We will make an equipoise out of these excesses. The absurdity called Germany shall correct the insanity called France."
    Isn't it interesting that has Christianity has left the northern hemisphere for the southern, that Europe has tried union, the USA has been into interventionism, and globalization has become so mainstream. You shall all be one world citizens doesn't have a balancing instinct. And Chesterton was deliberating about the balancing instinct.
    Viriato , September 16, 2016 at 7:22 pm
    I think Mitchell is basically right. Aside from his jab at the Benedict Option, I have just one quibble with his analysis: "And Trump is the first American candidate to bring some coherence to them, however raucous his formulations have been."

    Wrong. Trump is definitely not the first candidate to do this. He was preceded by Pat Buchanan, who also brought (and still brings) much more coherence to the six ideas than Trump. Clearly, Buchanan ran at a time when the post-1989 order was in its infancy, and so few saw any fundamental problem with it. He was ahead of his time. But he was a candidate that presented the six ideas and attracted a non-negligible amount of support. Trump is not a pioneer in this regard. People should give Buchanan his due.

    German_reader , September 16, 2016 at 7:26 pm
    I hope Trump wins; he's rather bizarre and not very likable as a person, but the last 25 years have been disastrous politically in Western nations and it's time to repudiate the ruling orthodoxy. The US still is the Western hegemon and exports its ideas across the Atlantic (most unfortunate in cases like "critical whiteness studies"); if there's change in the US towards a (soft, civic) nationalism, it might open up new options in Europe as well.
    In any case these are exciting times…however it turns out, we may well be living through years which will be seen as decisive in retrospect.
    Viriato , September 16, 2016 at 7:28 pm
    This comment on the Politico article stood out to me: "It is its very existence, and mantra, for a religion the advertise itself, something that is frowned upon as being Incredibly un-American under the Constitution, and contrary to our core beliefs. Yes Republicans not only embrace this, they help their religion advertise."

    In other words, this commenter admits that he believes it "incredibly un-American" for religions to "advertise," and, by extension, to even exist (he says advertising is religion's "very existence.")

    The comment has a high number of "thumbs-up."

    We really are in trouble. America has become Jacobin country.

    Adamant , September 16, 2016 at 7:28 pm
    Red brick
    September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm
    Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.'

    Perhaps due to very recent memories that herrenvolk regimes are not good for the Jews. The online troll army of out and proud anti-semites can't help but contribute to this.

    WillW , September 16, 2016 at 7:32 pm
    Re "the DC elites are clueless" what ABOUT John Kasich up there on the podium advocating for the latest free trade deal? Yessir, that'll get us in our "states that begin with a vowel" to totally change our minds on that, you betcha!
    Anne , September 16, 2016 at 7:33 pm
    Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits peddling a point of view. Funny how he proves so many intellectuals right about so many contradictory things, all without having to take responsibility for any particular idea.
    T.S.Gay , September 16, 2016 at 7:39 pm
    Nobody has remained more adamant than the writer of this blog that there is something sacred about sex between one woman and one man, and them married. God bless him for staying true.
    So I am going to try to say( G.K Chesterton please forgive me)…..Let the LBGTQIA remain true to their identity, that the married male/female may be more safely true to their identity. We can make an equipoise out of these excesses( despite those who want us to be all the same). The absurdity called LBGTQIA shall correct the insanity called one man/one woman.
    K. W. Jeter , September 16, 2016 at 7:39 pm
    Per JonF:

    Trump is certainly not unraveling identity politics. He's adding another identity to the grievance industry, that of (downscale) whites.

    You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should continue paying for it. Whether you agree with white identity politics or not, its proponents are obviously not adding to the grievance industry, but attempting to defend against it, i.e. stating that white people are not to blame for everything, and no, they shouldn't continue to pay for it. To merely maintain that position is sufficient to be labeled as a white supremacist by the grievance industry hacks.

    MJR , September 16, 2016 at 7:47 pm
    Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but National Review has a small piece about Archbishop Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to become more engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as well.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440124/archbishop-chaput-notre-dame-lecture-christians-must-engage-politics

    I just brought it up because I'm curious if you've spoken to Christians like Archbishop Chaput, who want to go the opposite direction you do.

    Michael in Oceania , September 16, 2016 at 7:51 pm
    Here is a related story by Charles Hugh Smith:

    The Mainstream Media Bet the Farm on Hillary–and Lost

    Relevant quote:

    Dear mainstream media: you have lost your credibility because you are incapable of skeptical inquiry into your chosen candidate or official statistics/ pronouncements. Your dismissal of skeptical inquiries as "conspiracies" or "hoaxes" is nothing but a crass repackaging of the propaganda techniques of totalitarian state media.

    Dear MSM: You have forsaken your duty in a democracy and are a disgrace to investigative, unbiased journalism. You have substituted Orwellian-level propaganda for honest, skeptical journalism. We can only hope viewers and advertisers respond appropriately, i.e. turn you off.

    Here's the mainstream media's new mantra: "skepticism is always a conspiracy or a hoax." The Ministry of Propaganda and the MSM are now one agency.

    The curtain is being pulled back on the Wizard of Oz. How soon before the Wicked Witch starts to melt?

    Rossbach , September 16, 2016 at 8:07 pm
    Do people who are willing to accept characterization as "angry, provincial bigots" still have any right to political self-expression? Believe it or not, it's an important question.
    Pepi , September 16, 2016 at 8:17 pm
    Identity politics definition: a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.

    I find it odd that the party of older white straight Christian men accuses the party of everyone else to be guilty of "identity politics". It just doesn't make any sense.

    Wes (the original) , September 16, 2016 at 9:28 pm
    The majority of folks who work for a living do not want globalization – it's that simple. They will find a party who acquiesces.
    Siarlys Jenkins , September 16, 2016 at 9:37 pm
    (1) borders matter; Ok, but they're not all that.
    (2) immigration policy matters; Ditto. We should have a policy.
    (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; Depends. National interests matter, but if they are all that matters… I think you just stepped outside the Gospels.
    (4) entrepreneurship matters; It can, for good OR for evil.
    (5) decentralization matters; Another thorny one… SOME things need to be more decentralized, some don't, and we need to have an honest conversation about which is which.
    (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated. ABSOLUTELY!

    All in all, I think this Georgetown prof has done the usual short list of The Latest Attempt To Reduce Reality To a Nice Short Checklist.

    Not much of a guide to the future. We could all write our own lists.

    Michelle , September 16, 2016 at 9:43 pm
    You can largely agree with Mitchell's six points (and, for the most part I do) and nonetheless recognize that an unprincipled, ruthless charlatan like Trump–a pathological liar and narcissist interested in nothing but his own self-promotion–will do nothing meaningful to advance them. His latest birther charade shows him for the lying, unprincipled scum bucket he is.

    The cultural ground is shifting as the emptiness of advanced consumer capitalism and globalism becomes ever more apparent. Large scale organizations are, by their very nature, dehumanizing, demoralizing, and corrupt. I've believed so for the better part of my life now. It's that belief that lead me to the University of Rochester and Christopher Lasch in the 1980s and, subsequently to MacIntyre, Rieff, and Berry. It's also a belief that has lead me to distrust both the corporate order and politics as a means to salvation. I certainly don't consider myself a conservative, at least not in the shallow American sense of the term, and the chances that I will ever vote for a Republican again are nil. But I'm not a liberal in the American sense of the term either because agreeing with Mitchell's six points pretty much pretty much rules me out of that tribe. I have, for a long time, felt pretty homeless in the American wilderness.

    I suppose that's one reason I keep reading your blog, Rod, though I disagree deeply with many of your views. As a Jew, I'm not much interested in the Benedict Option, but I do agree that our society suffers from a certain soul sickness that politics, consumption, and technology can't cure.

    Michelle , September 16, 2016 at 9:56 pm
    Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.

    As one of those American Jews who feels a deep hatred for Trump, perhaps I can shed some light on the reasons. It has nothing to do with his alleged desire to enforce borders. Nations require them. Nor does it have anything to do with his lip service to Christianist values. He's no Christian. He's pure heathen.

    Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might feel for the folks globalism has left behind.

    Robert Levine , September 16, 2016 at 10:06 pm
    Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump…They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them.

    Or it could be that Trump reminds them of some historical figure who was rather bad for the Jews. I wonder who that could be?

    And saying all the Jews that the commenter knows feel an "uncontrollable" emotion is a touch anti-Semitic.

    But to talk about the OP: Joshua Mitchell gives the game away by consistently referring to 1989 as the state of a "new order," which he thinks is a combination of globalization and identity politics. Of course neither was new. Admittedly globalization received a boost by the end of the Cold War, but it's been well underway for a century or so. Mitchell wants to return to Reagan's "morning in America." But there was no such morning.

    "Identity politics" is what the suffragettes and abolitionists would have been accused of, if the term had been invented back in their day. Are there stupid things done and said under the umbrella of "identity politics"? Of course. That doesn't make the discrimination and mistreatment that led to such politics any less real.

    The fundamental flaw in Mitchell's argument, though, is that the Trump he describes (or, more accurately, wishes for) simply doesn't exist. The Trump he describes has ideas and beliefs. It's a little ironic that Mitchell thinks that Trump "expressly opposes" the ideas of Marx and Nietzsche, because the real-world Trump has no beliefs other than he is an ubermensch.

    JS , September 16, 2016 at 10:10 pm
    I prefer Nassim Taleb's take on what's going on – see here https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577#.680ftln6w
    KD , September 16, 2016 at 10:18 pm
    What's wrong with Politico?

    I read an entire article on Trump in which Hitler wasn't mentioned once.

    It wasn't even smug, and there was no list of liberal cliches and denunciations of heretics so between drooling I never knew whether shout "Boo!" or "Hurah!"

    Couldn't they throw in one "racist, sexist, homophobic" so I could feel morally superior to stupid white people in fly-over country?

    The whole article was completely deplorable.

    Michelle , September 16, 2016 at 10:45 pm
    Having now read Mitchell's article, all I can say is that while I agree with his six points, his hope that Trump is some kind of pragmatist is deeply misguided. Like most political scientists, he knows little about history.

    For thise who think Trump is harmless, here he is, tonight, riffing on his Clinton assassination fantasies. Where is Leni Reifenstahl when you need her? Trump is no pragmatist. He's no Christian. And he's no leader.

    Evan , September 16, 2016 at 10:49 pm
    If Mitchell is correct–and I believe that he is–how does this bode poorly for conservative Christians? If the BenOp is primarily a reaction to the post-1989 culture, shouldn't the crumbling of that culture obviate the need for a BenOp?

    [NFR: Well, if there were a candidate advocating these positions who WASN'T Donald Trump, I would eagerly vote for him or her. I think Trump is thoroughly untrustworthy and demagogic. But I would not be under any illusion that casting a vote for that person - again, even if he or she was a saint - would mean any kind of Christian restoration. The Ben Op is premised on the idea that we are living in post-Christian times. The Ben Op is a religious movement with political implications, not a political movement. Liquid modernity will not suddenly solidify depending on a change of government in Washington. - RD]

    Charles Cosimano , September 16, 2016 at 11:07 pm
    This is an election about feeling under siege. Once that is understood all else makes sense. It is also a manifestation about what happens when a word is overused, in this case racism. It creates a reaction of, "Ask us if we care," which becomes, "Yeah, we are, and we like it."

    It backfires.

    The Ben Op may prove to be in better position that it looks.

    Craig , September 17, 2016 at 12:06 am
    I think populists who haven't gotten much attention from either party are projecting an awful lot onto a seriously flawed candidate who doesn't have firm convictions on anything, beyond making the sale. This objective he pursues by being willing to say whatever he thinks will get him the sale, with no regard for decency or truth or consistency. If he gets himself elected, who knows what he will do to retain his popularity with what he perceives to be the majority view. Those hoping for a sea change are engaged in some pretty serious wishful thinking, I think.
    Nicholas , September 17, 2016 at 12:46 am
    @T.S.Gay, You are correct that this election is a battle of Nationalism vs Globalism. But, Nationalism is Identity Politics in its purest form and that is why the Globalist oppose it.

    Globalists use identity politics, that is true. However, they bear no love for the identities they publicly promote. Rather, they dehumanize them, using them as nothing more than weapons against Nationalism.

    As a Nationalist I will support and promote my Nation(People), but I also recognize the inherent right of other Nations(Peoples) to support and promote themselves.

    Fran Macadam , September 17, 2016 at 1:06 am
    I'm absolutely sure Donald Trump isn't going to do to us, what that other person has planned for us deplorables:

    "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

    After her shot across the bow promises to marginalize us in society, complete with cheers from those at her back, that is just about all that counts.

    Reflectionephemeral , September 17, 2016 at 2:36 am
    Mitchell's description echoes Oliver Stone's comments from Oct. 2001: "There's been conglomeration under six principal princes-they're kings, they're barons!-and these six companies have control of the world! … That's what the new world order is. They control culture, they control ideas. And I think the revolt of September 11 was about 'F- you! F- your order!'"

    "Trump '16: 'F- you! F- your order!"

    KD , September 17, 2016 at 5:16 am
    Hey Rod:

    Speaking of the New Age and 4th Generational Warfare, I wonder if you can do anything with the offering by John Schindler of the XX Committee:

    http://observer.com/2016/09/were-losing-the-war-against-terrorism/

    Elijah , September 17, 2016 at 7:08 am
    Very interesting piece, and I had not really connected the Brexit and EU jitters to what's going on in the US – and I think Mitchell is right about that. When we were still in primary season and Trump was ahead, I recall one author – probably on The Corner – wondered how a Trump presidency might look. He figured Trump would be very pragmatic, perhaps actually fixing Obamacare, and focusing on our interests here at home.

    "I will vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting my community's right to be left alone."

    I've been voting that way for years; mostly Republicans, but a good sprinkling of Democrats as well.

    Al Bundy , September 17, 2016 at 7:25 am
    Good article. I think Mitchell identifies the right ideas buried within Trump's rhetoric. But even if it were true that Trump had no ideas, I would still vote for him. After all, where have politic ideas gotten us lately?

    "Conservative principles" espoused by wonks and political scientists culminated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ideology told us that democracy was a divine right, transferable across time and culture.

    Moreover, do we really want our politicians playing with ideas? Think back to George W. Bush's speech at the 2004 Republican convention, perhaps the most idea-driven speech in recent history. The sight of W. spinning a neo-Hegelian apocalyptic narrative was like watching a gorilla perform opera.

    Brett , September 17, 2016 at 7:34 am
    "decentralization matters" is an odd idea to ascribe to Trump. He seems to want power centralized on himself ("I alone can fix it").
    John Turner , September 17, 2016 at 7:46 am
    I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives into irrelevant enclaves.

    To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience. Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.

    If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite cultural institutions.

  • Neal , September 17, 2016 at 7:59 am
    "cavalierly undermining decades worth of social and political certainties"

    Sorry, that is just silly. Only political junkies and culture warriors even care about stuff like this. In my life… in my experience of living in the USA every day, none of this matters. It just doesn't.

    People don't live their lives thinking about any of those things cited. What would it mean to you or me to have "borders matter"? Ford just announced they were moving some more production to Mexico. That decision WILL affect the lives of those who lose their jobs. Does anyone honestly think that anyone… even a President Trump, would lift a finger to stop them? Of course not. It is silly to assert otherwise.

    TR , September 17, 2016 at 9:30 am
    Very good essay and commentary, but I caution against the notion that you are looking at permanent change. JonF's two 20th century ideas (Free Trade benefits everyone and Supply Side economics) are not going away. In fact, Larry Kudlow, the crassest exponent of both those ideas is one of Trump's economic advisors.

    BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up.

    Matt , September 17, 2016 at 9:44 am
    Great. He's got six ideas. Six ideas with either no detailed policy or approach attached to them, policies or approaches that seemingly change on a whim (evidence that at best he hasn't given much thought to any of them), or has no realistic political path for making those ideas a reality.

    His ideas are worthless.

    saltlick , September 17, 2016 at 9:47 am
    "That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may at times be, leads us toward: A future where states matter."

    With that sentence, I think Mitchell stumbles into a truth he might not have intended - The "state" - as in "administrative state" - is going to continue growing even under Trump.

    Given the increasing intolerance of our society for traditional values, that's all Christians need to know.

    DavidJ , September 17, 2016 at 9:49 am
    Clint writes:
    "Hillary Clinton,
    'L;aws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious bel:efs and structural biases have to be changed.

    Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables."

    Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/clinton-christians-must-deny-faith/

    Christians, we?

    VikingLS , September 17, 2016 at 10:16 am
    "He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially if, he loses."

    Given the amount violence and disruption your side has caused this year this accusation really should be laughable. Trump supporters aren't out beating up Clinton supporters and making sure they can't have a rally in the wrong neighborhood. Members of the alt-right aren't threatening student journalists with violence on their own campuses, or getting on stage with speakers they dislike and slapping them.

    It's your own side that has been perpetuating the mob violence while the liberal establishment denies it or excuses it.

    CAPT S , September 17, 2016 at 10:18 am
    This post is spot-on; thank you for sharing the preliminary BenOp talking points.

    We need Thomas Paine's Common Sense for our age, for these are times that try men's souls. Problem is this: Paine's citizenry were 90% literate, unified by culture, and cognitively engaged … today we're 70% literate (at 4th grade reading level), multicultural, and amused to death.

    [Sep 22, 2016] Political family roulette: A Kennedy says George H.W. Bush is voting for Clinton

    Sep 22, 2016 | www.salon.com

    Politico pulls an exclusive from Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's Facebook page; Bush flack says vote is "private" VIDEO

    Grace Guarnieri Tuesday, Sep 20, 2016 08:35 PM +0300 0

    [Sep 20, 2016] Two-Party Tyranny Ralph Nader on Exclusion of Third-Party Candidates From First Presidential Debate

    www.truth-out.org

    In a minute, we'll be joined by former third-party presidential candidate Ralph Nader. But first, this is George Farah, the founder and executive director of Open Debates, speaking on Democracy Now! about how the Democrats and Republicans took control of the debate process.

    GEORGE FARAH: GEORGE FARAH: The League of Women Voters ran the presidential debate process from 1976 until 1984, and they were a very courageous and genuinely independent, nonpartisan sponsor. And whenever the candidates attempted to manipulate the presidential debates behind closed doors, either to exclude a viable independent candidate or to sanitize the formats, the league had the courage to challenge the Republican and Democratic nominees and, if necessary, go public.

    In 1980, independent candidate John B. Anderson was polling about 12 percent in the polls. The league insisted that Anderson be allowed to participate, because the vast majority of the American people wanted to see him, but Jimmy Carter, President Jimmy Carter, refused to debate him. The league went forward anyway and held a presidential debate with an empty chair, showing that Jimmy Carter wasn't going to show up.

    Four years later, when the Republican and Democratic nominees tried to get rid of difficult questions by vetoing 80 of the moderators that they had proposed to host the debates, the league said, "This is unacceptable." They held a press conference and attacked the campaigns for trying to get rid of difficult questions.

    And lastly, in 1988, was the first attempt by the Republican and Democratic campaigns to negotiate a detailed contract. It was tame by comparison, a mere 12 pages. It talked about who could be in the audience and how the format would be structured, but the league found that kind of lack of transparency and that kind of candidate control to be fundamentally outrageous and antithetical to our democratic process. They released the contract and stated they refuse to be an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American people and refuse to implement it.

    And today, what do we have? We have a private corporation that was created by the Republican and Democratic parties called the Commission on Presidential Debates. It seized control of the presidential debates precisely because the league was independent, precisely because this women's organization had the guts to stand up to the candidates that the major-party candidates had nominated.

    [Sep 18, 2016] We Have to Deal With Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo? ..."
    "... Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years? ..."
    "... Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads? ..."
    "... Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets. ..."
    "... Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation ..."
    "... Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all. ..."
    "... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
    "... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
    "... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
    "... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
    "... Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused. ..."
    "... There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with. ..."
    "... Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. ..."
    "... As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now. ..."
    "... If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family. ..."
    "... Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice. ..."
    "... What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    ...Arriving on Capitol Hill to repair ties between Trump and party elites, Gov. Mike Pence was taken straight to the woodshed.

    What causes the Republican Party to lose it whenever the name of Vladimir Putin is raised?

    Putin is no Stalin, whom FDR and Harry Truman called "Good old Joe" and "Uncle Joe." Unlike Nikita Khrushchev, he never drowned a Hungarian Revolution in blood. He did crush the Chechen secession. But what did he do there that General Sherman did not do to Atlanta when Georgia seceded from Mr. Lincoln's Union?

    Putin supported the U.S. in Afghanistan, backed our nuclear deal with Iran, and signed on to John Kerry's plan have us ensure a cease fire in Syria and go hunting together for ISIS and al-Qaida terrorists.

    Still, Putin committed "aggression" in Ukraine, we are told. But was that really aggression, or reflexive strategic reaction? We helped dump over a pro-Putin democratically elected regime in Kiev, and Putin acted to secure his Black Sea naval base by re-annexing Crimea, a peninsula that has belonged to Russia from Catherine the Great to Khrushchev. Great powers do such things.

    When the Castros pulled Cuba out of America's orbit, we decided to keep Guantanamo, and dismiss Havana's protests?

    Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo?

    ... ... ...

    Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years?

    ... ... ...

    Is Putin's Russia more repressive than Xi Jinping's China? Yet, Republicans rarely use "thug" when speaking about Xi. During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it.

    Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads?

    ... ... ...

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority

    Tiktaalik , says: September 16, 2016 at 2:41 am

  • >>During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea
  • buttressed could be even more pertinent)
  • Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets.
  • bacon , says: September 16, 2016 at 5:29 am

    Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation whenever US forces are not actively engaged in combat somewhere. They are loud voices, yes, but irrational voices, too.

    Skeptic , says: September 16, 2016 at 9:13 am

    Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all.

    John Blade Wiederspan , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:18 am

    "Just" states the starvation of the Ukraine is a western lie. The Harvest of Sorrow by Robert Conquest refutes this dangerous falsehood. Perhaps "Just" believes The Great Leap Forward did not lead to starvation of tens of millions in China. After all, this could be another "western lie". So to could be the Armenian genocide in Turkey or slaughter of Communists in Indonesia.

    SteveM , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:23 am

    As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room".

    I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context.

    The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing.

    And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person in the room".

    P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage.

    blimbax , says: September 16, 2016 at 11:29 am

    John asks, "We also have to deal with our current allies. Whom would Mr. Buchanan like to favor?"

    Well, we could redouble our commitment to our democracy and peace loving friends in Saudi Arabia, we could deepen our ties to those gentle folk in Egypt, and maybe for a change give some meaningful support to Israel. Oh, and our defensive alliances will be becoming so much stronger with Montenegro as a member, we will need to pour more resources into that country.

    Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused.

    There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with.

    Joe the Plutocrat , says: September 16, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    "During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it (funny, you failed to mention Laos, South Vietnam, Nicaragua, Noriega/Panama, and everyone's favorite 9/11 co-conspirator and WMD developer, Saddam Hussein). either way how did these "alliances" work out for the US? really doesn't matter, does it? it is early 21st century, not mid 20th century. there is a school of thought in the worlds of counter-terrorism/intelligence operations, which suggests if you want to be successful, you have to partner with some pretty nasty folks. Trump is being "handled" by an experienced, ruthless (that's a compliment), and focused "operator". unless, of course, Trump is actually the superior operator, in which case, this would be the greatest black op of all time.

    Clint , says: September 16, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    "From Russia With Money - Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset and Cronyism,"

    "Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo, 17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors" or sponsored speeches by former President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The Post.

    http://nypost.com/2016/07/31/report-raises-questions-about-clinton-cash-from-russians-during-reset/

    WakeUp , says: September 16, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. Once you understand that then the (evil)actions of the Western elite make sense. Anyone who stands in the way of those things is an "enemy". This is how they determine an "enemy".

    As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now.

    If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family.

    Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice.

    What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us.

    [Sep 18, 2016] Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesnt play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the smartest person in the room

    Notable quotes:
    "... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
    "... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
    "... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
    "... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    SteveM , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:23 am

    As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room".

    I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context.

    The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing.

    And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person in the room".

    P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage.

    [Sep 18, 2016] Guccifer 2.0 – 13Sept2016 Leak – A Readers Guide (Part 2) [Discarded Hard Drive?]

    Sep 15, 2016 | tm.durusau.net

    Guccifer 2.0 's latest release of DNC documents is generally described as:

    In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents. It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security experts attending the London conference. Guccifer 2.0 drops more DNC docs by Cory Bennett.

    The "600 megabytes of documents" is an attention grabber, but how much of that 600 megabytes is useful and/or interesting?

    The answer turns out to be, not a lot.


    Here's an overview of the directories and files:

    /CIR

    Financial investment data.

    /CNBC

    Financial investment data.

    /DNC

    Redistricting documents.

    /DNCBSUser

    One file with fields of VANDatabaseCode StateID VanID cons_id?

    /documentation

    A large amount of documentation for "IQ8," apparently address cleaning software. Possibly useful if you want to know address cleaning rules from eight years ago.

    /DonorAnalysis

    Sound promising but is summary data based on media markets.

    /early

    Early voting analysis.

    /eday

    Typical election voting analysis, from 2002 to 2008.

    /FEC

    Duplicates to FEC filings. Checking the .csv file, data from 2008. BTW, you can find this date (2008) and later data of the same type at: http://fec.gov .

    /finance

    More duplicates to FEC filings. 11-26-08 NFC Members Raised.xlsx (no credit cards) – Dated but 453 names with contacts, amounts raised, etc.

    /HolidayCards

    Holiday card addresses, these are typical:

    holiday_list_noproblems.txt
    holidaycards.mdb
    morethanonename.xls

    /jpegs

    Two jpegs were included in the dump.

    /marketing

    Lists of donors.

    DNC union_05-09.txt
    DNCunion0610.txt
    GDSA11A.CSV
    November VF EOC – MEYER.txt
    dem0702a[1].zip
    dem977.txt
    dem978.txt
    dem979.txt
    dem980.txt
    dem981.txt
    dem982.txt
    dem9A3_NGP.txt
    dem9A6_NGP.txt
    dnc_harris_eoc_nov09_canvass.zip – password protected
    dsg.txt
    gsi.txt
    harris.txt
    marketing_phones.txt
    ofa_actives_non-donor.csv
    tm_files.txt

    /May-FEC

    Grepping looks like May, 2009 data for the FEC.

    /newmedia

    More donor lists.

    20090715_new_synetech_emails.csv
    emails_w_contactinfo.txt
    ofa_email_export.zip

    /pdfs

    IT hosting proposals.

    /Reports for Kaine

    Various technology memos

    /security

    IT security reports

    /stuffformike/WH/

    Contacts not necessarily in FEC records

    Contact List-Complete List.xlsx – Contact list with emails and phone numbers (no credit cards)
    WH Staff 2010.xlsx – Names but no contact details


    The data is eight (8) years old . Do you have the same phone number you did eight (8) years ago?

    Guccifer 2.0 makes no claim on their blog for ownership of this leak.

    A "hack" that results in eight year old data, most of which is more accessible at http://fec.gov ?

    No, this looks more like a discarded hard drive that was harvested and falsely labeled as a "hack" of the DNC.

    Unless Guccifer 2.0 says otherwise on their blog, you have better things to do with your time.

    PS: You don't need old hard drives to discover pay-to-play purchases of public appointments. Check back tomorrow for: How-To Discover Pay-to-Play Appointment Pricing .

    Posted in Government , Politics | No Comments "

    Guccifer 2.0 – 13Sept2016 Leak – A Reader's Guide (Part 1)

    September 14th, 2016 Guccifer 2.0 dropped a new bundle of DNC documents on September 13, 2016! Like most dumps, there was no accompanying guide to make use of that dump easier. ;-) Not a criticism, just an observation.

    As a starting point to make your use of that dump a little easier, I am posting an ls -lR listing of all the files in that dump, post extraction with 7z and unrar . Guccifer2.0-13Sept2016-filelist.txt .

    I'm working on a list of the files most likely to be of interest. Look for that tomorrow.

    I can advise that no credit card numbers were included in this dump.

    Using:

    grep --color -H -rn --include="*.txt" '\([345]\{1\}[0-9]\{3\}\|6011\)\{1\}[ -]\?[0-9]\{4\}[ -]\?[0-9]\{2\}[-]\?[0-9]\{2\}[ -]\?[0-9]\{1,4\}'

    I checked all the .txt files for credit card numbers. (I manually checked the xsl/xslx files.)

    There were "hits" but those were in Excel exports of vote calculations. Funny how credit card numbers don't ever begin with "0." as a prefix.

    Since valid credit card numbers vary in length, I don't know of an easy way to avoid that issue. So inspection of the files it was.

    [Sep 18, 2016] How-To Discover Pay-to-Play Appointment Pricing

    Notable quotes:
    "... United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | tm.durusau.net

    You have seen one or more variations on:

    You may be wondering why CNN , the New York Time and the Washington Post aren't all over this story?

    While selling public offices surprises some authors, whose names I omitted out of courtesy to their families, selling offices is a regularized activity in the United States.

    So regularized that immediately following each presidential election , the Government Printing Office publishes the United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions 2012 (Plum Book) that lists the 9,000 odd positions that are subject to presidential appointment.

    From the description of the 2012 edition:

    Every four years, just after the Presidential election, " United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions " is published. It is commonly known as the "Plum Book" and is alternately published between the House and Senate.

    The Plum Book is a listing of over 9,000 civil service leadership and support positions (filled and vacant) in the Legislative and Executive branches of the Federal Government that may be subject to noncompetitive appointments, or in other words by direct appointment.

    These "plum" positions include agency heads and their immediate subordinates, policy executives and advisors, and aides who report to these officials. Many positions have duties which support Administration policies and programs. The people holding these positions usually have a close and confidential relationship with the agency head or other key officials.

    Even though the 2012 "plum" book is currently on sale for $19.00 (usual price is $38.00), given that a new one will appear later this year, consider using the free online version at: Plum Book 2012 .

    plum-book-2012-460

    The online interface is nothing to brag on. You have to select filters and then find to obtain further information on positions. Very poor UI.

    However, if under title you select "Chief of Mission, Monaco" and then select "find," the resulting screen looks something like this:

    monaco-chief-01-460

    To your far right there is a small arrow that if selected, takes you to the details:

    monaco-chief-02-460

    If you were teaching a high school civics class, the question would be:

    How much did Charles Rivkin have to donate to obtain the position of Chief of Mission, Monaco?

    FYI, the CIA World FactBook gives this brief description for Monaco :

    Monaco, bordering France on the Mediterranean coast, is a popular resort, attracting tourists to its casino and pleasant climate. The principality also is a banking center and has successfully sought to diversify into services and small, high-value-added, nonpolluting industries.

    Unlike the unhappy writers that started this post, you would point the class to: Transaction Query By Individual Contributor at the Federal Election Commission site.

    Entering the name Rivkin, Charles and select "Get Listing."

    Rivkin's contributions are broken into categories and helpfully summed to assist you in finding the total.

    Caution: There is an anomalous Rivkin in that last category, contributing $40 to Donald Trump. For present discussions, I would subtract that from the grand total of:

    $130,711 to be the Chief of Mission, Monaco.

    Realize that this was not a lump sum payment but a steady stream of contributions starting in the year 2000.

    Using the Transaction Query By Individual Contributor resource, you can correct stories that claim:

    Jane Hartley paid DNC $605,000 and then was nominated by Obama to serve concurrently as the U.S. Ambassador to the French Republic and the Principality of Monaco.

    jane-hartley

    (from: This Is How Much It 'Costs' To Get An Ambassadorship: Guccifer 2.0 Leaks DNC 'Pay-To-Play' Donor List )

    If you run the FEC search you will find:

    So, $637,609.71, not $605,000.00 but also as a series of contributions starting in 1997, not one lump sum .

    You don't have to search discarded hard drives to get pay-to-play appointment pricing. It's all a matter of public record.

    PS: I'm not sure how accurate or complete Nominations & Appointments (White House) may be, but its an easier starting place for current appointees than the online Plum book.

    PPS: Estimated pricing for "Plum" book positions could be made more transparent. Not a freebie. Let me know if you are interested.

    Posted in Government , Politics | No Comments "

    [Sep 18, 2016] The dynamic interaction of neoliberalism and cultural nationalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. ..."
    "... In this form, cultural nationalism provides national ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation among thelower orders. ..."
    "... As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora – where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within the global and imperial hierarchy. ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | www.scribd.com

    Neoliberal Hegemony

    This is where cultural nationalism comes in. Only it can serve to mask, and bridge, the divides within the 'cartel of anxiety' in a neoliberal context.

    Cultural nationalism is a nationalism shorn of its civic-egalitarian and developmentalist thrust, one reduced to its cultural core. It is structured around the culture of thee conomically dominant classes in every country, with higher or lower positions accorded to other groups within the nation relative to it. These positions correspond, on the whole, to the groups' economic positions, and as such it organises the dominant classes, and concentric circles of their allies, into a collective national force. It also gives coherence to, and legitimises, the activities of the nation-state on behalf of capital, or sections thereof, in the international sphere.

    Indeed, cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy.

    Neoliberalism cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. The activities of the state on behalf of this or that capitalist interest necessarily exceed the Spartan limits that neoliberalism sets. Such activities can only be legitimised as being 'in the national interest.'

    Second, however, the nationalism that articulates these interests is necessarily different from, but can easily (and given its function as a legitimising ideology, it must be said, performatively) be mis-recognised as, nationalism as widely understood: as being in some real sense in the interests of all members of the nation. In this form, cultural nationalism provides national ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation among thelower orders.

    As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora – where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within the global and imperial hierarchy.

    Except for a commitment to neoliberal policies, the economic policy content of this nationalism cannot be consistent: within the country, and inter-nationally, the capitalist system is volatile and the positions of the various elements of capital in the national and international hierarchies shift constantly as does the economic policy of cultural nationalist governments. It is this volatility that also increases the need for corruption – since that is how competitive access of individual capitals to the state is today organised.

    Whatever its utility to the capitalist classes, however, cultural nationalism can never have a settled or secure hold on those who are marginalised or sub-ordinated by it. In neoliberal regimes the scope for offering genuine economic gains to the people at large, however measured they might be, is small.

    This is a problem for right politics since even the broadest coalition of the propertied can never be an electoral majority, even a viable plurality. This is only in the nature of capitalist private property. While the left remains in retreat or disarray, elec-toral apathy is a useful political resource but even where, as in most countries, political choices are minimal, the electorate as a whole is volatile. Despite, orperhaps because of, being reduced to a competition between parties of capital, electoral politics in the age of the New Right entails very large electoral costs, theextensive and often vain use of the media in elections and in politics generally, and political compromises which may clash with the high and shrilly ambitiou sdemands of the primary social base in the propertied classes. Instability, uncertainty ...

    [Sep 18, 2016] What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?

    Notable quotes:
    "... What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless. ..."
    "... As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose. ..."
    "... Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense). ..."
    "... Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions. ..."
    "... The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits. ..."
    "... If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation. ..."
    "... Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest. ..."
    "... With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade? ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Chauncey Gardiner

    What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless.

    As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose.

    diptherio

    Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense).

    Norb

    Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions.

    What folly. All this complexity and strident study of minutia to bring about what end? Human history on this planet has been about how societies form, develop, then recede form prominence. This flow being determined by how well the society provided for its members or could support their worldview. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

    The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits.

    Only by thinking, and communicating in the broader terms of political economy can we hope to understand our current conditions. Until then, change will be difficult to enact. Hard landings for all indeed.

    flora

    If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation.

    LA Mike September 17, 2016 at 8:15 pm

    While in traffic, I was thinking about that today. For some time now, I've viewed the traffic intersection as being a good example of the social contract. We all agree on its benefits. But today, I thought about it in terms of the Friedman Neoliberals.

    Why should they have to stop at red lights. Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest.

    sd

    Something I have wondered for some time, how does tourism fit into trade? With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade?

    I Have Strange Dreams

    Other things to consider:
    – negative effects of immigration (skilled workers leave developing countries where they are most needed)
    – environmental pollution
    – destruction of cultures/habitats
    – importation of western diet leading to decreased health
    – spread of disease (black death, hiv, ebola, bird flu)
    – resource wars
    – drugs
    – happiness
    How are these "externalities" calculated?

    [Sep 18, 2016] Neoliberalism has grown decadent and corrupt. It is a secular religion: a massive systemic force that some can manipulate for their own gain, but as a society we've lost the will or ability to control it's macro forces which have the power grind up whole demographics, communities, or crash the whole economy.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Something along the lines of Sweden, or maybe Germany: the means of production is left in private hands and the owning class is welcome to get rich (there are the equivalent of billionaires in both countries) but there are strict limits as to how much they can screw their workers, cheat their customers or damage the environment. ..."
    "... Also, basic social welfare matters (healthcare, child care etc.) are publicly provided, or at least publicly backstopped. The model may not be perfect but it appears to work quite well all in all. ..."
    "... Sweden has no taxes on inheritance or residential property, and its 22 percent corporate income tax rate is far lower than America's 35 percent." ..."
    "... I do not think that drag queens reading stories, Lionel Shriver's speech and backlash, or the latest Clinton scandal mean civilizational death. They are outliers, but serve to remind the vast majority of the country that there is plenty of room in America for eccentrics of every description to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ..."
    "... HRC is not really unthinkable. She is just not preferable. A vote for HRC is an acquiescence to the status quo of corrupt, big money politics. Voting for the status quo is unthinkable only if you think the apocalypse is around the next bend. Let's be serious. ..."
    "... "we are at the mercy of systematic forces, difficult to name, which can be manipulated by the powerful but not governed by them, and that our problems are unsolvable" ..."
    "... I would argue that the "system" is capitalism grown decadent and corrupt. It is a secular religion that we've given ourselves over to and is exactly as he describes: a massive systemic force that some can manipulate for their own gain, but as a society we've lost the will or ability to control it's macro forces which have the power grind up whole demographics, communities, or crash the whole economy. ..."
    "... The reaction and fall out from the financial crisis amounted to everyone shrugging and declaring innocence and ignorance. They seemed to say, how could anyone see such a thing coming or do anything about it? How could anyone control such a huge system? ..."
    "... I'm always struck by these posts detailing how everything is coming apart in America. I look around and frankly, life looks pretty good. Maybe it's because I'm a minority female, who grew up poor and now has a solidly middle class life. My mother, God rest her soul, was smarter and worked harder than I ever will but did not have one-quarter of the opportunities (education, housing) I've had. My sons have travelled the globe, and have decent jobs and good friends. I am grateful. ..."
    "... I wouldn't say that [neo] Liberalism is "spent" as a force, rather that its credibility is. As a cultural force (covering both politics and the economy, among other things), its strength is and remains vast. It is Leviathan. For all intents and purposes, it defines the culture, and thus dictates the imperatives and methods, of our governing and economic elites. ..."
    "... Bush proved that electing an imbecile to the Presidency has real consequences for our standing in the world. ..."
    "... Trump starts speaking without knowing how his sentence will end, and then he will go to down fighting to defend whatever it was he said even though he never really meant it in the first place. That mix of arrogance and stupidity is more dangerous than Bush. ..."
    "... Totally unconvincing. It couldn't be more obvious that Hillary stands for rule by globalists whereas Trump intends to return control of the federal government to We the People. ..."
    "... Which candidate is traveling to Louisiana? Flint? Detroit? Mexico (on behalf of America)? Which candidate calls tens of millions of Americans irredeemable and thus it would be justified in exterminating them? ..."
    "... What makes Mr. Cosimano so sure that what America is passing into is anything like a "civilization" at all? We could simple pass into barbarism. Can anyone name the leaders who hope to build any kind of civilization at all? ..."
    "... For 70+ years, other than while working on a university degree in history, I never gave a thought to civilizational collapse, so I would have been a poor choice to ask for a definition of the term. But after a few years of reading TAC I think I have a handle on it. It's a situation in which someone or some group sees broad social change they don't like. So probably civilizational collapse is constant and ongoing. ..."
    "... I would only point out that there is no clear path to economic safety for working Americans, whether they are white are black. Training and hard work will only take you so far in our demand-constrained economy. Whether black optimism or white pessimism turns out to be empirically justified is far from certain. We are constructing the future as we speak, and our actions will determine the answer to this question. ..."
    "... As the WikiLeaks dox show, it wasn't "barrel bombs" or "chemical warfare against his own people" that made the elites hungry to overthrow the government there, it was the 2009 decision by Syria not to allow an oil pipeline through from Qatar to Turkey, whereupon the CIA was directed to start funding jihadists and regime change. ..."
    "... I'd note that Popes going back to Leo XIII have written on the destructive effects of capitalism or rather the unmitigated pursuit of wealth. Both Benedict and Francis have eloquently expressed the need for a spiritual conversion to solve the world's problems. A conversion which recognizes our solidarity with one another as well as our obligation to the health of Creation. I rather doubt we will find the impetus for this conversion among our politicians. ..."
    "... The problem is not civilization-level, Mr. Dreher. The problem is species -level. Humanity as a whole is discovering that it cannot handle too high a level of technology without losing its ability to get feedback from its environment. Without that feedback, its elite classes drift off into literal insanity. The rest of the society soon follows. ..."
    "... James Parker in The Atlantic comes to a similar conclusion from a very different starting place ..."
    "... "For Trump to be revealed as a salvational figure, the conditions around him must be dire. Trump_vs_deep_state-like fascism, like a certain kind of smash-it-up punk rock-begins in apprehensions of apocalypse." ..."
    "... Classical [neo]liberalism presents itself not as a tentative theory of how society might be organized but as a theory of nature. It claims to lay out the forces of nature and to make these a model for social order. Thus free-market fundamentalism, letting the market function "as nature intended". It's an absurd position when applied dogmatically, and no more "natural" than other economic arrangements humans might come up with. ..."
    "... Further, as I suggest, our two camps "left" and "right" are no longer distinctly left and right in any traditional sense. The market forces and self-marketing that lead to the fetishization of identity by the left are the same market forces championed by the capitalist right. In America today, both left and right are merely different bourgeois cults of Self. ..."
    "... "Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors) has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the world ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American conservatives." ..."
    Sep 17, 2016 | john-uebersax.com

    Andrew E. says: September 16, 2016 at 11:19 am

    Will she be inviting them in from parallel universes? Because we do not have 40 million illegals. The number is closer to eleven million.

    Wrong, see Adios America

    JonF says: September 16, 2016 at 1:27 pm
    Re: we have yet to hear a cogent description of what "bridled" capitalism is/looks like

    Something along the lines of Sweden, or maybe Germany: the means of production is left in private hands and the owning class is welcome to get rich (there are the equivalent of billionaires in both countries) but there are strict limits as to how much they can screw their workers, cheat their customers or damage the environment.

    Also, basic social welfare matters (healthcare, child care etc.) are publicly provided, or at least publicly backstopped. The model may not be perfect but it appears to work quite well all in all.

    CatherineNY says: September 16, 2016 at 6:28 pm
    Re: Sweden as an example of "bridled capitalism," here is an article about how many billionaires Sweden has (short answer: lots) http://www.slate.com/articles/business/billion_to_one/2013/10/sweden_s_billionaires_they_have_more_per_capita_than_the_united_states.html "The Swedish tax code was substantially reformed in 1990 to be friendlier toward capital accumulation, with a flat rate on investment income. Sweden has no taxes on inheritance or residential property, and its 22 percent corporate income tax rate is far lower than America's 35 percent."

    I think a lot of American capitalists would welcome those bridles. As for Hanby's critique of the liberal order that (thankfully) prevails in the West, it is only because of that liberal order that we are freely discussing these matters here, that we can talk about a Benedict Option in which we can create an economy within the economy, because in the non-liberal orders that prevailed through most of history, and that still prevail in a lot of places, we'd be under threat from the state for free discussion, and we would have little or no choice of education or jobs, because we'd be serfs or slaves or forced by government to go into a certain line of work (like my husband's Mandarin teacher, a scientist who was forced into the countryside during the Cultural Revolution and then told that she had to become a language teacher.)

    I'd be interested to know what kind of system Hanby would like to see replace our liberal order. Presumably one where he would be in charge.

    Harvey says: September 15, 2016 at 3:36 pm
    [neo]Liberalism is exhausted? What does that even mean, except as a high-brow insult?

    If there is one statistic that disproves this claim, it's that religious attendance is plummeting and the number of people who are "nones" are rising rapidly.

    What's exhausted is religion as a necessary component of social life. Since that is indisputably true, I guess the only thing that is left is for the remaining stalwarts resisting the tide to project this idea of exhaustion onto the other side.

    [NFR: You don't understand his point. He's not talking about liberalism as the philosophy of the Democratic Party. He's talking about liberalism as the political culture and system of the West. - RD]

    Clint says: September 15, 2016 at 3:38 pm
    "There is nothing like a good shock of pain for dissolving certain kinds of magic."

    Could be that Trump is God's Hot Foot Angel With The Dirty Face waking Americans up to the increasingly Godless Agenda of The Washington Establishment and The Corporate Media.

    Elijah says: September 15, 2016 at 4:01 pm
    Talk about cynical. There's a lot to take exception to here, but let's start with this:

    "In other words, the fact that we are in civilizational crisis is becoming unavoidably apparent, though there is obviously little agreement as to what this crisis consists in or what its causes are and little interest from the omnipresent media beyond how perceptions of crisis affect voter behavior."

    Possibly because he's one of the relatively few people who think we're in such a crisis. A lot of us – Republican and Democrat – still believe ideas and ideals are important and we support them (and their torchbearers, however flawed) with all the vigor we can muster.

    I do not think that drag queens reading stories, Lionel Shriver's speech and backlash, or the latest Clinton scandal mean civilizational death. They are outliers, but serve to remind the vast majority of the country that there is plenty of room in America for eccentrics of every description to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I will admit to thinking this kind of thing much more important on college campuses, where it can affect the quality of an education.

    "We would not see it as a crisis of soul, but a crisis of management…"

    Probably true: I'm not so sure that our founding principles really envision our civilization as having a soul rather than virtues. And the idea of a national government mucking around with the souls of the people gives me the heebie-jeebies much as Putin's alliance with the Orthodox church does you. And if there's anything we can take from the current election, I think it's that Americans have had enough sociologists, economists, lawyers, and other "experts" tell them what to do to last a lifetime. It's part and parcel of the distrust you just posted about.

    And I'm not at all sure that Americans are generally despairing, though it's pretty clear they think our country is on the wrong track. Hillary ought to be running away with this thing – why isn't she? Because she's seen as more of the same. Sanders offered the hope of something new, something transformative: the same thing people see in Trump. Their hope MAY be misplaced but time will tell. This election cycle ought to make people a little less confident in their predictions.

    "Hope is hard, I admit. But my response is that it is not the pessimist about liberalism who lacks hope, but the optimist who cannot see beyond its horizons."

    Hope is hard if you're investing in our institutions to carry us through. They aren't designed to. Our hope is in Christ, Our Redeemer, and that His will "be done on earth as it is in Heaven." And I will gladly admit to not being able to see beyond liberalism's horizons – again, the predictions of experts and philosophers haven't held up too well over time.

    I can say that blithely because my hope is not in liberalism, ultimately. Do I think some semblance of liberalism can and will survive? Yes, but the cultural struggles we are going through are part and parcel of the system. Do I like that? No.

    And as much as we need to reinforce communities (through the BenOp) we also need to recognize that our job isn't always to understand and prepare. As Christians, it is to obey. It means we repent, fast, and pray. It means we take the Great Commission seriously even when it's uncomfortable.

    I'm sorry to rip your friend here, I just don't find his piece compelling at all.

    allaround says: September 15, 2016 at 4:13 pm
    HRC is not really unthinkable. She is just not preferable. A vote for HRC is an acquiescence to the status quo of corrupt, big money politics. Voting for the status quo is unthinkable only if you think the apocalypse is around the next bend. Let's be serious.

    Voting for Trump is unthinkable because he is totally clueless about seemingly he talks about. His arrogance is only surpassed by his ignorance. Gary Johnson was excoriated because he did not know what Aleppo is. I bet a paycheck Trump couldn't point to Syria on a map. Trump get's no serious criticism for insistence that we steal Iraq's oil, his confusion about why Iran wasn't buying our airplanes, his assertion that Iran is North Koreas largest trading partner, that South Korea and Japan ought to have nukes, his threats to extort our NATO allies. There are dozens of gems like these, but you get the picture. One only needs to read transcripts from his interviews to understand the limits of his intellect. Voting for such a profound ignoramus is truly unthinkable.

    Gary says: September 15, 2016 at 4:40 pm
    Not (at least directly) related, but Rod thought this might give you some hope today (albeit it's from the <a href=" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3790614/They-don-t-like-drugs-gay-marriage-HATE-tattoos-Generation-Z-conservative-WW2.html"Daily Mail but I found it interesting):

    Teenagers born after 2000 – the so-called 'Generation Z' – are the most socially conservative generation since the Second World War, a new study has found.

    The youngsters surveyed had more conservative views on gay marriage, transgender rights and drugs than Baby Boomers, Generation X or Millennials.

    The questioned were more prudent than Millennials, Generation X and Baby Boomers but not quite as cash-savvy as those born in 1945 or before.

    Only 14 and 15-year-olds were surveyed, by brand consultancy The Gild, as they were classed as being able to form credible opinions by that age.

    When asked to comment on same-sex marriage, transgender rights and cannabis legislation, 59 per cent of Generation X teenagers said they had conservative views.

    Around 85 per cent of Millennials and those in Generation X had a 'quite' or 'very liberal' stance overall.

    When asked for their specific view on each topic only the Silent Generation was more conservative that Generation Z.

    One in seven – 14% – of the 14 and 15-year-olds took a 'quite conservative' approach, while only two per cent of Millennials and one per cent of Generation X.

    The Silent Generation had a 'quite conservative' rating of 34 per cent.

    I think this was done in Britain but as we know, social trends in the rest of the West tend to spill over into the States.

    Are we looking at another Alex P. Keaton generation? Kids likely to rebel against the liberalism of their parents?

    Adamant says: September 15, 2016 at 4:43 pm
    I can never quite understand the tension between these two concepts: enlightenment liberalism as a spent force, enervated, listless, barely able to stir itself even in its own defense, and simultaneously weaponized SJWism, modern day Jacobins, an army of clenched-jawed fanatics who will stop at nothing to destroy its enemies.

    It seems that one of these perspectives must be less true than the other.

    [NFR: SJWs are a betrayal of classical liberalism. - RD]

    The Other Sands says: September 15, 2016 at 4:53 pm
    I realize that I only comment here when something sets me off, and not when I agree with you (which is after all why I keep reading you).

    So here I am agreeing with this post.

    "we are at the mercy of systematic forces, difficult to name, which can be manipulated by the powerful but not governed by them, and that our problems are unsolvable"

    I would argue that the "system" is capitalism grown decadent and corrupt. It is a secular religion that we've given ourselves over to and is exactly as he describes: a massive systemic force that some can manipulate for their own gain, but as a society we've lost the will or ability to control it's macro forces which have the power grind up whole demographics, communities, or crash the whole economy.

    The reaction and fall out from the financial crisis amounted to everyone shrugging and declaring innocence and ignorance. They seemed to say, how could anyone see such a thing coming or do anything about it? How could anyone control such a huge system?

    As your friend says, even if we want to exert more control over this system (which we can with the will), this would end up being a technocratic project, not a spiritual one. Sad because a spiritual argument against the excesses of capitalism might actually gain more traction at this point, than tired liberal arguments.

    xrdsmom says: September 15, 2016 at 5:15 pm
    I'm always struck by these posts detailing how everything is coming apart in America. I look around and frankly, life looks pretty good. Maybe it's because I'm a minority female, who grew up poor and now has a solidly middle class life. My mother, God rest her soul, was smarter and worked harder than I ever will but did not have one-quarter of the opportunities (education, housing) I've had. My sons have travelled the globe, and have decent jobs and good friends. I am grateful.

    My friends and I went out the other night in Austin, and there were families, very diverse, walking in the outdoor mall, standing in line to buy $5 scoops of ice cream for their children. Not hipsters, or God forbid the elite, just regular middle class folk enjoying an evening out. The truth is, life has improved immeasurably for many Americans. Do we have serious problems? Of course, but can we have just a wee bit of perspective?

    Will Harrington says: September 15, 2016 at 5:24 pm
    The Other Sands

    You may be right about the problem, but not its nature. Capitalism is not an impersonal force that can't be controlled, it's what people do economically if they are left alone to do it. The problem comes when people are not, simply put, virtuous. When people seek a return on investment that is not simply reasonable, but rather the most they can possibly get. We have had a capitalist system for long enough that some people who are both good at manipulating it and, often, unethical enough to not care what impact their choices have on others, have accumulated vast amounts of wealth while others, over generations, have made choices that have not been profitable, have lost wealth.

    There used to be mechanisms for preventing these trends to continue to their logical conclusion, as they are here. Judea had Jubilee. The Byzantine Empire had an Emperor whose interests were served by a prosperous landed middle class to populate the Thematic armies and who would occasionally step in and return the land his part time soldiers had lost through bad loans from aristocrats. We have no such mechanism for a farmer to regain land lost due to foreclosure.

    We should not redistribute wealth in such a way that a person has no incentive to work, but we should never allow a person's means of earning a livelihood to be taken from them.

    C. L. H. Daniels says: September 15, 2016 at 5:30 pm
    I wouldn't say that [neo] Liberalism is "spent" as a force, rather that its credibility is. As a cultural force (covering both politics and the economy, among other things), its strength is and remains vast. It is Leviathan. For all intents and purposes, it defines the culture, and thus dictates the imperatives and methods, of our governing and economic elites. The crisis of Western political legitimacy that is manifest in the nomination of Trump, Brexit and numerous other movements and incidents is a sign that the legitimacy of this order has been undermined and is dissolving within the societies it effectively governs; in some unspoken sense, the unwashed masses of the West (those not part of the so-called "New Class") have come to understand that they have been betrayed by the Liberal order, that it has not lived up to its promises, even that it is becoming or has become a force destructive of their communities and their ability to thrive as human beings.

    The ever-increasing autonomy promised by the Liberal order has turned out to be a poisoned chalice for many. As it has dissolved the bonds of families and communities, it has atomized people into individuals without traditional social supports in an increasingly cutthroat and uncaring world. People cannot help but understand that they have lost something or are missing something, even if they are not able to articulate or identify that loss. It is a sickness of the soul, in the sense that the ailment is somewhere close to the heart of what it means to be human. We are what we are, and the Liberal order is pushing us into opposition to our own natures, as if we can choose to be something other than what we are.

    Anne says: September 15, 2016 at 5:32 pm
    This idea that Democrats hate Hillary in the same way Republicans despise Trump is way off base in my opinion. This attempt at equivalency, like so many others, is false. I voted for Sanders because I liked him better, but I am not holding my nose to vote for Hillary Clinton. There are several things I actually admire about her, including her attention to detail and tenacity. I'll always remember how she sat before Congress as First Lady, no paper or crib sheet in sight, and presented her detailed and compelling case for national health care . I thought that was awesome then, and still do.

    Still, as I've noted many times, I never liked the Clintons that much, mainly because I hated a lot of what Bill Clinton stood for and what he did. Aside from his embarrassing sexual escapades, most of that pertained to positions that seemed more Republican than Democratic (on welfare mothers, mental patients, deregulation of the broadcast industry, etc.) I also didn't like their position on abortion nor the way their people treated Gov. Casey at the party convention, nor the dialing back on Jimmy Carter's uncompromising stand for human rights in the third world. Some of Hillary's hawkish positions are still a concern, but what she stands for in general is far and away more humane and within my understanding of what's good for the country and the world at large than anything Republicans represent. Their ideas hurt people on too many fronts to justify voting for them just because I may agree with them on principle when it comes to matters such abortion. Trump just adds insult to injury in every regard.

    Adamant says: September 15, 2016 at 6:22 pm
    xrdsmom says:
    September 15, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    Very well said. What accounts for the relative optimism of minorities vs. whites?
    State of the economy, personal situation, optimism that your kids future will be better than yours, etc. In all of these surveys, it is the pessimism of whites, untethered from empirical reality, that stands out as the outlier.

    Oakinhou says: September 15, 2016 at 6:22 pm
    The Other Sands:

    "Sad because a spiritual argument against the excesses of capitalism might actually gain more traction at this point, than tired liberal arguments."

    It would gain more traction, and it would be better focused at what is much larger cause of the current social, economic, and family problems of the working classes.

    But the argument won't be made, because the majority of those that believe in a societal crisis have pinned the origin of this crisis on feminism, the sexual revolution, and SJW, and have bought in full the bootstraps language of the radical capitalism. Even the majority crunchy cons, that would be sympathetic to the arguments against capitalism, would rather try to solve the ills of the world via cultural instead of economic ways.

    Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors) has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the world ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American conservatives

    [NFR: Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict said the same thing. - RD]

    allaround says: September 15, 2016 at 6:38 pm
    @redfish

    Bush proved that electing an imbecile to the Presidency has real consequences for our standing in the world. Trump is just as stupid, but he is far more dangerous. At least Bush wasn't a egomaniac. Trump starts speaking without knowing how his sentence will end, and then he will go to down fighting to defend whatever it was he said even though he never really meant it in the first place. That mix of arrogance and stupidity is more dangerous than Bush.

    Charles Cosimano says: September 15, 2016 at 6:46 pm
    "In fact, I doubt we any longer possess enough of a 'civilization' to understand what a 'civilizational crisis' would really mean."

    I think someone has no idea what "civilization" means. None of his definitions apply.

    What we are seeing is the radical change in Western Civilization from the old Graeco-Roman/Christian model to a yet undefined American model. (Which is why Islam in Europe is not very important. Europe is no longer very important.) No one guards the "glory that was Greece" any more. We've moved out of that. The debate will be when did the transition occur. Did it begin in the 19th Century with the Age of Invention? Did it occur in the flash of gunpowder that was WW1? Was it the blasting to rubble of Monte Cassino when the weapons of the new blew the symbol of the old to ruin? Was it the moment men stood upon the Moon and nothing the bronze age pilers of rocks had to say was of any value any more?

    The key to understanding the change is that the old values are dead and we are in the process of creating new ones. No one knows where that is going to go. It is all too new.

    Hanby is wrong. We have a civilization, but it is leaving his in the dust.

    Andrew E. says: September 15, 2016 at 6:53 pm
    Totally unconvincing. It couldn't be more obvious that Hillary stands for rule by globalists whereas Trump intends to return control of the federal government to We the People.

    Which candidate is traveling to Louisiana? Flint? Detroit? Mexico (on behalf of America)? Which candidate calls tens of millions of Americans irredeemable and thus it would be justified in exterminating them?

    Seriously, only one of these two appears interested in leading the nation.

    Jon Swerens says: September 15, 2016 at 6:56 pm
    Harvey said:

    "What's exhausted is religion as a necessary component of social life."

    This is so hilariously untrue, but also very sad that the secular Left cannot see its own idols or even read its own headlines.

    What does he think is happening in the United States besides the rise of a revolutionary moral order, ruled by fickle tastemakers who believe that their own emotions and thoughts have creative power? How else would history have a "side"? How else could "gender" be entirely unmoored from sex and any other scientific fact? Progressivism even has "climate change" as its chosen apocalypse which will visit destruction if not enough fealty is granted to an ever-more-omnipotent and omniscient central government? Does he not see how over and over again, this week's progressive leaders attacks last week's? Amy Schumer, anyone?

    Once a culture abolishes the One True God, as ours has, then that culture begins to find other sources for the attributes of God and for the definitions of virtues and vices.

    Jon Swerens says: September 15, 2016 at 6:59 pm
    What makes Mr. Cosimano so sure that what America is passing into is anything like a "civilization" at all? We could simple pass into barbarism. Can anyone name the leaders who hope to build any kind of civilization at all?
    Andrew E. says: September 15, 2016 at 7:03 pm
    Never forget that there is a real and clear choice before us.

    Clinton will deliver amnesty to 40 million illegals. Continue the 1 million legal immigrants per yer all from the Third World. She will radically upsize the Muslim refugee influx to hundreds of thousands per year. All terrible things.

    Trump will do the opposite. This will make a massive difference to the future of the country - Trump, good…Clinton, bad - and is what this election is about.

    bacon says: September 15, 2016 at 7:08 pm
    For 70+ years, other than while working on a university degree in history, I never gave a thought to civilizational collapse, so I would have been a poor choice to ask for a definition of the term. But after a few years of reading TAC I think I have a handle on it. It's a situation in which someone or some group sees broad social change they don't like. So probably civilizational collapse is constant and ongoing.

    As for me, I'm outside somewhere every day and so far not even a tiny piece of the sky has fallen on me.

    Richard McGee says: September 15, 2016 at 7:19 pm
    @xrdsmom
    Empirical reality depends on where you stand. Younote that your prospects have improved relative to your mom's. For the working class whites working at low paying jobs, they have declined. Is their anger simply a response to loss of white privilege? In the sense that this privilege consisted of access to well-paying jobs out of high school, the answer is yes.

    I would only point out that there is no clear path to economic safety for working Americans, whether they are white are black. Training and hard work will only take you so far in our demand-constrained economy. Whether black optimism or white pessimism turns out to be empirically justified is far from certain. We are constructing the future as we speak, and our actions will determine the answer to this question.

    Fran Macadam says: September 15, 2016 at 7:55 pm
    It's true a lot of people couldn't point to Syria; because that's how important it is to most people. So why are we now involved in a full scale war there, when the American people clearly stated they didn't want another war?

    As the WikiLeaks dox show, it wasn't "barrel bombs" or "chemical warfare against his own people" that made the elites hungry to overthrow the government there, it was the 2009 decision by Syria not to allow an oil pipeline through from Qatar to Turkey, whereupon the CIA was directed to start funding jihadists and regime change.

    Alan says: September 15, 2016 at 7:57 pm
    @ xrdsmom…..nice try….but I'm not buying it. You said Austin, and then tried to say these aren't elites. LOL.

    Drive through the back counties of Kentucky and then report back to me that everything is fine.

    cecelia says: September 15, 2016 at 8:23 pm
    Hillary is not as corrupt as some think nor is Trump likely to be able to enact much of his agenda(most of which he has no commitment to – it is all a performance). So I do not see either as end times candidates.

    However – a civilization must assure certain things – order, cohesion, safety from invasion and occupation. It also must assure that the resources we secure from the earth are available – good soil, clean water, sustainable management of energy sources etc. This is where our civilization is failing – if you doubt this – spend a moment looking up soil erosion on Google. Or dead zones Mississippi and Nile deltas. Depletion of fish stocks. Loss of arable land and potable water all over the planet. Is this calamitous failure a function of liberalism or capitalism run amok? Perhaps the two go hand in hand?

    I'd note that Popes going back to Leo XIII have written on the destructive effects of capitalism or rather the unmitigated pursuit of wealth. Both Benedict and Francis have eloquently expressed the need for a spiritual conversion to solve the world's problems. A conversion which recognizes our solidarity with one another as well as our obligation to the health of Creation. I rather doubt we will find the impetus for this conversion among our politicians.

    But there are certainly all over the earth groups of people who have experienced this conversion and are seeking to build civilizations which are just and sustainable. Rod has written about some – his friends in Italy as an example.

    Hope is God's glory revealed in ourselves.

    Lord Karth says: September 15, 2016 at 10:55 pm
    The problem is not civilization-level, Mr. Dreher. The problem is species -level. Humanity as a whole is discovering that it cannot handle too high a level of technology without losing its ability to get feedback from its environment. Without that feedback, its elite classes drift off into literal insanity. The rest of the society soon follows.

    The trick is going to be recovering our connection with the Realities of existence without bringing technological civilization down or re-engineering Humanity into something we would not recognize.

    Color me less than optimistic about our prospects.

    Your servant,

    Lord Karth

    Kit Stolz says: September 16, 2016 at 3:30 am
    The Catholic philosopher writes:

    "I really think there is a pervasive, but unarticulated sense that liberalism is exhausted, that we are at the mercy of systematic forces, difficult to name, which can be manipulated by the powerful but not governed by them, and that our problems are unsolvable. The reasons for this anxiety are manifold and cannot be reduced to politics or economics…"

    Agree! For once. For reasons more civil than spiritual, but never mind. James Parker in The Atlantic comes to a similar conclusion from a very different starting place (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/donald-trump-sex-pistol/497528/)

    "For Trump to be revealed as a salvational figure, the conditions around him must be dire. Trump_vs_deep_state-like fascism, like a certain kind of smash-it-up punk rock-begins in apprehensions of apocalypse."

    Eric Mader says: September 16, 2016 at 3:55 am
    Hanky's diagnosis is brilliant. Yes, thanks for posting, Rod.

    One of our fundamental problems, along with the conceptual horizons imposed by liberalism, is the obsolete language of "left" and "right" that we continue to apply when weighing our options. This too is part of why we can't construct a politics of hope, and in my reading it explains the decline of the left into identity politics (our Democratic Party is not any more "the left" in any meaningful way) and of the right into "movement conservatism" or Trumpian nationalism.

    Classical [neo]liberalism presents itself not as a tentative theory of how society might be organized but as a theory of nature. It claims to lay out the forces of nature and to make these a model for social order. Thus free-market fundamentalism, letting the market function "as nature intended". It's an absurd position when applied dogmatically, and no more "natural" than other economic arrangements humans might come up with.

    The only truly rock solid aspect of classical liberalism in my mind is its theory of individual dignity, the permanent and nonnegotiable value of each individual in essence and before the law. The left has taken this and run with it and turned it into a divination of individual desire and self-definition, which is something different. The capitalist right has taken it and turned it into a theory of individual responsibility for one's economic fate, which is helpful in ways, but not decisive or even fully explanatory as to why people end up where they are. And a lot of people are not in a good place thanks to the free trade enthusiasts who believe what they're up to somehow reflects the eternal forces of nature.

    Further, as I suggest, our two camps "left" and "right" are no longer distinctly left and right in any traditional sense. The market forces and self-marketing that lead to the fetishization of identity by the left are the same market forces championed by the capitalist right. In America today, both left and right are merely different bourgeois cults of Self.

    It should be no surprise that the inalienable dignity of the individual, that rock solid core of liberal thinking, grew directly from the Christian soil of Paul's assertion of the equality of all–men, women, Greek, Jew, freed, slave–in Christ. (Galatians 3:28) The world's current thinking on "human rights" is merely a universalized version of Paul's thought, hatched in a Christian Europe by philosophes who didn't recognize just how Christian they were.

    After all the utopian dusts settle, whether the dust of Adam Smith or the dust of PC Non-Discrimination, we must see that the one thing holding us together is this recognition that the political order must respect human rights. The core issue at present is thus that we legislate in ways that reflect a realistic understanding of these rights. As for "movement conservatism" or PC progressivism, they each represent pipe dreams that don't address the economic or legal challenges in coherent ways, and they each sacrifice true rights at one altar or another.

    The obsolete language of "left" and "right" keeps us unwilling to grapple with the real economic and legal challenges, if only because we're too busy cheerleading either one version of the capitalist cult or the other.

    I'm looking forward to The Benedict Option mainly as providing some answers as to how the remnant of faithful Christians in this mayhem might both hold their faith intact while perhaps simultaneously developing less utopian modes of thinking about community. The neoliberal order may very well be shaping up to be for us something like the pagan Roman Empire was to the early church. We finally have to face that, politically speaking, we are in the world but not of it.

    JonF says: September 16, 2016 at 6:09 am
    Re: Clinton will deliver amnesty to 40 million illegals.

    Will she be inviting them in from parallel universes? Because we do not have 40 million illegals. The number is closer to eleven million.

    Also the president can't do this on his/her own. Congress has to act. The House will remain GOP. The Senate may too, or will flip back to GOP after 2018. As I mentioned Clinton's hands will be tied as much as Obama's have been since 2010. That includes Supreme Court appointments. Only the most boring of moderates will get through– sure, they won't overturn Roe or Oberfell, but they won't rubber stamp much new either.

    Elijah says: September 16, 2016 at 7:38 am
    "Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors) has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the world ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American conservatives."

    [NFR: Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict said the same thing. - RD]"

    It doesn't sit well for two reasons: (a) we have yet to hear a cogent description of what "bridled" capitalism is/looks like and (b) capitalism has its faults, but it has raised far more boats than it has swamped.

    Until we hear an admission of (b) and an explanation of (a), their statements will continue to fall on deaf ears. Particularly from Pope Francis, whose grip on economic ideas seems tenuous at best.

    [Sep 17, 2016] Unlocking the Election The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... If that record is perceived as unacceptable, then again it doesn't much matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent or incumbent party loses. ..."
    "... The Clinton email thing does not begin to rise to the level of Watergate or the Monica Lewinsky affair, except perhaps in the fever swamps of Fox News. ..."
    "... My guess is that ultimately the two third parties fielding candidates this election will not trigger this key; they are what Lichtman calls "perennial third parties" and not really insurgencies led by well-known political figures, which is when the third party key is generally triggered. ..."
    "... Having said all that, I congratulate the author for recognizing and engaging with Lichtman's work. It's a very substantial theory with a great track record that, for reasons I don't fully understand, is generally overlooked by journalists who write about such things. ..."
    "... Right now, polling composite scores put Hillary Clinton at +5 or more over Trump in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Add in the safely blue states and her floor is 272 electoral votes, even assuming she underperforms relative to her polling by 5 points across the board. Hillary wins even on a bad night. ..."
    "... We elected Obama in large part to repudiate Bush, who was a total disaster. Now, if your hypothesis holds, we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute. In 4 or 8 years, which loser will the Democrats trot out to repudiate Trump, who is virtually guaranteed to be a total disaster? Most sane Americans just want this roller coaster to be over. ..."
    "... Trump has the momentum right now, as Hillary Clinton stumbles. ..."
    "... The overall national numbers show a slight and late recovery from recession. However, the average and median numbers conceal a split, in which a majority of voters did not participate in the recovery, especially in key swing states. ..."
    "... Trump is actively drawing support from this sense of failure to recover, so it is not just theoretical. I'd score the recovery against the incumbent too, because key voting segments would. ..."
    "... We are seeing a good example of the preference cascade. For well over a year Clinton has been capped at 45%, usually in the low 40's. As it becomes more respectable to vote for Trump, the more people are willing to move from the undecided/third party column to the Trump column. ..."
    "... If I recall correctly, Lichtman also scores both the foreign policy/military success and failure keys differently. ISIS is a foreign policy failure, but not on the public perception of Pearl Harbor, the fall of Vietnam, or the Iran hostage crisis. And the Iran deal is a foreign policy success, but not on the level of, say, winning WWII. ..."
    "... Polls, by themselves, don't predict much, and certainly not long-term – although I agree that Clinton remains the likely winner this year. ..."
    "... Obama (I did not vote for him in '08 or '12) has succeeded and some areas, and failed in others – such is the nature of the job. ..."
    "... As a student of history, I suspect his presidency will be graded somewhere between B- and C+; slightly above average. Whereas, by your assessment, his predecessor was "can't miss" disasters (D- leaning toward F). ..."
    "... we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute ..."
    "... At the end of the day, though, Lichtman's model, like most models of voting behavior, is not intended so much as a predictive system as an attempt to explain how voters make decisions. The Lichtman theory does a remarkable job of modeling such decision-making, and demonstrates clearly his hypothesis that presidential elections are mostly referenda on the performance of the incumbent party. That doesn't mean it will always be so, but he makes a compelling case that it's been that way since the Civil War. ..."
    "... Obama's economy isn't gonna help Hillary Clinton. Government data show that the economy only grew by 1.2 percent in the second quarter. First quarter growth was also revised down from 1.1 percent to 0.8 percent. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton addressed the sluggish economy in her speech last night, admitting that Americans "feel like the economy just isn't working." Although she cited economic growth under president Obama, she insisted that "none of us can be satisfied with the status quo." ..."
    Sep 17, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    In 1976, Washington insider Averell Harriman famously said of Georgia peanut farmer Jimmy Carter, the one-term governor and presidential aspirant, "He can't be nominated, I don't know him and I don't know anyone who does.'' Within months Jimmy Carter was president. Harriman's predictive folly serves as an allegory of democratic politics. The unthinkable can happen, and when it does it becomes not only thinkable but natural, even commonplace. The many compelling elements of Carter's unusual presidential quest remained shrouded from Harriman's vision because they didn't track with his particular experiences and political perceptions. Call it the Harriman syndrome.

    The Harriman syndrome has been on full display during the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump. He couldn't possibly get the Republican nomination. Too boorish. A political neophyte. No organization. No intellectual depth. A divisive character out of sync with Republicans' true sensibilities. Then he got the nomination, and now those same perceptions are being trotted out to bolster the view that he can't possibly become president. Besides, goes the conventional wisdom, demographic trends are impinging upon the Electoral College in ways that pretty much preclude any Republican from winning the presidency in our time.

    But Trump actually can win, despite his gaffe-prone ways and his poor standing in the polls as the general-election campaign gets under way. I say this based upon my thesis, explored in my latest book ( Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians ), that presidential elections are largely referendums on the incumbent or incumbent party. If the incumbent's record is adjudged by the electorate to be exemplary, it doesn't matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent wins. If that record is perceived as unacceptable, then again it doesn't much matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent or incumbent party loses.

    ... ... ...

    Robert W. Merry is author of books on American history and foreign policy, including Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians .

  • Robert Levine , says: September 15, 2016 at 1:44 am
    Worth noting is that Lichtman himself scores the keys differently than does the author of this post. As the inventor of the system, his analysis deserves considerable weight. In particular, he scores the nomination contest key, the scandal key, and the challenger charisma key as all favorable to Democrats.

    I'm not sure I agree with him about the nomination contest key, but I think that, by the criteria he used in analyzing past elections, he's right about the other two. The Clinton email thing does not begin to rise to the level of Watergate or the Monica Lewinsky affair, except perhaps in the fever swamps of Fox News. As far as charisma, Lichtman identified four 20th-century candidates as charismatic: the two Roosevelts, Kennedy, and Reagan. Trump is not in that league.

    The third-party key is, as the author states, not really possible to call at this point. My guess is that ultimately the two third parties fielding candidates this election will not trigger this key; they are what Lichtman calls "perennial third parties" and not really insurgencies led by well-known political figures, which is when the third party key is generally triggered.

    One other point is worth mentioning. Lichtman's first key, the incumbent mandate key, changed during the development of his theory. It was originally based on whether the incumbent party had received an absolute majority of the popular vote in the previous election (which, in this case, would have favored the Democrats). But, because that led to the system predicting an incorrect outcome in one particular election (I don't remember which one), he changed it to the current comparison of seats won in the previous two mid-terms. I think there's a case to be made that the advanced state of the gerrymandering art may have rendered this key useless; it is now entirely possible for a party to gain seats from one mid-term to the next while actually doing less well in the popular vote. In fact, that's exactly what happened from 2010 to 2014; the percentage of the vote that Republican house members received was lower in 2014 than it was in 2010, even though they gained more seats in 2014. In any case, I don't think that it really favors Trump in the way the author of the OP thinks it does.

    Having said all that, I congratulate the author for recognizing and engaging with Lichtman's work. It's a very substantial theory with a great track record that, for reasons I don't fully understand, is generally overlooked by journalists who write about such things.

    Douglas K. , says: September 15, 2016 at 3:44 am
    I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's the sort of thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort of works because the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.

    What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging the results of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.

    Right now, polling composite scores put Hillary Clinton at +5 or more over Trump in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Add in the safely blue states and her floor is 272 electoral votes, even assuming she underperforms relative to her polling by 5 points across the board. Hillary wins even on a bad night.

    Of course Trump might close some of that gap in the next seven weeks. We'll see.

    Tim , says: September 15, 2016 at 7:31 am
    "If the incumbent's record is adjudged by the electorate to be exemplary, it doesn't matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent wins. If that record is perceived as unacceptable, then again it doesn't much matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent or incumbent party loses."

    That is a compelling hypothesis which I find very plausible. As our two parties drift farther apart and become incapable of giving us any representatives whom we find exemplary, what happens to us? We elected Obama in large part to repudiate Bush, who was a total disaster. Now, if your hypothesis holds, we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute. In 4 or 8 years, which loser will the Democrats trot out to repudiate Trump, who is virtually guaranteed to be a total disaster? Most sane Americans just want this roller coaster to be over.

    Clint , says: September 15, 2016 at 11:29 am
    Trump has the momentum right now, as Hillary Clinton stumbles. Poll: Clinton, Trump tied in four-way race

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/296078-poll-clinton-leads-trump-by-5-nationwide

    Jim the First , says: September 15, 2016 at 11:37 am
    I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's the sort of thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort of works because the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.

    This, in spades. Plus, many of these keys are so subjective (at least prospectively) as to render them meaningless for anything but fun predictive parlor games.

    What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging the results of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.

    Yes and no. Gallup thought this, too, when it predicted Dewey would defeat Truman. Nate Silver was absolutely positive that Trump could never ever ever win the Republican nomination, until he did.

    My analysis is that under the old, pre-Big Data-driven elections (i.e. micro-targeting your likely voters, registering them if they are unregistered, and stopping at nothing (probably not even the election laws) in getting them to the polls), Trump would win rather handily, but under the new Big Data-driven campaigns that the initial Obama campaign was the first to master, Clinton is a huge favorite, baggage and all. Organization and ground game trumps a lot – not everything, but a lot.

    Mark Thomason , says: September 15, 2016 at 1:15 pm
    The overall national numbers show a slight and late recovery from recession. However, the average and median numbers conceal a split, in which a majority of voters did not participate in the recovery, especially in key swing states.

    Trump is actively drawing support from this sense of failure to recover, so it is not just theoretical. I'd score the recovery against the incumbent too, because key voting segments would.

    The Zman , says: September 15, 2016 at 1:35 pm
    Averaging polls is the sort of thing people not good at math like to say, believing it makes them sound good at math.

    We are seeing a good example of the preference cascade. For well over a year Clinton has been capped at 45%, usually in the low 40's. As it becomes more respectable to vote for Trump, the more people are willing to move from the undecided/third party column to the Trump column.

    Robert Levine , says: September 15, 2016 at 2:00 pm
    If I recall correctly, Lichtman also scores both the foreign policy/military success and failure keys differently. ISIS is a foreign policy failure, but not on the public perception of Pearl Harbor, the fall of Vietnam, or the Iran hostage crisis. And the Iran deal is a foreign policy success, but not on the level of, say, winning WWII.

    I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's the sort of thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort of works because the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.

    What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging the results of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.

    Lichtman has been able to predict successfully the popular-vote winner for the last 7 or 8 elections, in many cases many months in advance – which, by standards of electoral prediction models, is pretty remarkable. Polls, by themselves, don't predict much, and certainly not long-term – although I agree that Clinton remains the likely winner this year.

    Joe the Plutocrat , says: September 15, 2016 at 2:08 pm
    @Tim, How has/is Obama "becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute."? The consensus might be on the Foreign Policy side of the equation, but truthfully, he's spent 8 years cleaning up the mess handed him by the "total disaster" who preceded him. If you want the rollercoaster to be over, get off the rollercoaster. That is to say, most of the excitement offered by the rollercoaster lies in its design (partisan/tribal/echo chamber nonsense).

    See: Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, emails, Parkinson's, etc., etc. be legitimate concerns for a John Q. Public, the hyperbolic birther indignation does a disservice to critical thinking, rational Americans. Make no mistake, the GOP candidate has literally made a career (TV/Pro Wrestling) trading in this currency, but in the end, such hyperbole is a distraction. Obama (I did not vote for him in '08 or '12) has succeeded and some areas, and failed in others – such is the nature of the job.

    As a student of history, I suspect his presidency will be graded somewhere between B- and C+; slightly above average. Whereas, by your assessment, his predecessor was "can't miss" disasters (D- leaning toward F).

    JonF , says: September 15, 2016 at 2:14 pm
    Re: we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute

    Huh? Have you seen any of the more recent news on the economy? Or for that matter Obama's soaring approval ratings?

    Clint , says: September 15, 2016 at 3:14 pm
    Have you seen any of the more recent news on the economy?

    The Harvard Business School Report released today. Report: Government inaction is hampering economic growth: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-government-inaction-is-hampering-economic-growth/

    Derek , says: September 15, 2016 at 4:52 pm
    I also fail to see how President Obama, a veritable reincarnation of Bill Clinton, but without the scandals, is "becoming more of a disaster each passing minute." We have less (visible) war, we have more jobs, and we have better pay. Yes, the small segment of the population that was paying peanuts for narrowly-defined healthcare 'plans' is paying more now for healthcare than they were 6 years ago, but a large segment now has healthcare that previously did not. This will take decades to unfold but the savings will be immense over the long run. Our international prestige is as high or higher than it was at its peak in 2002 (before Bush started the stupider of his two wars).

    It's barely an exaggeration to say that, outside of the echo chamber, none of partisan concerns of the right wing are shared by the electorate at large. The plight of the underclass (of any color) is not being addressed regardless of which candidate you choose in this election. Immigration is a red herring issue, designed to hide the fact that your boss hasn't given you a raise in 20 years.

    Archon , says: September 15, 2016 at 7:45 pm
    I'm sure it makes Obama haters and Republican partisans feel good to think that Obama's Presidency is the cause for Hillary Clinton's loss (if she does indeed lose). Economic indicators along with Presidential approval ratings however suggest that if Hillary does lose it will be in spite of the electorates feelings on Obama not because of it.
    Robert Levine , says: September 15, 2016 at 11:53 pm
    many of these keys are so subjective (at least prospectively) as to render them meaningless for anything but fun predictive parlor games.

    That is the usual objection to Lichtman's theory. But his work gives pretty clear examples of what he considers the kind of events that drive his predictors. For example, "foreign policy/military success" looks like winning WWII and not like the Iran nuclear deal; "foreign policy/military failure" looks like Pearl Harbor and not ISIS' (temporary) success in gaining territory. "Scandal" looks like Watergate, and not like Clinton's email (or, interestingly, Iran/Contra, if memory serves). "Social unrest" looks like the summer of 1968, and not like the shootings in Orlando, Dallas, and San Bernadino.

    In short, events that drive his predictors are things that are the main (or even sole) subject of national conversation for weeks. Deciding what events are such drivers is not completely objective, perhaps, but it's also not hard to figure out what the author of the system would consider a given event. A system like his only works if one scores things as honestly as possible, and not as one might wish them to be. Then it can work very well.

    At the end of the day, though, Lichtman's model, like most models of voting behavior, is not intended so much as a predictive system as an attempt to explain how voters make decisions. The Lichtman theory does a remarkable job of modeling such decision-making, and demonstrates clearly his hypothesis that presidential elections are mostly referenda on the performance of the incumbent party. That doesn't mean it will always be so, but he makes a compelling case that it's been that way since the Civil War.

    John Blade Wiederspan , says: September 16, 2016 at 12:18 am
    With the chance that Donald will be President, and his followers rejecting outright the Washington establishment and corporate media as enemies; if he does come to power, who are We, the People, supposed to respect and trust? How can you be loyal to, and obey the laws of, a country governed by "Washington insiders"? How can you trust the liberal, coastal, educated, elite media reporting government malfeasance? In who or what should we place our trust? Dark days ahead, dark days.
    Mac61 , says: September 16, 2016 at 9:50 am
    The hope must be in a reinvigorated Republican Party in 2018 and 2020. As Trump again raises his birther conspiracy, the strongman will give voters plenty of reasons to reject his incoherent campaign. Total waste, when 2016 should have firmly been in Republican hands. I understand why he demolished the Republican field and realigned the issues that galvanize Republican voters, but in the end his pathological narcissism will be his downfall. If he wins, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party. They will control government from 2018 to the end of our lives.
    Clint , says: September 16, 2016 at 3:33 pm
    Obama's economy isn't gonna help Hillary Clinton. Government data show that the economy only grew by 1.2 percent in the second quarter. First quarter growth was also revised down from 1.1 percent to 0.8 percent.

    Hillary Clinton addressed the sluggish economy in her speech last night, admitting that Americans "feel like the economy just isn't working." Although she cited economic growth under president Obama, she insisted that "none of us can be satisfied with the status quo."

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/29/sluggish-u-s-economy-grows-1-2-percent-second-quarter/

  • [Sep 16, 2016] A large number of donors after their hefty donations received cushy ambassadorships?

    Notable quotes:
    "... What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships? ..."
    "... You gotta remember, [neo]liberals love to justify bad behavior, by pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior. ..."
    "... Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is? ..."
    "... So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in order to get favors from the government? Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships then? ..."
    "... The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Since any damning evidence in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't make any difference. ..."
    "... Under Obama's administration political considerations trump the law every time. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | news.slashdot.org

    For the past several months, the hacker who calls himself "Guccifer 2.0" has been releasing documents about the Democratic National Committee. Today, he has released a new hoard of documents. Politico reports: The hacker persona Guccifer 2.0 has released a new trove of documents that allegedly reveal more information about the Democratic National Committee's finances and personal information on Democratic donors, as well as details about the DNC's network infrastructure. The cache also includes purported memos on tech initiatives from Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine's time as governor of Virginia, and some years-old missives on redistricting efforts and DNC donor outreach strategy. Most notable among Tuesday's documents may be the detailed spreadsheets allegedly about DNC fundraising efforts, including lists of DNC donors with names, addresses, emails, phone numbers and other sensitive details. Tuesday's documents regarding the DNC's information technology setup include several reports from 2010 purporting to show that the committee's network passed multiple security scans.

    In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents. It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security experts attending [a London cybersecurity conference].

    meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:09AM (#52885111) Journal

    Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Informative)

    What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships?

    Iconoc ( 2646179 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:12AM (#52885127)

    What, this? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... [zerohedge.com]

    Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:40AM (#52885673) Journal

    You gotta remember, [neo]liberals love to justify bad behavior, by pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior.

    It is as if they are four year olds getting in trouble, and saying "but Billy's Mom lets him drink beer/smoke dope". The problem is, nobody calls it "childish" behavior (which it is), because that is insulting to children.

    Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @04:28PM (#52888579) Journal

    Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Insightful)

    Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is?

    pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) writes: on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @11:11AM ( #52885921 )

    Re:Summary missing important piece... ( Score:4 , Informative)

    Ambassadorships to friendly countries, the UK in particular, have always been given as rewards to political friends. You could count the number of people who became UK ambassador on merit on one hand which had been run through a wood chipper.

    The reason you didn't know about this before is because it never became an issue. Tuttle made a bit of a kerfuffle a decade ago, but it takes a lot to start a diplomatic incident with a close ally and being ambassador to the UK or France or Australia really requires no great skill as a peacemaker. If you were being particularly charitable, you could even say that fundraisers and diplomats have a lot in common.

    Everyone has plenty of dirty laundry, including you and me. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is an excellent attitude in criminal court, but the attitude 'innocent until doxxed' skews our perceptions and gives power to doxxers. Honestly I'm a bit surprised these leaks haven't found more than 'omg, politics at political party!'

    Remember, parties are not obligated to be democratic or unbiased. Legally and constitutionally there's only one vote, the general election in November. Anyone* can be nominated as a candidate for that election, and if both parties decided to nominate whomever they pleased they might be breaking their own rules but not the law. Everything up to and including the conventions is just meant to give supporters a feel of involvement and to remove unpopular candidates without invoking the wrath of their supporters. But the parties want to win, and if one candidate seems more 'electable' you can bet the party will give then a leg up on the rest.

    * you know what I mean [wikipedia.org]

    meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @11:28AM (#52886055) Journal

    So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in order to get favors from the government? Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships then?

    meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @02:02PM (#52887279) Journal

    There's been plenty of interesting stuff in previous releases of Hillary's particular emails. I would say the most amazing was acknowledgment that the reason we backed the moderate beheaders in Syria against Assad was so the Israelis would feel better about a nuclear Iran without a stable Syria as a base of operations for Hezbollah. The 400,000 war dead, the creation of ISIS, the blowback attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, Nice, Orlando, and the refugee crisis that threatens to destabilize all of western Europe...no problem for Hillary and her supporters. It's unreal. But here we are.

    Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:38AM (#52885273)

    The last set showed laws broken by DNC (Score:5, Informative)

    The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Since any damning evidence in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't make any difference.

    Now, if a similar trove of documents from the RNC was dumped, you can bet the DOJ would be all over it. Under Obama's administration political considerations trump the law every time.

    [Sep 15, 2016] Trumps Taco Truck Fear Campaign Diverts Attention From the Real Issues

    Notable quotes:
    "... Mexican workers were in rural areas over thirty years ago doing the farm labor that was formerly done by blacks. Often they lived in barracks together on the farms they worked. The ownership class of those hose lily white conservatives were the first to use them to displace native born workers and drive down wages. This was being done in California all the way back to 1910. ..."
    "... Part time immigrants displace resident workers at wages no family could survive on in the US. These workers either stay in barracks on the farm or they crowd into cheap rental dwellings meant for a fraction of the number of occupants that they group in. ..."
    "... As to H1B types, meme chose as off-shoring; as well as a missed opportunity to increase the skills of native-borns. http://angrybearblog.com/2006/12/disappearing-americans-and-illegal.html ..."
    "... "Caesar Chavez understood the effects the effects of illegal immigation". That he did. Governor Pete Wilson promoted this to keep wages down for this agribusiness buddies. But then Wilson flip flopped in a draconian way with Prop 197. Every Republican in California came to realize this destroyed their chances with not only the Hispanic vote but also the votes are non-racist Californians. ..."
    "... I grew up in a beautiful beach town called San Juan Capistrano. That's a Spanish name, and there was a Spanish mission where the swallows fly back to. Los Angeles, San Francisco. Spanish names. In my school days I had many Mexican American friends. At university I had a Guatamalan and then a Chinese American room mate. You heard the term wetback sometimes, but to me they were just friends, and Americans. You spend 5 minutes with em and you can't think anything else. We are all, save Native Americans, immigrants. ..."
    "... Attacking immigrants is not new. But America has managed to be above that for the most part. ..."
    "... "If immigration isn't the problem, then what is? The real problems faced by workers are globalization, technological change, and lack of bargaining power in wage negotiations, problems for which Donald Trump has no effective solutions. Reducing international trade through tariffs and the trade wars that come with them will make us worse off in the long-run – we will end up with fewer jobs, not more, and there's no reason to think the average job will be any better. Trump has nothing to offer in the way of providing more support for workers who lose their jobs due to the adoption of digital, robotic, and other technology or to help workers gain a stronger hand when wages are negotiated." ..."
    "... I disagree. The heart of the matter is that so long as economists and corporate enablers ensure that protecting against globalisation is off the table, the problems will never be solved. Free trade is their snake oil. And if your "free trade" partner happens to be an autocracy, which will use the $Trillions they siphon out of you to build up their military, use that military to alter the lines on the map, intimidate their neighbors, and ultimately maybe even destroy you, well, those events never show up in their glorious equations, so they must not exist. ..."
    "... The paradigm is that the white working class has not been able to form a majority by itself since the pre-Civil War Jacksonian era. They must either make a coalition with other minorities (the New Deal) or with Wall Street and corporate power (the GOP's Southern Strategy). In the 1970s with racial quotas and increasing taxation they felt abandoned by the Democrats, and now that they realize that the GOP corporate paradise is killing them, they are adrift. They once again can either make an alliance with the minorities who live in the next poorer neighborhood who they fear will rob them of their wallets, or with Wall Street who will rob them of everything they own over a much longer period of time, and live in fabulous palaces far far away. ..."
    Sep 15, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    September 9, 2016 I have a new column:
    Trump's Taco Truck Fear Campaign Diverts Attention From the Real Issues : Donald Trump would like you to believe that immigration is largely responsible for the difficult economic conditions the working class has experienced in recent decades. But immigration is not the problem. The real culprits are globalization, technological change, and labor's dwindling bargaining power in wage negotiations.
    Let's start with immigration. ...
    A Boy Named Sue said in reply to A Boy Named Sue... , Friday, September 09, 2016 at 09:28 PM
    Some Tom Petty.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G17GOzyD2Y

    A Boy Named Sue said in reply to A Boy Named Sue... , Friday, September 09, 2016 at 10:18 PM
    Some Boss.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uAr5JRPc3g

    I am not asking for the preservation, jobs, but

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to A Boy Named Sue... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:16 AM
    Mexican workers were in rural areas over thirty years ago doing the farm labor that was formerly done by blacks. Often they lived in barracks together on the farms they worked. The ownership class of those hose lily white conservatives were the first to use them to displace native born workers and drive down wages. This was being done in California all the way back to 1910.

    http://monthlyreview.org/product/lettuce_wars/

    Lettuce Wars: Ten Years of Work and Struggle in the Fields of California

    In 1971, Bruce Neuburger-young, out of work, and radicalized by the 60s counterculture in Berkeley-took a job as a farmworker on a whim. He could have hardly anticipated that he would spend the next decade laboring up and down the agricultural valleys of California, alongside the anonymous and largely immigrant workforce that feeds the nation. This account of his journey begins at a remarkable moment, after the birth of the United Farm Workers union and the ensuing uptick in worker militancy. As a participant in organizing efforts, strikes, and boycotts, Neuburger saw first-hand the struggles of farmworkers for better wages and working conditions, and the lengths the growers would go to suppress worker unity...

    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:04 AM
    Mexican migrants were in Ohio 60+ years ago, making the vegetable circuit. (The biggest Campbells Soup plant is in Napoleon Ohio. The region has some of the best top soil on the planet). Some of them settled and are on the third generation. They even hang out with the white working class, who are their neighbors and co-workers. Some of them even marry Germans and Swedes.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Tom aka Rusty... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:34 AM
    Yeah, guest workers go way back at least 100 years in the US. And sure many stayed and, in that case, I am totally fine with actual immigration when they become citizens and pay taxes and buy or rent homes here as permanent residents. Green card workers and illegals are doing a lot of the farm work in VA on the Northern Neck and Eastern Shore and have been for thirty years. Part time immigrants displace resident workers at wages no family could survive on in the US. These workers either stay in barracks on the farm or they crowd into cheap rental dwellings meant for a fraction of the number of occupants that they group in.
    kthomas -> Tom aka Rusty... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:18 PM
    My Grandmother loved Mexico and all her people. She used to say that in every American there is a Mexican trying to get out.
    ken melvin -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:49 AM
    I understand the effect of illegal immigration, Caesar Chavez understood the effects the effects of illegal immigation, ...., in fact almost all working class Americans understand the effects of illegal immigration.

    As to H1B types, meme chose as off-shoring; as well as a missed opportunity to increase the skills of native-borns. http://angrybearblog.com/2006/12/disappearing-americans-and-illegal.html

    pgl -> ken melvin... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:53 PM
    "Caesar Chavez understood the effects the effects of illegal immigation". That he did. Governor Pete Wilson promoted this to keep wages down for this agribusiness buddies. But then Wilson flip flopped in a draconian way with Prop 197. Every Republican in California came to realize this destroyed their chances with not only the Hispanic vote but also the votes are non-racist Californians.

    Mark Thoma is suggesting a humane alternative to Wilson's two extremes.

    reason -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 12:44 AM
    If there was a basic income with a substantial residency requirement for immigrants - this would be a non-issue, since qualified residents could live better than immigrants on the same wages.
    David : , Friday, September 09, 2016 at 09:33 PM
    I grew up in a beautiful beach town called San Juan Capistrano. That's a Spanish name, and there was a Spanish mission where the swallows fly back to. Los Angeles, San Francisco. Spanish names. In my school days I had many Mexican American friends. At university I had a Guatamalan and then a Chinese American room mate. You heard the term wetback sometimes, but to me they were just friends, and Americans. You spend 5 minutes with em and you can't think anything else. We are all, save Native Americans, immigrants.

    I remember those old World War 2 movies where the squad is made up of diverse immigrants. You got the Italian, the Jew, the Irsh guy, etc. And they formed a team. E pluribus unim. Attacking immigrants is not new. But America has managed to be above that for the most part. E

    A Boy Named Sue said in reply to David... , Friday, September 09, 2016 at 10:12 PM
    "Attacking immigrants is not new. But America has managed to be above that for the most"

    Conservatives have been attacking immigrants for years. They hated JFK and Catholics. Being a Catholic Jew is not new to me, but Cons hated Catholics and then they used us Jews for their political gains. It never worked on us. Most Jews are too intelligent for conservatism. Take care.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uAr5JRPc3g

    pgl -> David... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:31 AM
    San Juan Capistrano is indeed an incredible town.
    pgl : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:30 AM
    Our excellent host gets to the heart of the matter:

    "If immigration isn't the problem, then what is? The real problems faced by workers are globalization, technological change, and lack of bargaining power in wage negotiations, problems for which Donald Trump has no effective solutions. Reducing international trade through tariffs and the trade wars that come with them will make us worse off in the long-run – we will end up with fewer jobs, not more, and there's no reason to think the average job will be any better. Trump has nothing to offer in the way of providing more support for workers who lose their jobs due to the adoption of digital, robotic, and other technology or to help workers gain a stronger hand when wages are negotiated."

    Trump has nothing to offer except hate. Besides - who could object to more tacos. Oh wait - I need to do a long run before eating Mexican food tonight.

    New Deal democrat said in reply to pgl... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:05 AM
    I disagree. The heart of the matter is that so long as economists and corporate enablers ensure that protecting against globalisation is off the table, the problems will never be solved. Free trade is their snake oil. And if your "free trade" partner happens to be an autocracy, which will use the $Trillions they siphon out of you to build up their military, use that military to alter the lines on the map, intimidate their neighbors, and ultimately maybe even destroy you, well, those events never show up in their glorious equations, so they must not exist.

    The paradigm is that the white working class has not been able to form a majority by itself since the pre-Civil War Jacksonian era. They must either make a coalition with other minorities (the New Deal) or with Wall Street and corporate power (the GOP's Southern Strategy). In the 1970s with racial quotas and increasing taxation they felt abandoned by the Democrats, and now that they realize that the GOP corporate paradise is killing them, they are adrift. They once again can either make an alliance with the minorities who live in the next poorer neighborhood who they fear will rob them of their wallets, or with Wall Street who will rob them of everything they own over a much longer period of time, and live in fabulous palaces far far away.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:21 AM
    Excellent. Welcome to the revolution.
    anne -> New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:22 AM
    And if your "free trade" partner happens to be an autocracy, which will use the $Trillions they siphon out of you to build up their military, use that military to alter the lines on the map, intimidate their neighbors, and ultimately maybe even destroy you, well, those events never show up in their glorious equations, so they must not exist....

    [ Perfectly paraphrased from Dr. Strangelove. We are being siphoned, OMG. ]

    anne -> anne... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:49 AM
    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/washington-post-presents-an-overly-simplistic-view-of-trade

    September 10, 2016

    Washington Post Presents an Overly Simplistic View of Trade

    It is unfortunate that it now acceptable in polite circles to connect a view with Donald Trump and then dismiss it. The result is that many fallacious arguments can now be accepted without being seriously questioned. (Hey folks, I hear Donald Trump believes in evolution.)

    The Post plays this game * in noting that the U.S. trade deficit with Germany is now larger than its deficit with Mexico, putting Germany second only to China. It then asks why people aren't upset about the trade deficit with Germany.

    It partly answers this story itself. Germany's huge trade surplus stems in large part from the fact that it is in the euro zone. The euro might be properly valued against the dollar, but because Germany is the most competitive country in the euro zone, it effectively has an under-valued currency relative to the dollar.

    The answer to this problem would be to get Germany to have more inflationary policies to allow other countries to regain competitiveness -- just as the other euro zone countries were generous enough to run inflationary policies in the first half of the last decade to allow Germany to regain competitiveness. However, the Germans refuse to return this favor because their great great great great grandparents lived through the hyper-inflation in Weimar Germany. (Yes, they say this.)

    Anyhow, this issue has actually gotten considerable attention from economists and other policy types. Unfortunately it is very difficult to force a country in the euro zone -- especially the largest country -- to run more expansionary countries. As a result, Germany is forcing depression conditions on the countries of southern Europe and running a large trade surplus with the United States.

    The other part of the difference between Germany and China and Mexico is that Germany is a rich country, while China and Mexico are developing countries. Folks that took intro econ courses know that rich countries are expected to run trade surpluses.

    The story is that rich countries are slow growing with a large amount of capital. By contrast, developing countries are supposed to fast growing (okay, that doesn't apply to post-NAFTA Mexico), with relatively little capital. Capital then flows from where it is relatively plentiful and getting a low return to developing countries where it is scarce and can get a high return.

    The outflow of capital from rich countries implies a trade surplus with developing countries. Developing countries are in turn supposed to be borrowing capital to finance trade deficits. These trade deficits allow them to build up their capital stocks even as they maintain the consumption standards of their populations.

    In the case of the large trade surpluses run by China and other developing countries, we are seeing the opposite of the textbook story. We are seeing fast growing developing countries with outflows of capital. This largely because they have had a policy of deliberately depressing the value of their currencies by buying up large amounts of foreign reserves (mostly dollars.)

    So the economics textbooks explain clearly why we should see the trade deficits that the U.S. runs with China and Mexico as being different than the one it runs with Germany. And that happens to be true regardless of what Donald Trump may or may not say.

    By the way, this piece also asserts that "Germany on average has lower wages than Belgium or Ireland." This is not true according to our friends at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/09/u-s-politicians-love-to-attack-china-and-mexico-for-stealing-jobs-germany-could-be-next/

    -- Dean Baker

    ilsm -> New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:02 AM
    The myth of the "white working class", even before undocumented immigration it was fairy tale.

    On the military build up the only country doing it is US.

    EMichael -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:40 AM
    Wrong.

    China is building its military at a huge rate. Double digit growth per yer over almost 20 years. They are at $150 billion a year(if you believe their figures).

    Maybe someone can apply PPP to that number?

    ilsm -> EMichael... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:06 AM
    If you believe CIA figures it's $150B per year!

    You have a point with China at $150B a year going to real engineering and not inept Lockheed you need to worry. Those PLA re-education camps might make you another McCain.

    US' Pentagon welfare trough: $500B "core" per year even with the sequestration.

    Paying for DoD part of drones delivering collateral damage justified by its military utility*: $80B in FY 16 (was $150B in FY 12).

    CIA contracted drones and contractor (See the guys killed in Benghazi) run wars we can know nothing about $XXB a year.

    *If Germany had won WW II Bomber Harris would have been hanged.

    ilsm -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:11 AM
    Why you need to worry about what potential adversaries do:

    F-35 at $1500B "through life" cost is 10 years of PRC military budgets spent over 30.........

    http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2016/f-35-may-never-be-ready-for-combat.html

    US has spent itself to disarmament in its welfare trough.

    USMC and USAF declaration of combat ready is for an recondite definition of combat.

    EMichael -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:11 PM
    No.

    Those are chinese numbers.

    Now, figure out how much their labor costs are versus out labor costs.

    They are arming, and they are going after gas and oil they do not have.

    Ya' think they built that island cause they wanted the fish?

    I understand the hatred of US foreign policy.

    Time to grow up and realize that the Russians and the Chinese are at least as bad as we are.

    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:56 AM
    Globalization was designed, promoted and sold by economists, so it cannot possibly be a problem, right?
    pgl -> Tom aka Rusty... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 08:33 AM
    Rusty - your usual confusion. Economists only advise. Lawyers make these decisions. And most lawyers either do not listen to economists or if they do they get really confused. But will a lawyer ever admit they are confused or not listening?
    mulp -> New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 02:39 PM
    I don't see your call to take America back to the 60s and tube radios and TVs because they are cheaper than semiconductor manufacturing because all the tube electronic factories already exist.

    Nor do I see you extolling the virtue of $8 gasoline and heating oil thanks to the total ban on fossil fuel imports.

    I'd love someone to ask Trump if he would ban imports of oil and iPhones and Samsung electronics in his first 100 days as president.

    If he says yes and doesn't lose popularity, I'll make sure to buy all the electronics I'll want for a few years. I've already sworn off gasoline.

    cm -> mulp ... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 09:52 AM
    Tube radios had great sound but they weren't portable, not only due to size but also power consumption.
    Pinkybum -> New Deal democrat... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:44 PM
    "The paradigm is that the white working class has not been able to form a majority by itself since the pre-Civil War Jacksonian era. "

    Who is peddling this false paradigm?

    Paine -> pgl... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:24 AM
    "Reducing international trade through tariffs and the trade wars that come with them will make us worse off in the long-run "

    That requires certain assumptions about macro policy

    Assumptions that may be likely but are not certain

    Recall the US is huge diverse in resources
    and defines the technical frontier

    An America closed to most trade could be its own world
    Not my recommendation of course
    But this either or is both simplistic and mis leading

    Paine -> Paine ... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:37 AM
    Surely fuller then full employment
    and a largest possible share of net income
    going to primary producers isn't precluded by external trade restrictions

    Economies of scale ?
    Adequate competition between producing units ?

    North America is plenty big for most optimal "plant sizes "
    And at least three firms for each product

    See Stiglitz on the second best real market firm structure

    Paine -> Paine ... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:37 AM
    We are blessed
    anne -> Paine ... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:57 AM
    See Stiglitz on the second best real market firm structure

    [ Of course, that will take reading through the last 30 years or so of work by Joseph Stiglitz since I am not going to give a reader a clue as to how to find such a reference. No problem though, just start reading. ]

    DrDick -> pgl... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 05:56 AM
    There will be no relief until we "euthanize the rentiers". Raise top marginal rates to confiscatory levels on income over $1 million, treat all income the same, prohibit corporations from deducting executive compensate over $1 million, eliminate all tax breaks for individuals that do not widely apply to those in the bottom half of the income distribution and all corporate tax subsidies.
    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to DrDick... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:06 AM
    That would be a great plan to push companies and jobs overseas.

    A little overkill?

    DrDick -> Tom aka Rusty... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:45 AM
    "A little overkill?"

    Not even close, just a return to the 1950s, when the economy boomed. The idea that the wealthy and large corporations will physically move to countries with more favorable tax regimes, most of which are in the third world, is pure fantasy, which is why most of the super rich live in New York, California, and other high tax states.

    EMichael -> DrDick... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:14 PM
    Dick,

    Love you brother, but thr US had an incredible advantage in the 50s that does not exist any more. to think they are coming back is nonsense.

    DrDick -> EMichael... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 07:56 AM
    I understand the differences, but was merely addressing Rusty's nonsense implying this was somehow outrageous and unprecedented. In addition to the trade advantages the US had, the emergence of new industries in electronics, aviation, and petrochemicals, which all needed a lot of highly skilled workers and paid very well, was vital as well. Nonetheless, the policies I mentioned would go a long way to addressing our current problems, including reducing the incentives to offshore production (contrary to Rusty).
    ken melvin -> DrDick... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:54 AM
    Bill Clinton explains how rentiers cause such as Carrier's move to Mexico:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?308089-1/former-president-clinton-obama-campaign-rally

    ken melvin -> ken melvin... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:36 AM
    Ooops, should have been the one in Pittsburg yesterday:
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?414998-1/former-president-bill-clinton-campaigns-pittsburgh-pennsylvania
    mulp -> DrDick... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 03:00 PM
    You don't understand the point of tax dodges, do you? The tax dodges are rewards for paying workers to build capital assets. But they need high marginal rates to justify paying workers.

    Capital gains needs to return to the hold for five years or more to get the incentive. It isn't really "capital" if not held because it's productive.

    However, if inflation in the price of productive capital that barely retains its value is taxed as income, you punish building productive capital. Asset basis price can be inflation adjusted reasonably well these days thanks to computer technology making detailed calculations simple for humans.

    I'd have loved to pay workers to install solar and batteries to dodge 50-70% marginal tax rates in the 90s. Much better than the best case 30% tax credit for paying workers these days. Of course, given the penalty for paying workers due to low tax rates, I have no high wage income to be taxed at high rates.

    As Milton Friedman pointed out in the 60s and then later in the 80s as I recall, the 50-70-90% tax rates never raised much revenue because the tax dodges rewarded paying worker to do wasteful things, in his opinion, like production too much cheap energy, producing too much innovation which ended up in too many new consumer products the wastefully overpaid workers bought.

    David : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 04:26 AM
    This is an irrelevant aside. Friday was a minor bloodbath for investors inequities and bonds. Thing is, I was like okay, I lost paper money, why.? I could not find a reason the market was tanking other than Fed fears. Now I realize equities markets can behave like crack addicts or lemmings. But 2.45 percent based on Fed fears of a rate hike?

    Usually when the market is down I go to Calculated risk to see what must be some bad data. Friday is a profit taking day. But as a small investor that was a really bad day.

    Also, Los Lobos version of Hotel California via the Big Libowski is essential.

    Dog Days of the DOW said in reply to David... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:49 PM

    Final trading session before the 15th anniversary of 9-11 disaster! Would you guess that lot of folks hedged with ultra-short-ETF earlier in the week? Lot of folks took profits before labour day?
    David -> Dog Days of the DOW... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:03 PM
    A day like that is why there needs to be a micro tax on trades. I get it if people sell based on fundamentals. Everyone hedges, too, that's why you diversify. But the ultimate purpose of investing is to provide companies with the capital to make productive investment.

    A good part of the market is just short term bets. How is that socially useful. And the funny thing, a lot of these guys don't make money for their clients, they just make money on the commission. Like a casino owner. Like the con man running for prez.

    Paine : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 04:27 AM
    Here's the IMFs

    Model
    Read it and rip it

    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp1034.pdf

    Publius : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:29 AM
    Technological change is definitely not an issue. Productivity growth is slower now than in 1945-1973 when we had a large middle class. Cross nationally the arguments that robots are taking jobs doesn't make any sense. If you traveled in both the non-industrial world (Africa, Haiti etc) and East Asia, you will be aware of this. In the non-industrial world formal sector employment is only 10-20% of the labor force; 80% of the pop. is involved in "gig" jobs selling candy on the street etc. In East Asia you have virtually no unemployment, but these are the places with by far the largest deployment of robots, much, much higher than the US. The robots argument is convenient politically, but doesn't make any sense to anyone whose traveled the world or knows anything about economic history.
    ken melvin -> Publius... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:58 AM
    Before, auto plants hired 5,500 @ and produced X vehicles; after, they hired 1,200 @ and produced 1.4 vehicles. You don't get to have your own reality.
    ken melvin -> ken melvin... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:37 AM
    ...1.4X ...
    anne -> Publius... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 12:36 PM
    Technological change is definitely not an issue....

    [ Really important argument:

    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/as-uk-productivity-growth-falls-to-zero-john-harris-at-the-guardian-tells-readers-that-technology-is-making-old-workplace-relations-obsolete

    September 9, 2016

    As UK Productivity Growth Falls to Zero, John Harris at the Guardian Tells Readers that Technology Is Making Old Workplace Relations Obsolete

    -- Dean Baker ]

    ilsm : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:32 AM
    It has become Taco Truck versus Trumpistas are: racist, sexist and deluded.

    The awesome effect of the crooked DNC!

    Is there no reason to trust either "party"?

    EMichael -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 06:38 AM
    It was a lot nicer around here for those couple of days you were on your meds.

    But if you are not going to take them, could you forward them to Peter K.?


    ilsm -> EMichael... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:29 AM
    ad hominem, eh!
    EMichael -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:41 AM
    Not at all.

    Simply observation.

    pgl -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 08:34 AM
    And pray tell - what do you have against tacos?
    ilsm -> pgl... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:13 AM
    I am a tamales person, especially from a roadside in Tx!
    pgl -> ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:56 PM
    I bet that tamales truck is run by a Mexican. I hope so as it would likely mean you are enjoying awesome tamales. Trump has no idea what good Mexican food is as it does not exist in Manhattan.
    ilsm -> pgl... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:14 PM
    The best I had ever was by two Mexican Grandmas! Somewhere between Houston and San Antonio.
    Chris Herbert : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:20 AM
    I think we need to change the compound growth capitalism we've had since forever. It will not be sustainable much longer. We need 'de-globalization' not more globalization, in my opinion. The efficiency bookkeeping model that promotes globalization is deeply flawed. What about the pollution issues involved in global distribution of products that can easily be made at home? Again, Keynes said it best. "The decadent international but individualistic capitalism, in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war, is not a success. It is not intelligent, it is not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous--and it doesn't deliver the goods. In short, we dislike it, and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we are extremely perplexed." https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/keynes.htm
    ilsm -> Chris Herbert... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:30 AM
    Yup, go back to Tesla and use DC.......
    anne -> Chris Herbert... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 12:34 PM
    https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/keynes.htm

    June, 1933

    National Self-Sufficiency
    By John Maynard Keynes

    [ Terrific essay. ]

    Enquiring Mind : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:33 AM
    Taco Trucks and LA:

    After the Berlin Wall fell, and defense budgets got cut, the SoCal economy changed as income and jobs drained out. Blacks occupied the lower end of support jobs and got underbid by Hispanics, so they moved away from LA. The same trend impacted lower income whites, who largely moved out of state. Middle and upper income whites adapted as the local economy transitioned to absorb the laid-off engineering talent, often through new business ventures along the 101 corridor and in the multi-media areas in Santa Monica and the south bay. What took a few decades in Pittsburgh and other cities impacted by major industry changes took about a decade in LA.

    In southern California overall, the combination of illegal immigration and a higher total fertility rate among Hispanics has brought about significant population and employment changes, particularly over the last 25 years. As well-documented by demographers, blacks suffered significantly through those changes and were displaced from low end jobs by the burgeoning Hispanic population.

    For example, south central LA has transitioned from majority black to majority Hispanic as a result of job changes and influx. Blacks moved to San Bernardino, Victorville and other areas where cheaper housing and potential employment were available.

    Now the taco trucks are supplemented by grilled cheese trucks, crepe trucks, Korean taco trucks and other variations designed to serve a more diverse population.

    pgl -> Enquiring Mind... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 01:58 PM
    That is actually a decent description of LA. And the diversity of food is why some sing "I Love LA". It has its issues but I do miss southern CAL .. especially during these harsh NYC winters.
    Tom aka Rusty : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:33 AM
    Offshoring in the land of fruits and nuts:

    https://www.yahoo.com/tech/m/e7f06fa0-faf3-3ea6-a2ac-9590fe150c38/ss_university-of-california's.html


    Fred C. Dobbs : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:41 AM
    Always energizing the base. (Smart tactics.)

    Urbanites like Trump probably see
    'taco trucks' frequently as their
    limos whiz by. They appreciate
    their visibility to likely
    Trumpy supporters.

    (Limos & trucks both?)

    'Doing something about pesky
    immigrants should garner a few votes!'

    Except The Donald didn't start the tweet storm.

    'Taco Trucks on Every Corner': Trump Supporter's
    Anti-Immigration Warning http://nyti.ms/2bIeFyw
    NYT - NIRAJ CHOKSHI - SEPT. 2, 2016

    "My culture is a very dominant culture, and it's imposing and it's causing problems. If you don't do something about it, you're going to have taco trucks on every corner."

    That was Marco Gutierrez, founder of the group Latinos for Trump, issuing a dire warning to the United States in an interview with Joy Reid on MSNBC on Thursday night.

    America's response? Mmm, tacos! ...

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:46 AM
    Trump campaign manager repeatedly grilled about
    candidate's false proclamations on Iraq War
    position http://read.bi/2bZ6iyG
    via @BusinessInsider - Sep 9

    Donald Trump's campaign manager was repeatedly pressed Friday as she attempted to explain inconsistencies in the Republican presidential nominee's statements on the Iraq War.

    On two separate morning shows, Kellyanne Conway said Trump's declaration of support for the war during a 2002 interview with radio host Howard Stern was not a reliable indication of how he felt at the time.

    On CNN, anchor Chris Cuomo pressed Conway on Trump's Iraq War flip-flops.

    "He doesn't want to own that he wasn't against it before it started," Cuomo said. "Why not? Why not just own it? And as you like to say, he was a private citizen."

    Conway insisted that despite Trump responding "yeah, I guess so" when Stern asked if he supported the invasion of Iraq, his statement wasn't equal to then Sen. Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the war. ...

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:57 AM
    (At least, 'Trump has acknowledged that
    Clinton's vote (for the war - *) was a mistake.')

    ... "The point is, as you know, he constantly says 'I was always against the war,'" host Charlie Rose said to Conway. "Here he says 'I guess' I would support it. That's a contradiction."

    Conway pushed back, offering a similar defense to the one she gave CNN.

    "Not really, Charlie," she said. "And here is why: He is giving - he is on a radio show. Hillary Clinton went into the well of the United States Senate representing this state of New York and case a vote in favor of the Iraq War."

    Rose said that "this is not about Hillary Clinton."

    "She has acknowledged that vote and acknowledged it was a mistake," Rose said. "He has not, and he wants to have it both ways."

    Conway said that Trump has acknowledged that Clinton's vote was a mistake, to which Rose replied, "No, but he has not acknowledged that at one point he said he was for the war.

    "Why can't he simply say that?" Rose asked. "'At one point I was, and then I changed my mind." ...

    (When Trump criticized the Iraq War in 2004,
    it was because we hadn't seized their oil
    assets as spoils, ostensibly.)

    *- Iraq Resolution (formally the Authorization
    for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)

    pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 02:01 PM
    Any real news person who either ban this lying woman from his/her show and hammer her every time she lies. Which is about every other word.
    pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 02:00 PM
    "Kellyanne Conway said Trump's declaration of support for the war during a 2002 interview with radio host Howard Stern was not a reliable indication of how he felt at the time."

    Of course Kellyanne Conway lies even more than her client.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:17 AM
    Limousine Liberals for Trump!
    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to ilsm... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 02:07 PM
    Hillary Clinton Calls Many Trump Backers 'Deplorables' ...
    http://nyti.ms/2c1UlbC
    NYT - AMY CHOZICK - SEPT. 10

    ... Mrs. Clinton's comments Friday night, which were a variation of a sentiment she has expressed in other settings recently, came at a fund-raiser in Manhattan.

    "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" she said to applause and laughter. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic - you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up."

    By Saturday morning, #BasketofDeplorables was trending on Twitter as Mr. Trump's campaign demanded an apology. His supporters hoped to use the remark as as evidence that Mrs. Clinton cannot connect to the voters she hopes to represent as president.

    "Wow, Hillary Clinton was SO INSULTING to my supporters, millions of amazing, hard working people. I think it will cost her at the polls!" Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. ...

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:16 PM
    I guess she needs her clones to have just one word for racist, sexist, nativist, know nothing,.....

    She can call me deplorable and all her clones too.

    Denis Drew : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:50 AM
    Immigration PLUS the "demobilization" of labor unions (the discontinuance of collective bargaining with the concomitant dismemberment of middle class political punch) EQUALS the impoverishment of low skilled workers ...

    ... equates to reducing what should be $800 jobs to $400 jobs ...

    ... which is the alpha and the omega of today's income inequality -- at least lowest income inequality; the folks who work fast food and supermarkets (the wrong end of two-tier supermarket contracts, gradually going low tier all the way). I'm not especially concerned that more low skilled jobs add more higher skilled employment.
    ********************************
    Why are 100,000 out of something like 200,000 Chicago gang-age, minority males in street gangs? Where are the American raised taxi drivers? Could be $600 fast food jobs imm-sourced to Mexico and India -- could be $800 taxi jobs imm-sourced to the whole world? $1000 construction jobs imm-sourced to Eastern Europe and Mexico?
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/

    The way it works is COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SETS THE PRICE OF LABOR BY THE MOST THE CONSUMER WILL TOLERATE -- RACE TO THE BOTTOM WAGES ARE SET BY THE LEAST THE EMPLOYEE WILL TOLERATE.
    *****************************
    Even zero immigration would only (as in merely) keep American labor from hitting rock bottom -- or at least hoping to find non-criminal employment w/o collective bargaining.

    Current union busting penalties carry about as much weight as the "FBI warning" you get when you start a DVD. More actually: if you actually enter a movie theater to copy a new movie before it goes to DVD you face a couple of years mandatory federal hospitality.

    OTH if you fire an organizer the most you face is hiring the organizer back and maybe a little back pay while she's waiting to fired again for "something else." The labor market is the only market where you can break the law and face zero penalties at all.

    New idea: an NLRB finding of illegally blocking union organization should be able to lead to a mandate that a certification election must be taken. This may only be implementable at the federal level.

    Beyond that union busting should be a felony at state and federal levels -- backed by RICO for persistent violators to keep employers from playing at the edges. Our most progressive/pro labor states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, MN, NY, MD?) could do that right now if someone would just raise the issue.

    IF SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE WOULD JUST RAISE THE ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!

    Denis Drew said in reply to Denis Drew ... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 08:30 AM
    Wanna stop the shoot-em-ups in Chicago and elsewhere? To paraphrase a line from Superfly: It's the American dream dog: flush toilet down the hall, AM radio, electric light in every room.

    Let's call that $200/wk job level -- in today's money. And the year is ...

    ... 1916 ...

    .. and today's gang members, not to mention my American raised taxi driver "gang" would be willing to put in a hard week's work for it ...

    ... in 1916.

    But today's "gangs" are not going to work for $400, 100 years later. Hell, about 50 years later ...

    ... 1968 ...

    ... the federal minimum wage was $440 in today's money -- at half today's per capita income!

    I read James Julius Wilson's book When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor and Sudhir Venkatesh's book American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto, at the same time -- and the projects only descended into gang infested hell as the bottom dropped out of the minimum wage.

    Beautiful thing about collective bargaining is: you know you have squeezed the most practicable out (of your fellow consumers -- not the boss) of the economy and technology of your era.

    Just don't forget Centralized bargaining so the Walmarts of the world can't squeeze better contracts elsewhere. Walmart closed 88 big boxes in Germany which has centralized bargaining.

    cm -> Denis Drew ... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 10:04 AM
    Wal-Mart's "advantage" is not in low labor cost, but logistics and market dominance allowing it to boss around suppliers.

    German labor laws may have contributed to its "problems", but the primary issues were its US-centric logistics operation and having to compete against local incumbents who were at least its equals, and had the home turf advantage. And competition as well as labor relations in German retail are at least as cutthroat as in the US. Most recent (few years ago) scandals involving treatment of workers and systematic intimidation were in large chain retailers.

    cm -> cm... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 10:14 AM
    There were also stories about how they were trying to sell US bedware sizes which are different from the German sizes, and similar market research goofs, which seems to indicate a certain arrogance, and that they probably underestimated the effort and sunk cost that had to be invested to become successful.

    Some of these stories also had a background of a general anti-US sentiment as neoliberal safety net "reforms" and (labor) market "flexibilization" were prominently justified with US comparisons (by officials). But I doubt this had much practical impact on the decision to cut the experiment.

    DeDude : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:12 AM
    From Matthew Klein at FTalphaville ( http://ftalphaville.ft.com):

    "A staggering 96 per cent of America's net job growth since 1990 has come from sectors known to have low productivity (construction, retail, bars, restaurants, and other low-paying services were responsible for 46 percentage points of total growth) and sectors where low productivity is merely suspected in the absence of competition and proper measurement techniques (healthcare, education, government, and finance explain the remaining 50 percentage points)".

    So we are expanding jobs that produce services. With increased robotics and productivity, a smaller and smaller % of the workforce will be needed to produce all the food and merchandise people need (or can consume). So the future growth of the job market will have to be in producing services. The challenge will be to make sure that those jobs are paying sufficiently high salaries to ensure continuous robust growth in demand. Otherwise we will be entering a permanent period of low growth in the economy.

    El Epicúreo Del Taco : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:26 AM
    ensure that workers have more bargaining power so that the growth in output is shared rather than
    "
    ~~MT~

    Workers need to get a handle on bargaining power, need to realize that uncontrolled reproduction will inevitably bid down the price of labour. Look!

    American family should find it cheaper to reduce child bearing to one child per female. The one child can then inherit the entire estate of the couple with no expense for legal battles with rival siblings. The one child will have more quality time with parents, grand parents, and aunts for mentor-ing and help with school work, be on the fast track of career path that requires quality education. Some jobs here require local folks with better language skills. Such jobs do not adapt easily to recent immigrants. Reduction in our birth rate cannot be completely de-fang-ed by immigration. Our birth control will remain a windfall to our workers in aggregate sprint as well as in separate family's economics.

    Get
    it --

    DeDude -> El Epicúreo Del Taco... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 09:51 AM
    One child per 2 parents would be an economic disaster. Unless productivity per worker exploded we would find that the total GDP would shrink rather than increase. The national debt per worker would also increase even if we somehow managed to stop adding to it. The current problem of a much smaller number of workers to help pay retirement and medical cost for the old people would become extremely hard to solve (without exploding tax rates). Growing the population either by birth or by allowing immigrants to come here is part of why US is doing better than Europe.
    El Epicúreo Del Taco said in reply to DeDude... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:09 PM
    national debt per worker would also increase even if we somehow managed to stop adding to it. The current problem of a much smaller number of workers to help pay retirement and medical cost for the old people would become extremely hard to solve (without exploding tax rates). Growing the population
    "

    Believe it! I just crunched approximate numbers to find that each child with only $2 in pocket owes $57,000 to public debt, each retired pensioner, each billionaire and each millionaire owe same thing, 57 K. But!

    But 33% of Americans couldn't come up with $555 to handle an emergency. The answer to national debt?

    Endless exponential population expansion until natural resources run dry, no air to breath, no water to drink, fug-get about food.

    Population expansion is a social Ponzi scheme. Eventually it collapses -- we starve.

    The remarkable instance of population control started when Deng Xiaoping crunched the numbers and decided to opt for a draconian return to a rational World. The one child tradition began with the most dramatic success at making folks rich enough to enjoy life and produce things for people around the World to enjoy. Let the good times roll and thrill your soul. Got soul?

    Get
    it --

    cm -> El Epicúreo Del Taco... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 10:19 AM
    "Some jobs here require local folks with better language skills."

    The children of immigrants who grow up in the US have those. Also most jobs only require "adequate" language skills, which most immigrants have.

    Most work requires the ability to communicate simple requests, not literary or philosophical discourse.

    mrrunangun : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 10:18 AM
    From my point of view as an employer, the Mexican and Caribbean immigrants have been good hires. They are generally reliable and good cooperators. Other employers seem to think so as well, judging by what I see when I go to the doctor or the dentist or the mechanic shop or just about anywhere else that low to intermediate skill personnel are essential to running the shop.

    I would not say that immigrants' effect on wages is trivial except in the macro sense. The union tradesmen in our area are suffering badly due to having their wages undercut by low wage immigrants. The wage-rate cuts are on the order of 50%, $32/hr down to $16/hr. Unlike the doctors, where immigrant doctors don't seem to depress wages much, the scarcity value of trained tradesmen is substantially reduced by an influx of immigrants with similar skills. Auto mechanics, auto body men, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc are badly hurt by the competition. Perhaps because their skills are more easily acquired than those of the doctors. We have a large number of asian scientific and technical people in the area and they are also high wage folks and native born scientists and technical personnel do not seem to have been adversely affected. There is next to no mechanism for the doctors and scientists and engineers, who arguably have been helped by immigration, to help out the tradesmen who have been hurt.

    Higher taxes may not be the only answer. Private and religious efforts are underway, mostly religious in my locale. There is a Cristo Rey school that has received a lot of support from businesses in the area, particularly the science and technology-based businesses. The Catholics organized it and run it, but it is open to all. The kids get a better education than they can get in the corruptly run, disorganized, deteriorating public high schools nearby. They are matched with a team of 4 and each kid works one day per week at his or her sponsoring business and the earnings pay for the schooling. The kids meet and work with business and professional people they would not otherwise meet.

    Higher tax rates may take too long to occur to make a difference in the lives of today's young people struggling to get some security or a future worth living out. Supporting and participating in religious and community-based efforts is something we can all do today.

    ken melvin -> mrrunangun... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:10 AM
    Back when, before the onslaught, when I was a young man; a young man out of high school could work construction, learn how to do a day's work, get paid enough to get a car, court a girl, go to college, ... join the union, maybe get married, buy a home, start a family; it was a path upward for so many. These days, those jobs are held by $10-15/hr illegals working as contract labor while our own young men out of high school have never held a job, don't how to do a day's work, ... may be on heroin or meth. This is not win win, this is not working. Time to stop pretending.
    Denis Drew said in reply to mrrunangun... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 12:31 PM
    Re: " The union tradesmen in our area are suffering badly due to having their wages undercut by low wage immigrants. The wage-rate cuts are on the order of 50%, $32/hr down to $16/hr. "


    The way it works is COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SETS THE PRICE OF LABOR BY THE MOST THE CONSUMER WILL TOLERATE -- RACE TO THE BOTTOM WAGES (as you describe here) ARE SET BY THE LEAST THE EMPLOYEE WILL TOLERATE.

    What you describe would never happen with sufficient (high!) union density. See Germany.
    ******************
    What to do:

    Current union busting penalties carry about as much weight as the "FBI warning" you get when you start a DVD. More actually: if you actually enter a movie theater to copy a new movie before it goes to DVD you face a couple of years mandatory federal hospitality.

    OTH if you fire an organizer the most you face is hiring the organizer back and maybe a little back pay while she's waiting to fired again for "something else." The labor market is the only market where you can break the law and face zero penalties at all.

    New idea: an NLRB finding of illegally blocking union organization should be able to lead to a mandate that a certification election must be taken. This may only be implementable at the federal level.

    Beyond that union busting should be a felony at state and federal levels -- backed by RICO for persistent violators to keep employers from playing at the edges. Our most progressive/pro labor states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, MN, NY, MD?) could do that right now if someone would just raise the issue.

    mrrunangun -> Denis Drew ... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 03:17 PM
    Like any other collective action, collective bargaining relies on cohesion among the collective. The objective of any collective, whether a trade group or union, is collective action on behalf of its members. Cohesion among the group members is absolutely necessary to successful collective action. Weakness of union bargaining is due to the inability of the collective to maintain cohesion. Your own cabdrivers' union has been undercut by Uber. My friends among the local tradesmen are being undercut by men with comparable skills who are not eligible for union membership under current rules, but are willing to do comparable work for half the union scale. My friends in industrial unions have been undercut by foreign competitors. Technological advances have played a large role in assisting circumstances to undercut cabbies, carpenters, and machinists all.
    cm -> mrrunangun... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 10:32 AM
    "We have a large number of asian scientific and technical people in the area and they are also high wage folks and native born scientists and technical personnel do not seem to have been adversely affected."

    A significant part of age discrimination complaints in tech is actually about preferring young *foreign* or foreign-origin labor to locals who started their careers in the 80's and 90's, and who are now around 40-60 years old.

    There has been the related observation that EE/CS and other tech-related majors have been majority foreign-populated as the share of locals has declined due to lower job prospects and escalating tuition and ancillary costs.

    Almost all entry-level hiring in "established" industries has been either abroad, or bringing in visa workes, which after temporary labor crunches in the Y2K/dotcom booms led to an oversupply of experienced but older workers who would be hired at more senior levels as long as they had related recent work credentials, or not quite senior levels but expected to have age-appropriate experience and work contribution.

    But that works only for a few years. Once you are out of the industry for a while or stuck at level because there is no need for advancement, prospects decline a lot.

    In parallel there has been a widely bemoaned innovation stagnation, and that goes together with more people being needed for maintenance-type jobs and only few for advanced R&D (and even advanced R&D has a lot of mundane legwork - consider Edison's quip "invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration").

    cm -> mrrunangun... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 10:40 AM
    That relatively few people were hired at the entry level "here" since about 2000 has also contributed to perceived "talent shortages" - as companies got used to the idea you can just poach talent or hire from the market, as some point the supply of *young* local workers dried up as the pipeline wasn't refilled.

    If nobody has hired and trained freshers locally let's say for 5-10 years, how can anybody expect to find people in that range of experience (who haven't "peaked" yet and can still be motivated for a while with promises of career advancement, or still have headroom for actual advancement)? That's actually what age discrimination is about.

    "If you hire, they will come."

    Tom aka Rusty : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:03 AM
    This is just a basket of deplorabble-ness.
    pgl -> Tom aka Rusty... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 02:04 PM
    Be careful who you call a racist. BTW racists are deplorable and some polls indicate that 60% of Trump's supporters are racists. So "half" could be seen as an underestimate.
    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to pgl... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 04:12 PM
    You are too clueless to understand sarcasm. Or humor.

    In the liberal lexicon anyone who does not agree with all liberal orthodoxy is a racist, sexist, ist, ist, ist etc.

    Thinking people do not buy that nonsense.

    ilsm -> Tom aka Rusty... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 07:19 PM
    Logic is also a challenge for pgl and the rest of the Hillary machine here.
    pgl -> ilsm... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 01:37 AM
    Josh Marshall checks out the reactions from Team Trump:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/did-they-forget-to-mention-something

    "none of the Trump campaign pushback to Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comments have said anything about the people Clinton was talking about not being racist, not being misogynist or by whatever definition not being 'haters.' It's not referenced once. Check out the statements after the jump."

    They cannot refute what Clinton said because Trump's supporters are racists. Rusty may be uncomfortable with this reality but it is true.

    pgl -> Tom aka Rusty... , Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 01:33 AM
    Trump's supporters are all members of the NAACP? Yea - right.
    jonny bakho : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:05 AM
    Sanders style welfare proposals are misplaced. Continuing to subsidize people to live in areas that are not sustainable does not fix the problem. Money is taken from urban areas that is needed for renewal and investments in urban residents in sustainable areas and used to subsidize unsustainable middle class lifestyles in exurban and rural areas. A more permanent solution is some combination of transformation & relocation. Sanders tossed out the same 50 year old SWP nonsense without much thought to whether it would work in today's economy. He made vague proposals that people were free to interpret as matching their own. It was never in any sense a plan.

    The world is urbanizing. The future is urban. The sooner we start planning and building for the future, the less problems we will have with these unsustainable areas and lifestyles. An integrated urban planning sustainable approach is needed.

    ken melvin -> jonny bakho ... , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:22 AM
    Bernie's solution were those of the 70s, like the broken clock, he stood and waited, then yelled I have the answer when he hadn't a clue what was happening. Hillary's are of the 90s and shall prove worthless going forward, though she's not quite as clueless; the question is: Is she smart enough to change her mind?

    P T Trump, like his predecessors in such times, is offering snake oil remedies. His advantage, his medium is the media (the man can see and admire himself when he's performing on stage and camera), and enough suckers have already been born.. . America's love of snake oil has been the subject of writers like Twain, movies, theater, ... is world renowned.

    Disencruft : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:08 AM

    Supporting and participating in religious and community-based efforts is something we can all do today.
    "

    Try it! You'll love it! Look!

    Our rulers are in business for themselves, their votes, their re-election, and their own t-bonds but not our jobs and families. We got to support our own community. Our pioneers learned that from the Indians and passed it on to us. It starts with a block party on 4th of July and grows in all directions -- looking

    after our
    own --

    Henry Carey's ghost : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 08:50 PM
    The US has a trade deficit of 2-3 billion dollars a year. Our exports to Asia are mostly transfer pricing attempts to avoid foreign taxes and smuggle profits back to the US. Trump is the first presidential candidate in forty years to make correcting the trade deficit a centerpiece of his campaign.

    There is no country today, and never has been, nor will there be one that has no industry and is also wealthy. The US was once a protectionist manufacturing heavy country. DJT wants to take us back to pre-1970 protectionism; this is our only hope.

    Henry Carey : , Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 08:52 PM
    $2-3 billion a day. Imagine if we manufactured cellphones, computers, socks, etc. etc. the Delta, Appalachia, and Michigan, New Haven CT etc. wouldn't be quickly becoming hell holes.
    BenIsNotYoda : , -1
    Thanks to Mark Thoma for highlighting some good effects of legal immigration. From the article:

    Immigrants also own a larger share of small businesses than natives, are no more likely to be unemployed, are no less likely to assimilate than in the past (no matter their country of origin), and they have contributed greatly to technological development in the US. One study estimates that "25.3 percent of the technology and engineering businesses launched in the United States between 1995 to 2005 had a foreign-born founder. In California, this percentage was 38.8 percent. In Silicon Valley, the center of the high-tech industry, 52.4 percent of the new tech start-ups had a foreign-born owner."

    Now only if the extreme liberals would stop bad mouthing H-1B program that brings in these very people. To those who oppose H-1B: some abuse of the program to shut down the program is like shutting down Medicare because there was a little fraud in Medicare. Obviously it is not a good enough argument. Therefore I have to conclude it is pure discrimination disguised as something else.

    [Sep 15, 2016] The Dysfunctionality of Slavery and Neoliberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated with rapid technological change. ..."
    "... On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern libertarianism. ..."
    "... the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism both in economics and politics. ..."
    "... In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern "yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced racial superiority as their battle cry. ..."
    May 18, 2015 | michaelperelman.wordpress.com

    Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated with rapid technological change.

    ... ... ...

    On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern libertarianism. Responding to the colonists' complaint that taxation by the British was a form of tyranny, Samuel Johnson published his 1775 tract, "Taxation No Tyranny: An answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress," asking the obvious question, "how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" In The Works of Samuel Johnson, LL. D.: Political Tracts. Political Essays. Miscellaneous Essays (London: J. Buckland, 1787): pp. 60-146, p. 142.

    ... ... ...

    By the late 19th century, David A Wells, an industrial technician who later became the chief economic expert in the federal government, by virtue of his position of overseeing federal taxes. After a trip to Europe, Wells reconsidered his strong support for protectionism. Rather than comparing the dynamism of the northern states with the technological backward of their southern counterparts, he was responding to the fear that American industry could not compete with the cheap "pauper" labor of Europe. Instead, he insisted that the United States had little to fear from, the competition from cheap labor, because the relatively high cost of American labor would ensure rapid technological change, which, indeed, was more rapid in the United States than anywhere else in the world, with the possible exception of Germany. Both countries were about to rapidly surpass England's industrial prowess.

    The now-forgotten Wells was so highly regarded that the prize for the best economics dissertation at Harvard is still known as the David A Wells prize. His efforts gave rise to a very powerful idea in economic theory at the time, known as "the economy of high wages," which insisted that high wages drove economic prosperity. With his emphasis on technical change, driven by the strong competitive pressures from high wages, Wells anticipated Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction, except that for him, high wages rather than entrepreneurial genius drove this process.

    Although the economy of high wages remained highly influential through the 1920s, the extensive growth of government powers during World War I reignited the antipathy for big government. Laissez-faire economics began come back into vogue with the election of Calvin Coolidge, while the once-powerful progressive movement was becoming excluded from the ranks of reputable economics.

    ... ... ...

    With Barry Goldwater's humiliating defeat in his presidential campaign, the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism both in economics and politics. Symbolic of the narrowness of this new mindset among economists, Milton Friedman's close associate, George Stigler, said in 1976 that "one evidence of professional integrity of the economist is the fact that it is not possible to enlist good economists to defend minimum wage laws." Stigler, G. J. 1982. The Economist as Preacher and Other Essays (Chicago: University of Chicago Press): p. 60.

    In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern "yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced racial superiority as their battle cry.

    One final irony: evangelical Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement. Today, some of them are providing the firepower for the epidemic of neoliberalism.

    [Sep 14, 2016] Gaius Publius The Clinton Campaign Notices the Sanders Campaign, or How to Read the Media

    The article is from July 2015. It is interesting to compare views expressed a year ago with the current situation. Who would predict the her health bacome No.1 issue in September 2016?
    Now we start to see dirty MSM games and tricks with election polls. It is well known that the key idea of polls is to influence electorate. Desirable result that conditions those who did not yet decided to vote "for the winner" can be achieved in a very subtle way. For example if electorate of one candidate is younger, you can run poll using landline phones. Gaius Publius provide a good analysis of now MSM sell establishment candidate to lemmings in his July 10, 2015 post in Naked capitalism blog (The Clinton Campaign Notices the Sanders Campaign, or How to Read the Media)
    .
    "...I don't think the Clinton herders care who actually votes, only who funds."
    .
    "...HRC is the biggest threat to the Democrats winning the White House. She is so far to the right on almost every issue, she is the most unelectable of them all. I basically view her campaign as a front for Jeb!"
    .
    "...I will take at face value the statement that Sanders' personal views are a threat to the capitalists who control both major parties. But his strategy is not. In spite of his best intentions, he will end up being the sheepdog that makes sure the progressive movement stays in the Democratic Party (for the term "sheepdog" and supporting analysis see http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary)."
    Notable quotes:
    "... A second example involves Wall Street banks, in particular, a policy of breaking them up, reinstating Glass-Steagall, and prosecuting Wall Street fraud. Can you imagine any announced candidate doing any of these things, save Bernie Sanders? ..."
    "... If a 25 year old woman in 2008 didn't vote for Hillary, what has Hillary done to change her mind or attract the 17 year old from 2008? ..."
    "... I don't think the Clinton herders care who actually votes, only who funds. ..."
    "... If Hillary feels she can control primary voters through local Democratic party machines, that might explain her standpoint. ..."
    "... Now organized money has too much economic power ..."
    "... HRC is the biggest threat to the Democrats winning the White House. She is so far to the right on almost every issue, she is the most unelectable of them all. I basically view her campaign as a front for Jeb! ..."
    "... I will take at face value the statement that Sanders' personal views are a threat to the capitalists who control both major parties. But his strategy is not. In spite of his best intentions, he will end up being the sheepdog that makes sure the progressive movement stays in the Democratic Party (for the term "sheepdog" and supporting analysis see http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary). ..."
    "... They also need enduring organizations, which are called political parties. ..."
    Jul 10, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com

    ... ... ...

    Taking Apart the Insider Game

    The most important thing to consider when thinking about the Sanders campaign is this. Everyone else who's running, on both sides, is an insider playing within - and supporting - the "insider game," the one that keeps insiders wealthy and outsiders struggling, the one where the wealthy and their retainers operate government for their benefit only. What sets Sanders apart is his determination to dismantle that game, to take it apart and send its players home (back to the private sector) or to jail.

    Two examples should make this clear. One is Fast Track and the "trade" agreements being forced upon us. The pressure to pass these agreements is coming equally from mainstream Democrats like Barack Obama, a "liberal," and from mainstream Republicans, supposed "conservatives." They may differ on "rights" policy, like abortion rights, but not on money matters. Trade agreements are wealth-serving policies promoted by people in both parties who serve wealth, which means most of them. People like Sanders, Warren and others, by contrast, would neuter these agreement as job-killing profit protection schemes and turn them into something else.

    A second example involves Wall Street banks, in particular, a policy of breaking them up, reinstating Glass-Steagall, and prosecuting Wall Street fraud. Can you imagine any announced candidate doing any of these things, save Bernie Sanders?

    In both of these cases, Sanders would aggressively challenge the insider profit-protection racket, not just give lip service to challenging it. Which tells you why he is so popular. Many of us in the bleachers have noticed the insider game - after all, it's been happening in front of us for decades- and most of us are done with it. Ask any Tea Party Republican voter, for example, what she thinks of the bank bailout of 2008-09. She'll tell you she hated it, whether she explains it in our terms or not.

    And that's why Sanders, like Warren before him, draws such enthusiastic crowds. The pendulum has swung so far in the direction of wealth that the nation may well change permanently, and people know it. People are ready, just as they were in 2008, prior to eight years of betrayal. People have been discouraged about the chance for change lately, but they're ready for the real thing if they see it.

    The Clinton Campaign Notices Sanders

    There's been an attempt to downplay the Sanders candidacy since the beginning, to sink his campaign beneath a wave of silence. That ended a bit ago, and the press has begun to take notice, if snippily. Now the Clinton campaign is noticing, if the New York Times is to be believed. I found the following fascinating, for a number of reasons.

    The piece first along with some news, then a little exegesis (my emphasis):

    Hillary Clinton's Team Is Wary as Bernie Sanders Finds Footing in Iowa

    The ample crowds and unexpectedly strong showing by Senator Bernie Sanders are setting off worry among advisers and allies of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who believe the Vermont senator could overtake her in Iowa polls by the fall and even defeat her in the nation's first nominating contest there.

    The enthusiasm that Mr. Sanders has generated - including a rally attended by 2,500 people in Council Bluffs, Iowa, on Friday - has called into question Mrs. Clinton's early strategy of focusing on a listening tour of small group gatherings and wooing big donors in private settings. In May, Mrs. Clinton led with 60 percent support to Mr. Sanders' 15 percent in a Quinnipiac poll. Last week the same poll showed Mrs. Clinton at 52 percent to Mr. Sanders's 33 percent.

    "We are worried about him, sure. He will be a serious force for the campaign, and I don't think that will diminish," Jennifer Palmieri, the Clinton campaign's communications director, said Monday in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

    Some of Mrs. Clinton's advisers acknowledged that they were surprised by Mr. Sanders' momentum and said there were enough liberal voters in Iowa, including many who supported Barack Obama or John Edwards in 2008, to create problems for her there.

    "I think we underestimated that Sanders would quickly attract so many Democrats in Iowa who weren't likely to support Hillary," said one Clinton adviser, who like several others spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly share views about the race. "It's too early to change strategy because no one knows if Sanders will be able to hold on to these voters in the months ahead. We're working hard to win them over, but yeah, it's a real competition there."

    I don't want to quote the whole thing (well, I do, but I can't). So I encourage you to read it. There's much there worth noticing.

    What to Look at When the Times Reports on Clinton

    Now, some exegesis, meta-reading of the media, especially corporate media like the Times. My three main points are bulleted below.

    Bottom Line

    If you like this exercise in reading behind the media, please read the article again with the above thoughts in mind. Is this original reporting (i.e., reporters starting a conversation), or did the campaign make the first approach? Does the article carry Clinton water, subtly support the campaign? Are any opposing viewpoints featured at the top, or are they buried below the point where most people stop reading?

    This Times story may be a completely honest exercise in independent journalism. There certainly is a Sanders phenomenon, and it's detailed honestly and factually, so there's value in reading it. But there's an obvious bias toward Clinton messaging in the reporters' own prose, so I'm suspicious, and you should be as well.

    I'll also say that most stories about campaigns operate this way, as do many other news stories involving public figures. What will make reporting the Sanders campaign different is what I wrote above - Sanders wants to take apart the insider game. What major media outlet will help Sanders do that, will shut the door to corporate favors, media access and other prizes from a future Clinton administration, in order to be even-handed?

    My guess is few or none.

    Reader note: Gaius asked for me to allow comments on this post, so please have at it!

    AJ, July 10, 2015 at 8:14 am

    I was that Sanders rally in Council Bluffs. I follow politics especially on the left very closely so I didn't really come home with any thing new (besides some extra Bernie stickers). However, the crowd was huge and engaged. It almost had the feel of a big tent revival.

    One issue that I've been thinking about lately that I haven't seen publicly addressed (except for in the comments on the 538 article Lambert posted yesterday) is how reliable do we think sine of these polling numbers are? Given that Sanders support definitely skews younger, would these people even be captured in telephone polls? I tend to think this is why the Greek vote was as big of a surprise as it was. I think there is a large going progressive part of the population (both on the US and abroad) that doesn't get picked up in the polling. If true, Sanders could be a lot closer to Clinton than these numbers suggest.


    NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 9:06 am

    Pollsters know this, but there are three kinds: the national subscription polls who just want to be relevant, paid polls, and the local reputation polls. Because of the distance to the election, there won't be good responses, and cell phone users have grown reliant on texting and are less likely to respond. The pollsters know this. Needless to say, the Quinnipiac poll should be disconcerting for the Clinton camp and the Democrats who thought Hillary would shower them with cash and appearances. That result means they see enough to make this claim even though they aren't quite on the ground the way a Roanoke College poll is in Virginia. The local reputation poll has a sense of the electorate because they've polled every local election while CNN was trying to interview Nessie.

    There is dissatisfaction within Team Blue that Hillary Clinton can't bridge. There is a myth about Bill's magical campaign touch Democrats have internalized despite a lack of evidence, and I think Team Blue elites feel Obama failed them and want to bring Hillary in as a savior. Obviously, they weren't around in '94.


    pat b, July 10, 2015 at 8:15 pm

    Bill and Al ran a magical campaign in 92, but that was a long time ago, and they spent two decades
    triangulating against the Base. Bill signed NAFTA and HRC spent 23 years defending it.

    In 92 the clinton's were selling the dream of the 90's. Now, they are selling Windows 98.

    Nick, July 10, 2015 at 10:26 am

    Too bad young people have a horrible track record actually voting. Clinton knows the game well enough.

    NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 11:11 am

    Hillary is 8 years older, so are her core nostalgia supporters. Without a message for the now under 45 crowd, Hillary has lost 8 years worth of supporters to relative infirmity or death.

    She didn't rally the crowds for Grimes, Landrieu, or Hagan. Shaheen was the incumbent she saved, but she was running against an unremarkable Massachusetts carpet bagger. I'm not certain the Democrats have ever left the Spring of '94.

    vidimi, July 10, 2015 at 11:33 am

    don't underestimate the number of young, white females voting clinton. it will be somewhere near all of them.

    mn, July 10, 2015 at 11:43 am

    What about college debt and the fact that there are no jobs. Gender seems to be a selling point, like race the last time. Not all younger females will be that stupid again.

    NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    Actually, Obama won younger females. Credit where credit is due. Gender may have affected older voters who come from an obviously more repressive era, but I suspect brand loyalty and legitimacy (it's her turn messaging), racism, and nostalgia played a hand in Clinton's 2008 support more than gender. If a 25 year old woman in 2008 didn't vote for Hillary, what has Hillary done to change her mind or attract the 17 year old from 2008? In many ways, Hillary has to replace 8 years of death to her base.

    mn, July 10, 2015 at 1:01 pm

    At that time people were saying to vote for Hillary because she would prop up destroyed 401ks (to me the mindless young voter). I fell for the hope and change b.s., I won't do that again. Long time Bernie fan.

    As for my friends they are voting for Hillary because they don't think Bernie can win, others that hate her are sitting out. Yes, many females really do not like her. Love Ann Richards! RIP.

    pat b, July 10, 2015 at 8:34 pm

    The Silent Generation anchored Reagan and was much more conservative and risk averse then the Boomers of which Hillary is one. However, the issue isn't Hillary vs the GOP's aging angry silent generation types, it's more Hillary's aging Boomer female base vs the millenials who think the Boomers shafted them. It was the Boomers who benefited from cheap college tuition then voted in Reagan to cut taxes and dump these costs onto Gen X, GenY and the Millenials.

    Paul Tioxon, July 10, 2015 at 11:14 pm

    My point is that of the passing of an era. And not only in terms of voters,the army of the silent majority which saw the blue collar conservatives, the hard hats, the cops, leave the democrats en mass and the democrats having little to replace them. The defection of the dixiecrats from the dems to the republicans, as witnessed in the complete turnover of Texas to the republicans amalgamated what was a coalition into a choke hold from 1968 until 2008, with only 12 years dems in the WH only 2 dem presidents over 40 years. And of course, Clinton may as well have been George Bush for all that it mattered for domestic policies.

    So Hillary and the dems do not have the army of voters against them that they used to have plus what ever momentarily disaffected Millenials seeking payback or another group to reinforce numbers making the republicans a majority party. They are not.
    The point is that as your opposition declines in numbers as far as the ballot box goes, and your likely supporters increase, the odds favor your party as a majority.

    http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

    Millenials, according to Pew Polls, the 18-33 year olds, are 51% democrat/ leaning democrat vs 35% republican/leaning republican. Even though independent is now the largest of the 3 categories, leaning is the place to go when there is no alternative choice, apparently.

    I am not sure the younger group is following the republican strategist wedge issue that the old people are stealing from the young with college debt, social security, Medicare being blamed for the diminished prosperity of the young. Trying to turn their grandparents who are retired after a lifetime of hard work into the new welfare queens is not getting the traction you would think. Apparently holding onto ritual Thanksgiving Day dinners and baking cookies around the holidays is more of a social bond than fabricated grievances by political consultants can even rend asunder. And of course, blood is thicker than water. Don't expect granny and pop pop to pushed off on an iceberg anytime soon because of college debt.

    Praedor, July 10, 2015 at 11:07 am

    What I see in this is the potential for a low turnout election. POTENTIAL. Those enthusiastic young voters, or the previously disgusted sideline sitters who have come out anew for Sanders (or previously for Warren) are NOT likely to shrug their shoulders and vote for Hillary if she ends up pulling in the pre-anointed crown. It's hard to get all fired up and enthusiastic about candidate A only to be stuck with candidate B who you weren't interested in before. This has the potential to really change things or gut the process of any participants except the true believer core of the Democrats.

    Uahsenaa, July 10, 2015 at 8:51 am

    I found this sentence to be rather curious: "Mrs. Clinton's advisers, meanwhile, have deep experience pulling off upsets and comeback political victories, and Mrs. Clinton often performs best when she is under pressure from rivals." The first part is unsubstantiated vaguery, but the second part is demonstrably untrue. Or, if not "untrue," then it implies that Sec. Clinton's "best" is still "loses." Also there's the earlier bit about Sanders being "untested" nationally, yet, when you parse that, you realize Ms. Clinton's "testedness" amounts to "lost to an insurgent candidate who had been in national politics for all of a few minutes."

    Since I'm still somewhat skeptical of what a Sanders candidacy means, I am quite happy to see how, along with Bernie, others in various facets of government seem to be emboldened to fight back. TPA may have been a loss in the short term, but the administration was clearly taken aback by having to fight resistance at all. My hope is the Sanders campaign, at a bare minimum, will demonstrate how popular fighting back really is and stiffen the spines of those in government who want to do something but fear genuine reprisal.

    NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 9:12 am

    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-11-02/news/mn-57804_1_democratic-senate

    Did you see the date? This article could be about 2014. There is a dangerous myth about the Clinton touch.

    Uahsenaa, July 10, 2015 at 9:53 am

    It's been surprising to me how willing Sec. Clinton has been to alienate core constituencies of the Democratic party. When O'Malley and Sanders came to Iowa City, they both reached out to local unions for support/attendance/whatever, but when Clinton came here on Tuesday, I found out about it when I showed up with my daughter for reading time at the library.

    I hear again and again about the Clintons' political savvy, yet in practice I just don't see it.

    They may be ruthless, but ruthless only gets you so far. She cannot take Democratic stalwarts for granted this election cycle, especially when the AFL-CIO went into open war with the administration over TPA.

    Who does she think shows up for the polls in primary elections?

    redleg, July 10, 2015 at 10:16 am

    Hubris. I don't think the Clinton herders care who actually votes, only who funds.

    DolleyMadison, July 10, 2015 at 11:22 am

    EXACTLY.

    flora, July 10, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    Bill and Hill's speaking fees give a whole new meaning to "the Clinton touch."

    TheCatSaid, July 10, 2015 at 2:09 pm

    "Who does she think shows up for the polls in primary elections?"

    This seems like the key question.

    It's one thing to motivate people to vote for a presidential election, but motivating people to turnout for a primary might be different entirely. For example, do as many young voters and minority voters turn out for a primary? If not, what would it take to change this?

    If Hillary feels she can control primary voters through local Democratic party machines, that might explain her standpoint.

    Lambert Strether, July 10, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    I wonder how effective the local Democratic party machines are, or whether Obama's reverse Midas touch destroyed them. (Certainly my own local machine is ineffectual, and the state party is corrupt (landfills)).

    I wonder if there's a comparison to be made between ObamaCare signups and GOTV (I mean a literal one, in that the same apparatchiks would get walking around money for both, and the data might even be/have been dual-purposed). My first impulse is to say, if so, "Good luck, and let me know how that works out!" but I don't know how directly the metrics translate.

    Jeremy Grimm, July 10, 2015 at 9:22 pm

    For the last few years I have been a lowly member of the local Democratic Party machine, a volunteer co-precinct leader (though hardly similar to what a precinct leader used to be). The local party leadership and membership is old, late boomer, steadfast and immobile. Republican party opposition in this area is virtually non-existent so I have no idea how effective our local organization is as opposed to how skewed the demographics of my area. With little or no efforts, we consistently turn out a substantial Democratic vote. I believe the corruption of politics in my state, New Jersey, is justly famous. I have no idea what corruption might exist in my local township, though I am starting to wonder. As for President Obama's reverse Midas touch I live near the headquarters of several big pharmaceutical corporations. I am sure they have wide-open purses for both parties.

    As of late last year, our organization has had few meetings and poor attendance at the one meeting I showed up for. I learned at that meeting, about a month ago, that several of the other precinct leads have resigned, though I don't know why. I am moving away and will also resign as of the end of this month.

    I suspect our local organization will come out strongly in favor of Hillary Clinton though provide little in the way of support. When I raised concern about the TPA and TPP at the last meeting I attended and urged the other members of this supposedly political organization to call or write to our Representative few of the members knew what I was talking about. The chair tried to rule my concern out of order though all other business was done and our Democratic Mayor, who is a member of the organization, suggested we should each hear views from both sides before deciding our individual stance on the TPA or TPP since there were arguments for both sides (even though the TPA was coming up for a vote in a few days). I should add a little context this meeting consisted of the eleven or so people who showed up. In my experience this close watch over all dissent from local, state or national party line typified our organization. All questions other than very specific procedural questions and discussions were NOT welcome.

    I can only speak of my own alienation from the Democratic Party, local, state and national. I voted for Obama with enthusiasm in 2008 but with disgust in 2012. I have been a Democrat since Adlai Stevenson II (though I was too young to vote for him). I will continue to register as a Democrat but I doubt many Democrats will receive my vote and certainly no Republicans. I have no plans to further participate in Party politics. I will vote for candidates I like but never again vote for the "lesser of two evils." I cannot gauge the extent to which my alienation typifies other Democrats since political discussions are generally considered impolite except among close friends.

    Pissed Younger baby boomer, July 11, 2015 at 2:59 am

    I am too disillusioned with the democratic party .where i live in Oregon ,my congressman is a blue dog dem. i called his a least five times to voice my opposition to TPP. A few months ago I signed up for phone town hall meeting .i never received an e-mail invitation .YES talking about suppressing dissent.i am considering switch to the greens or a socialist party. My fear i hope we do not become fascist country and three out of four congressmen vote for TPA and senator Wyden voted for it too.I also lost faith in the phony liberal media.

    NotTimothyGeithner, July 11, 2015 at 9:33 am

    The GOP organizes through churches and other outfits. Ted aren't as noticeable wherever one is, but the GOP isn't interested in turnout as much as making sure their people vote. They have minders who phish for potential voters. Why do women ever vote Republican? Because they have a club that demands it. Your area may be skewed but half of Dean's 50 state strategy was lifted from GOP election approaches.

    Uahsenaa, July 10, 2015 at 4:30 pm

    With the exception of Illinois, because Chicago, the state democratic parties in most midwestern states are in shambles, so the likelihood of the "machine" squeaking out a win is quite low. In the absence of that, what you have left are the institutions traditionally loyal to the D party who have been thrown under the bus so many times over the past 8 years, it's bewildering. I mentioned the AFL-CIO break with the administration over "trade," (scare quotes don't quite seem big enough) precisely because it seems to indicate a willingness to break from tradition, if an opportunity presents itself.

    Now, I have no idea what things are like in the South, and those states plus NY/IL/CA might be enough to push Hillary through to the nomination. However, if she continues the way she has so far, the apparatus in a large number of states is not going to be enough to buttress her against popular grumbling.

    John Zelnicker, July 10, 2015 at 8:45 pm

    In Alabama the Democratic Party apparatus is a total mess and completely ineffectual. The party "leaders" spend most of their time protecting their little fiefdoms and fighting efforts to expand and diversify the membership of the statewide committees and local affiliates. In fact, it has gotten so bad that some activists are trying to set up independent Party committees to recruit candidates for local and state elections and run GOTV efforts.

    C. dentata, July 10, 2015 at 10:49 am

    I think it may not be pro-Clinton as much as anti-Sanders bias. The corporate media are certainly happy to ridiculously hype any of the nonstories about Hillary that Trey Gowdy feeds them.

    anonymous123, July 10, 2015 at 11:07 am

    It was really nice to see someone deconstruct this article. When I read it the other day I had the same thoughts go through my head about the overt messaging going on.

    vidimi, July 10, 2015 at 11:29 am

    pro-trade reminds me of pro-russian rebels. seems very likely that the chamber of commerce or state department or somesuch approached all editors and ordered them to use these two terms for their respective designees. classic propaganda tactic.

    Vatch, July 10, 2015 at 12:14 pm

    I expect to vote for Sanders in the primary, and for an as yet unknown third party candidate in the election. Obama and Bill Clinton have taught me that main stream Democratic politicians only differ from Republican politicians on a few social issues; on everything else they are the same. I refuse to knowingly vote for a voluntary agent of the oligarchs, which is what Hillary Clinton is.


    flora , July 10, 2015 at 2:31 pm

    Yes. Both the GOP and the DLC Dems agree on all major economic issues. The electioneering so far has been personality oriented. Jeb!, The Donald, Hillary!, etc.

    Except for Sanders, who isn't running a personality campaign. He's talking about important economic issues in a way the others won't.

    In the late '70s conventional wisdom solidified around the idea that economic stagnation was due to organized labor having too much economic power (true or not, my point isn't to re-argue that case). The 'Reagan revolution' promised to re-balance and right the economy by reining in organized labor.

    Now organized money has too much economic power. It's harming the whole economy. Bernie is talking about reining in organized money. How do the other candidates deal with this without bursting their ideological bubble for the audience? The NYTimes article is a case in point.

    Cano Doncha Know, July 11, 2015 at 5:31 am

    HRC is the biggest threat to the Democrats winning the White House. She is so far to the right on almost every issue, she is the most unelectable of them all. I basically view her campaign as a front for Jeb!

    cm, July 10, 2015 at 12:38 pm
    Some laughable NY Times articles about their inability to write articles without relying on anonymous sources, despite their own (ignored) policies:

    http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/the-times-used-25-unnamed-sources-in-7-days-a-reuters-critic-says/?_r=0

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/opinion/sunday/the-public-editor-the-disconnect-on-anonymous-sources.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/opinion/22pubed.html

    Anarcissie, July 10, 2015 at 1:36 pm
    If Sanders wins a few primaries, I would expect a moderate-bot to be trundled in. The Webb, for instance, has already been turned on and is humming, ready to go. (The O'Malley seems to have already burned through its batteries.)
    NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 2:00 pm
    The Webb? No, no, no, no, no. As a Webb primary voter, I can assure you the man has 0 personality and isn't a big campaigner. If the young Hillary supporters in NYC found Hillary uninspiring, they might collapse into a blob and just stop after listening to Webb. I just assumed he is running because he likes Iowa.

    O'Malley has already attacked Sanders and doesn't pick up the Hillary experience narrative as well as having to roll out during the Baltimore protests.


    Bob Richard, July 10, 2015 at 5:55 pm

    Nothing GP is says about the Times article or reporting in general is wrong. But the MSM, including the Times reporter, is completely missing the real story of the Sanders campaign.

    I will take at face value the statement that Sanders' personal views are a threat to the capitalists who control both major parties. But his strategy is not. In spite of his best intentions, he will end up being the sheepdog that makes sure the progressive movement stays in the Democratic Party (for the term "sheepdog" and supporting analysis see http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary).

    Like Ralph Nader before him, Sanders has a completely wrong approach to political parties. Nader understood that he needed to work outside the major party framework but did not understand that social movements don't just need popular candidates. They also need enduring organizations, which are called political parties. For most of his career, Sanders has been able work both sides of this fence, helping to create a state-level organization (the Progressive Party) in Vermont but also running with Democratic Party endorsements. This spring was a moment of truth for him. He has (or until now had) the stature to create a new political party, perhaps from scratch or perhaps by joining and helping build the Green Party. He chose to turn his back on the left.

    The left needs a political party. Yes, I know, we have a two party system. But that is the problem. Believing that the two party system is an immutable law of nature is not part of any solution.

    RPY, July 10, 2015 at 6:06 pm

    Bernie I believe because of his message, is attracting people from both sides of the aisle. Everyday people who are tired of partisan politics and are just glad to hear someone willing to speak the truth of how screwed things are. From the corruption of wall street to the corruption of Washington, DC politics.

    Lambert Strether, July 10, 2015 at 7:50 pm

    Some of us on the left would rather deal with a straightforward reactionary who's honest about their intentions than backstabbing "Join the conversation" Democrats. I wonder if there's a similar dynamic on the right: They'd rather deal with an honest-to-gawd Socialist than McConnnell and Boehner (Exhibit A: TPP).

    RPY, July 10, 2015 at 6:06 pm

    Bernie I believe because of his message, is attracting people from both sides of the aisle. Everyday people who are tired of partisan politics and are just glad to hear someone willing to speak the truth of how screwed things are. From the corruption of wall street to the corruption of Washington, DC politics.

    Lambert Strether, July 10, 2015 at 7:50 pm

    Some of us on the left would rather deal with a straightforward reactionary who's honest about their intentions than backstabbing "Join the conversation" Democrats. I wonder if there's a similar dynamic on the right: They'd rather deal with an honest-to-gawd Socialist than McConnnell and Boehner (Exhibit A: TPP).

    oho, July 11, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    *** First, when you expose yourself to any of the "liberal" U.S. outlets (as opposed to, say, The Guardian) be aware that because they are owned by establishment corporations they're already pro-Clinton. ***

    While the Guardian is nominally independent, it ain't much better at being "liberal" that the NYT.

    Guardian editors like access to Westminster, their fellow Oxbridge alums and invites to cocktail parties in Kensington too.

    [Sep 14, 2016] Yes, Donald Trump is wrong about unemployment. But he's not the only one

    Spirited defense of the establishment from one of financial oligarchy members. " The economy overall is doing just fine." Does this include QE? If the Fed is pouring billions of new money into the economy, how accurate is it to say that the economy is doing just fine?
    Notable quotes:
    "... "That was a number that was devised, statistically devised, to make politicians - and in particular, presidents - look good. And I wouldn't be getting the kind of massive crowds that I'm getting if the number was a real number." ..."
    "... In the 1950s and 1960s, for instance, organized labor was fairly convinced that the government was purposely underestimating inflation and the cost of living to keep Social Security payments low and wages from rising. George Meany, the powerful head of the American Federation of Labor at the time, claimed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiled both employment and inflation numbers, had "become identified with an effort to freeze wages and is not longer a free agency of statistical research." ..."
    "... Employment figures are sometimes seen as equally suspect. Jack Welch, the once-legendary former CEO of GE, blithely accused the Obama administration of manipulating the final employment report before the 2012 election to make the economic recovery look better than it was. "Unbelievable jobs numbers … these Chicago guys will do anything … can't debate so change numbers," he tweeted ..."
    "... His arguments were later fleshed out by New York Post columnist John Crudele , who went on to charge the Census Bureau (which works with BLS to create the samples for the unemployment rate) with faking and fabricating the numbers to help Obama win reelection. ..."
    "... The chairman of the Gallup organization, Jim Clifton, sees so many flaws with the way unemployment is measured that he has called the official rate a "Big Lie." In the Democratic presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders has also weighed in, saying the real unemployment rate is at best above 10 percent. ..."
    "... What a useless article. The author explains precisely nothing about what the official statistics do and do not measure, what they miss and what they capture. ..."
    "... I had the same impression as well. Notice he does not mention that the Gallop number is over 10% and is based on their polling data. ..."
    "... But never mentioned that Reagan changed how Unemployment was figured in the early 80's. He included all people in the military service, as employed. Before that, they was counted neither way. He also intentionally left out that when Obama, had the unemployed numbers dropped one month before the election, from 8.1% to 7.8% --because it was believed that no one could be reelected if it was above 8%. ..."
    "... U6 is 9.8% for March 2016. We still have 94 million unemployed and you want to say its 5 % what journalistic malpractice. ..."
    "... Trump has emphasized that he is looking at the percent of the population that is participating in the workforce - and that this participation rate is currently at historical lows -- and Trump has been clear that his approach to paying down the national debt is based on getting the participation rates back to historical levels ..."
    "... "The government can't lie about a hundred billion dollars of Social Security money stolen for the Clinton 'balanced budget', that would be a crime against the citizens, they would revolt. John, come one now. " ..."
    "... I didn't say it first, Senator Ernest Hollings did, on the Senate floor. ..."
    "... And here is how they did it: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 ..."
    "... There is plenty of evidence the figures are cooked, folks, enough to fill a book: Atlas Shouts. Don't believe trash like this article claims. GDP, unemployment and inflation are all manipulated numbers, as Campbell's Law predicts. ..."
    "... I can't believe the Washington Post prints propaganda like this. ..."
    "... I do remember when the officially-announced unemployment rate stopped including those who were no longer looking for work. That *was* a significant shift, and there's no doubt it made politicians (Reagan, I think it was) look better; of course, no President since then has reversed it, as it would instantly make themselves look worse. ..."
    "... Working one hour a week, at minimum wage, is 'employed', according to the government. No wonder unemployment is at 5%. ..."
    "... Add in people who are working, but want and need full time jobs, add in people who have dropped out of the labor market and/or retired earlier than they wanted to, and unemployment is at least 10%. Ten seconds on Google will show you that. ..."
    "... The writer should be sacked for taking a very serious issue and turning it into a piece of non-informative fluff. Bad mouthing Trump and Sanders is the same as endorsing Hilly. ..."
    Apr 08, 2016 | The Washington Post
    Yes, Donald Trump is wrong about unemployment. But he's not the only one. - The Washington Post

    Listen to President Obama, and you'll hear that job growth is stronger than at any point in the past 20 years, and - as he said in his final State of the Union address - "anyone claiming that America's economy is in decline is peddling fiction."

    Listen to Donald Trump and you'll hear something completely different. The billionaire Republican candidate for president told The Washington Post last week that the economy is one big Federal Reserve bubble waiting to burst, and that as for job growth, "we're not at 5 percent unemployment. We're at a number that's probably into the 20s if you look at the real number." Not only that, Trump said, but the numbers are juiced: "That was a number that was devised, statistically devised, to make politicians - and in particular, presidents - look good. And I wouldn't be getting the kind of massive crowds that I'm getting if the number was a real number."

    It's easy enough to dismiss - as a phalanx of economists and analysts did - Trump's claims as yet another one of his all-too-frequent campaign lines that have little to do with reality. But with this one, at least, Trump is tapping into a deep and mostly overlooked well of popular suspicion of government numbers and a deeply held belief that what "we the people" are told about the economy by the government is lies, damn lies and statistics designed to benefit the elite at the expense of the working class. The stubborn persistence of these beliefs should be a reminder that just because the United States is doing well in general, that doesn't mean everyone in the country is. It's also a warning to experts and policymakers that in the real world, there is no "the economy," there are many, and generalizations have a way of glossing over some very rough patches.

    Since the mid-20th century, when the U.S. government began keeping and compiling our modern suite of economic numbers, there has been constant skepticism of the reports, coming from different corners depending on economic trends and the broader political climate. In the 1950s and 1960s, for instance, organized labor was fairly convinced that the government was purposely underestimating inflation and the cost of living to keep Social Security payments low and wages from rising. George Meany, the powerful head of the American Federation of Labor at the time, claimed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiled both employment and inflation numbers, had "become identified with an effort to freeze wages and is not longer a free agency of statistical research."

    Over the decades, those views hardened. Throughout the 1970s, as workers struggled with unemployment and stagflation, the government continually tweaked its formulas for measuring prices. By and large, these changes and new formulas were designed to make the figures more accurate in a fast-changing world. But for those who were already convinced the government was trying to paint a deliberately false picture, the tweaks and innovations were interpreted as a devious way to avoid spending money to help the ailing middle class, not trying to measure what was actually happening to design policies to help address it. The commissioner of BLS at the time, Janet Norwood, dismissed those concerns in testimony to Congress in the late 1970s, saying that when people don't get the number they want, "they feel there must be something wrong with the indicator itself."

    Employment figures are sometimes seen as equally suspect. Jack Welch, the once-legendary former CEO of GE, blithely accused the Obama administration of manipulating the final employment report before the 2012 election to make the economic recovery look better than it was. "Unbelievable jobs numbers … these Chicago guys will do anything … can't debate so change numbers," he tweeted after that last October report showed better-than-expected job growth and lower-than-anticipated unemployment rate. His arguments were later fleshed out by New York Post columnist John Crudele, who went on to charge the Census Bureau (which works with BLS to create the samples for the unemployment rate) with faking and fabricating the numbers to help Obama win reelection.

    These views are not fringe. Type the search terms "inflation is false" into Google, and you will get reams of articles and analysis from mainstream outlets and voices, including investment guru Bill Gross (who referred to inflation numbers as a "haute con job"). Similar results pop up with the terms "real unemployment rate," and given how many ways there are to count employment, there are legitimate issues with the headline number.

    The cohort that responds to Trump reads those numbers in a starkly different light from the cohort laughing at him for it. Whenever the unemployment rate comes out showing improvement and hiring, those who are experiencing dwindling wages and shrinking opportunities might see a meticulously constructed web of lies meant to paint a positive picture so that the plight of tens of millions who have dropped out of the workforce can be ignored. The chairman of the Gallup organization, Jim Clifton, sees so many flaws with the way unemployment is measured that he has called the official rate a "Big Lie." In the Democratic presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders has also weighed in, saying the real unemployment rate is at best above 10 percent.

    Beneath the anger and the distrust - which extend to a booming stock market that helps the wealthy and banks flush with profit even after the financial crisis - there lies a very real problem with how economists, the media and policymakers discuss economics. No, the bureaucrats in the Labor and Commerce departments who compile these numbers aren't a cabal engaged in a cover-up. And no, the Fed is not an Illuminati conspiracy. But the idea that a few simple big numbers that are at best averages to describe a large system we call "the economy" can adequately capture the stories of 320 million people is a fiction, one that we tell ourselves regularly, and which millions of people know to be false to their own experience.

    It may be true that there is a national unemployment rate measured at 5 percent. But it is also true that for white men without a college degree, or white men who had worked factory jobs until the mid-2000s with no more than a high school education, the unemployment reality is much worse (though it's even worse for black and Hispanic men, who don't seem to be responding by flocking to Trump in large numbers). Even when those with these skill sets can get a job, the pay is woefully below a living wage. Jobs that don't pay well still count, in the stats, as jobs. Telling people who are barely getting by that the economy is just fine must appear much more than insensitive. It is insulting, and it feels like a denial of what they are experiencing.

    The chords Trump strikes when he makes these claims, therefore, should be taken more seriously than the claims themselves. We need to be much more diligent in understanding what our national numbers do and do not tell us, and how much they obscure. In trying to hang our sense of what's what on a few big numbers, we risk glossing over the tens of millions whose lives don't fit those numbers and don't fit the story. "The economy" may be doing just fine, but that doesn't mean that everyone is. Inflation might be low, but millions can be struggling to meet basic costs just the same.

    So yes, Trump is wrong, and he's the culmination of decades of paranoia and distrust of government reports. The economy overall is doing just fine. But people are still struggling. We don't have to share the paranoia or buy into the conspiratorial narrative to acknowledge that. A great nation, the one Trump promises to restore, can embrace more than one story, and can afford to speak to those left out of our rosy national numbers along with those whose experience reflect them.

    the3sattlers, 4/8/2016 1:05 PM EDT

    " The economy overall is doing just fine." Does this include QE? If the Fed is pouring billions of new money into the economy, how accurate is it to say that the economy is doing just fine?

    james_harrigan, 4/8/2016 10:14 AM EDT

    What a useless article. The author explains precisely nothing about what the official statistics do and do not measure, what they miss and what they capture.

    Derbigdog, 4/8/2016 11:40 AM EDT

    I had the same impression as well. Notice he does not mention that the Gallop number is over 10% and is based on their polling data.

    captdon1, 4/8/2016 5:51 AM EDT

    Not reported by WP
    The first two years of Obama's presidency Democrats controlled the house and Senate. The second two years, Republicans controlled the Senate. The last two years of Obama's term, the Republicans controlled house and Senate. During this six years the national debt increase $10 TRILLION and the Government collected $9 TRILLION in taxes and borrowed $10 TRILLION. ($19 Trillion In Six Years!!!) (Where did our lovely politicians spend this enormous amount of money??? (Republicans and Democrats!)

    reussere, 4/8/2016 1:43 AM EDT

    Reading the comments below it strikes me again and again how far out of whack most people are with reality. It's absolutely true that using a single number for the employment rate reflects the overall average of the economy certainly doesn't measure how every person is doing, anymore than an average global temperature doesn't measure any local temperatures.

    One thing not emphasized in the article is that there is a number of different statistics. The 5% figure refers to the U-3 statistic. Nearly all of the rest of the employment statistics are higher, some considerably so because they include different groups of people. But when you compare U-3 from different years, you are comparing apples and apples. The rest of the numbers very closely track with U-3. That is when U-3 goes up and down, U-6 go up and down pretty much in lockstep.

    It is unfortunate that subpopulations of Americans are doing far worse (and some doing far better) than average. But that is the nature of averages after all. It is simply impossible for a single number (or even a group of a dozen different employment measurements) to accurately reflect a complex reality.

    Smoothcountryside, 4/8/2016 12:04 PM EDT

    The alternative measures of labor underutilization are defined as U-1 through U-6 with U-6 being the broadest measure and probably the closes to the "true" level of unemployment. Otherwise, all the rest of your commentary is correct.

    southernbaked, 4/7/2016 11:02 PM EDT

    Because this highly educated writer is totally bias, he left out some key parts, I personally lived though. He referred back to the late 70's twice. But never mentioned that Reagan changed how Unemployment was figured in the early 80's. He included all people in the military service, as employed. Before that, they was counted neither way. He also intentionally left out that when Obama, had the unemployed numbers dropped one month before the election, from 8.1% to 7.8% --because it was believed that no one could be reelected if it was above 8%.

    Then after he was sworn in--- in January, they had to readjust the numbers back up. They blamed it on one employees mistakes-- PS. no one was fired or disciplined for fudging. Bottom line is, for every 1.8 manufacturing job, there are 2 government jobs, that is disaster. Because this writer is to young to have lived in America when it was great. When for every 1 government job, you had 3 manufacturing jobs.

    I will enlighten him. I joined the workforce -- With no higher education -- when you merely walked down the road, and picked out a job. Because jobs hang on trees like apples. By 35 I COMPLETELY owned my first 3 bedroom brick house, and the 2 newer cars parked in the driveway. Anyone care to try that now ??

    As for all this talk about education-- I have a bit of knowledge about that subject-- because I paid in full to send all under my roof through it. Without one dime of aide from anyone. The above writer is proof-- you can be heavily educated, and DEAD WRONG. There is nothing good about this economy. Signed, UN-affiliated to either corrupted party

    Bluhorizons, 4/7/2016 9:43 PM EDT

    "we're not at 5 percent unemployment. We're at a number that's probably into the 20s if you look at the real number." Trump is correct. The unemployment data is contrived from data about people receiving unemployment compensation but the people who's unemployment has ended and people who have just given up is invisible.

    "It may be true that there is a national unemployment rate measured at 5 percent. But it is also true that for white men without a college degree, or white men who had worked factory jobs until the mid-2000s with no more than a high school education, the unemployment reality is much worse "

    The author goes on and on about the legitimate distrust of government unemployment data and then tells us Trump is wrong. But the article convinces us Trump is right! So, this article its not really about the legitimate distrust of government data is is about the author's not liking Trump. Typical New Left bs

    Aushax, 4/7/2016 8:24 PM EDT

    Last jobs report before the 2012 election the number unusually dropped then was readjusted up after the election. Coincidentally?

    George Mason, 4/7/2016 8:15 PM EDT

    U6 is 9.8% for March 2016. We still have 94 million unemployed and you want to say its 5 % what journalistic malpractice.

    F mackey, 4/7/2016 7:57 PM EDT

    hey reporter,Todays WSJ, More than 40% of the student borrowers aren't making payments? WHY? easy,they owe big $ money$ & cant get a job or a well paying job to pay back the loans,hey reporter,i'd send you $10 bucks to buy a clue,but you'd probably get lost going to the store,what a %@%@%@,another reporter,who doesn't have a clue on whats going on,jmo

    SimpleCountryActuary, 4/7/2016 7:57 PM EDT

    This reporter is a Hillary tool. Even the Los Angeles Times on March 6th had to admit:

    "Trump is partly right in saying that trade has cost the U.S. economy jobs and held down wages. He may also be correct - to a degree - in saying that low-skilled immigrants have depressed salaries for certain jobs or industries..."

    If this is the quality of reporting the WaPo is going to provide, namely even worse than the Los Angeles Times, then Bezos had better fire the editorial staff and buy a new one.

    Clyde4, 4/7/2016 7:34 PM EDT [Edited]

    This article dismissing Trump is exactly what is wrong with journalism today - all about creating a false reality for people instead of investigating and reporting

    Trump has emphasized that he is looking at the percent of the population that is participating in the workforce - and that this participation rate is currently at historical lows -- and Trump has been clear that his approach to paying down the national debt is based on getting the participation rates back to historical levels

    The author completely ignored the big elephant in the room -- that is irresponsible journalism

    The author may want to look into how the unemployment rate shot up in 2008 when the government extended benefits and then the unemployment rate plummeted again when unemployment benefits were decrease (around 2011, I believe) - if I were the author I would do a little research into whether the unemployment rate correlates with how much is paid out in benefits or with unemployment determined through some other approach (like surveys

    dangerbird1225, 4/7/2016 7:25 PM EDT

    Bunch of crap. If you stop counting those that stop looking for a job, your numbers are wrong. Period. Why didn't this apologist for statistics mention that?

    watchkeptoverthewatcher, 4/7/2016 6:27 PM EDT

    Ya with a labor participation rate of 63%

    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

    AtlasRocked, 4/7/2016 5:12 PM EDT

    "The government can't lie about a hundred billion dollars of Social Security money stolen for the Clinton 'balanced budget', that would be a crime against the citizens, they would revolt. John, come one now. "

    I didn't say it first, Senator Ernest Hollings did, on the Senate floor.

    "Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000." - Senate speech, Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?c3319676 at 5:30

    And here is how they did it: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

    rgengel, 4/7/2016 5:03 PM EDT

    Go to New Orleans Chicago Atlanta Los Angeles Detroit stop anybody on the street and ask if unemployment is 5% and that there is a 95% chance a guy can get a job.

    Then you will have a statistic reference point. Its not a Democratic or republican issue because both of them have manipulated the system for so long its meaningless. Go Trump 2016 and get this crap sorted out with common sense plain English

    AtlasRocked, 4/7/2016 4:37 PM EDT

    There is plenty of evidence the figures are cooked, folks, enough to fill a book: Atlas Shouts. Don't believe trash like this article claims. GDP, unemployment and inflation are all manipulated numbers, as Campbell's Law predicts.

    I can't believe the Washington Post prints propaganda like this.

    TimberDave, 4/7/2016 2:23 PM EDT

    I do remember when the officially-announced unemployment rate stopped including those who were no longer looking for work. That *was* a significant shift, and there's no doubt it made politicians (Reagan, I think it was) look better; of course, no President since then has reversed it, as it would instantly make themselves look worse.

    astroboy_2000, 4/7/2016 1:28 PM EDT

    This would be a much more intelligent article if the writer actually said what the government considers as 'employed'.

    Working one hour a week, at minimum wage, is 'employed', according to the government. No wonder unemployment is at 5%.

    Add in people who are working, but want and need full time jobs, add in people who have dropped out of the labor market and/or retired earlier than they wanted to, and unemployment is at least 10%. Ten seconds on Google will show you that.

    The writer should be sacked for taking a very serious issue and turning it into a piece of non-informative fluff. Bad mouthing Trump and Sanders is the same as endorsing Hilly.

    Manchester0913, 4/7/2016 2:12 PM EDT

    The number you're referencing is captured under U6. However, U3 is the traditional measure.

    Son House, 4/7/2016 2:24 PM EDT

    The government doesn't claim that working one hour a week is employed. Google U 3 unemployment. Then google U 6 unemployment. You can be enlightened.

    Liz in AL, 4/7/2016 7:21 PM EDT

    I've found this compilation of all 6 of the "U-rates" very useful. It encompasses the most restrictive (and thus smallest) U-1 rate, though the most expansive U-6. It provides brief descriptions of what gets counted for each rate, and (at least for more recent years) provides the ability to compare at the monthly level of detail. U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

    [Sep 14, 2016] Money cant buy me love DNC can sell you a high diplomatic position for mere 600 thousands

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some of the other – possible – position purchases were a little disturbing, though, such as Julius Genachowski's FCC Chairmanship or Tony West's appointment as Deputy Attorney General. If true that donations were the clincher, then it does smell a little like corruption. ..."
    "... In addition to Jim Haygood's report above I would flag Lee Fang's Twitter bulletin, which includes emails (you click on the actual emails imaged in the tweet to read the original) that reveal Colin Powell and Jeffrey Leeds discussing how much the Clintons hate Obama ("that man"), and how questionable Hillary's health is. This appears to be from a separate DNC Leaks hack of Powell's emails unrelated to the Guccifer 2.0 release. ..."
    "... But the quote of the evening so far is from a Colin Powell email complaining about how Hillary is responsible for the whole email debacle at State and was trying to scapegoat him for her mess despite his protestations. Boy, was Powell pissed off, and to the point: " Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris. " ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jim Haygood , September 13, 2016 at 9:28 pm

    New leak from Guccifer 2.0: ambassadorships for sale - some for a very affordable $600K:

    http://magafeed.com/new-clinton-leaks-reveals-donor-list-big-donors-awarded-federal-positions/

    " Money can't buy me love " - John, Paul, George & Ringo

    But a black diplomatic passport is a decent consolation prize. :-)

    JCC , September 13, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    I saw that too, earlier today and at first I thought "another example!". Then I stepped back and realized that other than an inflation gauge, so what? That has been a perk for donors in this country (and many other I assume) for over 200 years… at least as far as the ambassadorships are concerned.

    Some of the other – possible – position purchases were a little disturbing, though, such as Julius Genachowski's FCC Chairmanship or Tony West's appointment as Deputy Attorney General. If true that donations were the clincher, then it does smell a little like corruption.

    Buttinsky , September 13, 2016 at 11:39 pm

    I was away from the computer for a few hours and all leak-hell has broken loose. Unfortunately, the actual dumps are not being made as easy to access directly as in prior releases - the Guccifer 2.0 release requires a "torrent" download and DNCLeaks.org seems to have been vaporized. And there's a lot of it, so we're having to rely on piecemeal, secondhand reports at the moment.

    In addition to Jim Haygood's report above I would flag Lee Fang's Twitter bulletin, which includes emails (you click on the actual emails imaged in the tweet to read the original) that reveal Colin Powell and Jeffrey Leeds discussing how much the Clintons hate Obama ("that man"), and how questionable Hillary's health is. This appears to be from a separate DNC Leaks hack of Powell's emails unrelated to the Guccifer 2.0 release.

    https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/775846049009197057

    But the quote of the evening so far is from a Colin Powell email complaining about how Hillary is responsible for the whole email debacle at State and was trying to scapegoat him for her mess despite his protestations. Boy, was Powell pissed off, and to the point: " Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris. "

    https://theintercept.com/2016/09/13/colin-powell-emails/

    Daryl , September 13, 2016 at 11:05 pm

    Was checking the polls in Texas and surprised to see that it has Johnson at 10% and Stein at 6%.

    Also googling for more of them, all the articles talked about Hillary "might win" Texas, no mention of third party candidates. Blech

    [Sep 13, 2016] Hillary Clinton might just became unelectable. and any vote for Clinton automatically become a vote for Tim Kaine

    "What is frightening is the desperation. It's like the [US neoliberal] elite are afraid of something terrible. " -- that a very asute observation,
    " Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates to Brexit. Turning their world upside down. " -- also true, although neoliberalism still successfully counterattack in selected countries and recently scored two wins in Latin America (Argentina and Brazil)
    Notable quotes:
    "... The atmosphere feels like 1974 just before Richard Nixon resigned. Except, it is completely reversed. The establishment is protecting Hillary Clinton. They are spinning up a whirlwind. What is frightening is the desperation. It's like the elite are afraid of something terrible. ..."
    "... I presume it has to be that millions of incorrigibles are recognizing the oligarchs' scams. Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates to Brexit. Turning their world upside down. ..."
    "... Ms. Clinton and/or whichever member of her staff decided to use The Clinton Rules for Obfuscation and Avoidance as a way to address what was clearly some kind of medical event. ..."
    "... Given that she wasn't whisked away in an ambulance, and didn't spend any time in an emergency room, whatever it was that happened must not have been entirely unanticipated or unusual – it may just be that she had the great misfortune of exhibiting these symptoms in public and not in the privacy of her own home. ..."
    "... But let's recap, shall we? First, she was constructively absent from the campaign trail for the entire month of August. She did few events and not as much traveling. She also was not spending any time with the media, giving no pressers for months. Criticism mounted, so – wonder of wonders – when she got her spiffy new plane, the invites went out to the media to join her on the plane, and she held her first presser in months just this past Thursday. ..."
    "... She looked fine. Her color was good, she looked rested. The next night, she did a high-dollar fundraiser hosted by Barbra Streisand. Again, she looked and sounded fine. Yet, it was that day that her physician says she was diagnosed with pneumonia and given antibiotics. ..."
    "... Then, on Sunday, with temps in the low 80's and low humidity, she falls ill. She looked okay walking to her car, but she leaned on the post for support and then appeared to collapse getting into the van. Did she lose her footing on the curb? ..."
    "... She sustained a serious concussion in 2012, when she fainted as a complication of a stomach virus that caused her to be dehydrated. The concussion gave her double vision, for which she wore special lenses for a time. She was not allowed to fly. A follow up visit to the doctor revealed that she had a blood clot in a vein between her brain and her skull so she was put on blood thinners. Her husband says it took every bit of six months for her to recover from the concussion. ..."
    "... She's also had DVTs in her legs, and has an underactive thyroid for which I presume she takes medication. ..."
    "... no matter how infrequent – post-concussion symptoms will call into question her mental abilities, which would be the death knell for her candidacy. ..."
    "... she and her people spoon feed us one somewhat-plausible explanation after another, apparently in the hope they will hit on one that makes people stop asking questions about it ..."
    "... This is how the Clintons – both of them – handle everything, and it's exactly why Hillary finds herself the topic of conversation and speculation everywhere. ..."
    "... Also, not sure I believe the pneumonia story. Wouldn't put it past them to fabricate that. How is taking about health issues w/o talking about her concussion, blood clots, and rat poison meds …. an honest talk about her health? ..."
    "... If Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's -- or some other neurological impairment leading to her frequent "spells" and falls -- the Democratic Party should ask her to step aside and allow someone in better health to run. ..."
    "... As they move her away from that post she was leaning against, her arms stay rigid behind her back. My friend used to call this "offing", as in on or off, which was different from his freezing of gait, and happened to him when he was under stress. ..."
    "... the coughing, even the pneumonia could be caused by difficulty swallowing. ..."
    "... It could be Vascular Parkinsonism. I just wish she would be strong enough to admit she is weak. ..."
    "... Ah, thanks for explaining why her arms were like that behind her back. At first I thought she was handcuffed. ..."
    "... Noel's How to Prove Me Wrong about Hillary's Parkinson's Disease is worth a look. ..."
    "... Forget Parkinson's, what about MS. ..."
    "... after the DVT Hillary would have been placed on an anticoagulant, especially with all those plane trips. Then there is that fall she had last year. If she were on Coumadin at that time with a fall & head trauma can cause a bleed. Also MDs are nervous about putting someone on a blood thinner that is at risk for frequent falls. This whole situation is crazy. ..."
    "... I'd bet that Clinton shopped around until she found a doctor willing to work with a minimal paper trail and certainly zero electronic trail. ..."
    "... It isn't logical to believe a sudden press release used as a distraction. With past episodes of fainting, falling, concussion and ongoing treatment, this qualifier is put out to run up the flagpole. Please note the moment the handlers suddenly jump to surround and hide the candidate from the cameras. ..."
    "... Daily Mail even goes as far as to say the candidate was "thrown into the seat like a sack of beef" (paraphrasing) ..."
    "... Was that doctor EpiPen that opened the door to the van? ..."
    "... So she has what could be very contagious? And she rests at Chelsea's home and plays with the kids? Anyone want some real cheap swamp land in the Everglades? ..."
    "... my guess is at Chelsea's they could give her a quick shot of amphetamines so we could then get the "look, the candidate can actually walk unaided!" photo op when she emerged. ..."
    "... So that's how low we've sunk, we're supposed to vote for the elderly, sickly, serial war criminal, pathological liar old lady because she can actually walk. Oh, and "because she's a woman". ..."
    "... I'd just like to point out how annoying it is that the media stenographers on many sites today are slavishly repeating the Hillary campaign's pneumonia story without a single speck of actually checking, either through logic or investigation, whether any of it makes sense. Though admittedly there is a tiny bit doubt starting to creep through the media narrative; maybe they're thinking that this is the fig leaf they need to feel like they still have credibility–which is just them fooling themselves. ..."
    "... Since stuff coming from the mainstream media is provably guaranteed to be just some sht they made up, or passing along some sht someone else made up without questioning it, I don't think there's anything wrong with just ignoring the msm and believing whatever you feel like believing from the internet; unlike with the msm there is at least a decent chance that that stuff might be true. ..."
    "... Policies? Pay no attention to what emerges from the candidates mouths, as Obama said in 2008 "Hilary will say anything, and change nothing", she can be at a rally and yell "I'm fighting for you!" and 15 minutes later she is meeting with a Wall St CEO on new ways to rip people off. I'm not saying her opponent is any better ..."
    "... Focus on the candidate's health is always appropriate. Particularly so when the ability of the candidate to serve out their term is a legitimate question. It is the height of arrogance for a candidate to accept the nomination without the full expectation that they will be ready to serve the full term at stake. For a candidate to attempt to proceed through concealment of substantive health issues is an expression of complete unaccountability. ..."
    "... If Hillary had been more honest about her physical condition, folks wouldn't be stooping to armchair diagnoses, which is normal human behavior for those to whom the truth has not been forthcoming. ..."
    "... Not a one-time diagnosis. She apparently has had a deep venous thrombosis and more recently cavernous sinus thrombosis. I suspect because of this (two discrete episodes) a decision has been made for chronic continuing use of coumadin. Like all medications, a decision is made as to whether the benefits of treatment using that medication outweigh the projected risks of the medication. Properly managed, the risks are fairly small. But the key is proper management, which may be difficult given the demands of the position as POTUS. ..."
    "... I also believe her travel did and would put her at greater risk. https://www.stoptheclot.org/learn_more/air_travel_and_thrombosis.htm ..."
    "... This just in: Hillary Clinton to Release More Medical Records After Pneumonia Diagnosis http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-plans-to-rest-amid-health-concerns-1473694474 ..."
    "... More"? Like how many more? ..."
    "... How many more? As many as it takes, one dollop at a time, until she hits the sweet spot where the questions stop. It was always destined to take the same path as the e-mails and every other questionable thing Clinton's been associated with – that's how they roll! ..."
    "... "One-shoe" Hillary is now the butt of visual jokes, as her signature red arrow is repurposed into a stretcher: http://tinyurl.com/zbza8ph ..."
    "... At this point, Clinton would have as much success convincing the public that she's released all the medical records that are relevant to her run for president as she would convincing us that she was part of a grand experiment whereby an entire medical team has been shrunk to Fantastic Voyage size, and injected into her bloodstream so that she can be under constant care. ..."
    "... If she became spastic, and collapsed (unexpectedly) just trying to get into an SUV, what kind of risk is she going to be under during the first debate? ..."
    "... Everyone is going to be watching for any slight, "unnatural," twitch, or, movement for the whole episode. ..."
    "... The question really is: Is a vote for Clinton a vote for Tim Kaine??? ..."
    "... Here's why. If humans were rational creatures, the time and place of Clinton's "overheating" wouldn't matter at all. But when it comes to American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel unsafe. And safety is our first priority. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton just became unelectable. The mainstream media might not interpret today's events as a big deal. After all, it was only a little episode of overheating. And they will continue covering the play-by-play action until election day. But unless Trump actually does shoot someone on 5th Avenue, he's running unopposed." ..."
    "... seems to me that Hillary could likely be suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. ..."
    "... If diagnosed in 2012-13, which seems likely given her concussion and brain clot diagnoses, she would now begin to experience a severe physical decline and pneumonia is a frequent cause of death for those suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. ..."
    Sep 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    VietnamVet , September 12, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    I agree with all of Anne's great comments above on Hillary Clinton's 9-11 fainting episode.

    The atmosphere feels like 1974 just before Richard Nixon resigned. Except, it is completely reversed. The establishment is protecting Hillary Clinton. They are spinning up a whirlwind. What is frightening is the desperation. It's like the elite are afraid of something terrible.

    It can't be Donald Trump; he is one them. Instead, I presume it has to be that millions of incorrigibles are recognizing the oligarchs' scams. Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates to Brexit. Turning their world upside down.

    Anne , September 12, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    If you want to blame anyone for all this armchair medical discussion, look no further than Ms. Clinton and/or whichever member of her staff decided to use The Clinton Rules for Obfuscation and Avoidance as a way to address what was clearly some kind of medical event.

    Given that she wasn't whisked away in an ambulance, and didn't spend any time in an emergency room, whatever it was that happened must not have been entirely unanticipated or unusual – it may just be that she had the great misfortune of exhibiting these symptoms in public and not in the privacy of her own home.

    Whatever this is or was, it is how she chose to handle it that has led to all this discussion.

    But let's recap, shall we? First, she was constructively absent from the campaign trail for the entire month of August. She did few events and not as much traveling. She also was not spending any time with the media, giving no pressers for months. Criticism mounted, so – wonder of wonders – when she got her spiffy new plane, the invites went out to the media to join her on the plane, and she held her first presser in months just this past Thursday.

    She looked fine. Her color was good, she looked rested. The next night, she did a high-dollar fundraiser hosted by Barbra Streisand. Again, she looked and sounded fine. Yet, it was that day that her physician says she was diagnosed with pneumonia and given antibiotics.

    Then, on Sunday, with temps in the low 80's and low humidity, she falls ill. She looked okay walking to her car, but she leaned on the post for support and then appeared to collapse getting into the van. Did she lose her footing on the curb?

    So, first we heard she wasn't feeling well. Then we heard she was overheated and dehydrated. Some hours later, we were told of the pneumonia diagnosis, and then – like a miracle – she comes walking out of her daughter's apartment building looking quite chipper. Did she get IV fluids? Who knows?

    She sustained a serious concussion in 2012, when she fainted as a complication of a stomach virus that caused her to be dehydrated. The concussion gave her double vision, for which she wore special lenses for a time. She was not allowed to fly. A follow up visit to the doctor revealed that she had a blood clot in a vein between her brain and her skull so she was put on blood thinners. Her husband says it took every bit of six months for her to recover from the concussion.

    She's also had DVTs in her legs, and has an underactive thyroid for which I presume she takes medication.

    Could she be having periodic bouts of vertigo as a result of the concussion? Other effects that linger, or pop up from time to time? Doesn't seem unreasonable, but here's the thing: we are never going to know if that's the case, because unlike pneumonia for which you can take an antibiotic and be done with, ongoing – no matter how infrequent – post-concussion symptoms will call into question her mental abilities, which would be the death knell for her candidacy.

    So, she and her people spoon feed us one somewhat-plausible explanation after another, apparently in the hope they will hit on one that makes people stop asking questions about it – but the problem is that this method just adds to the sense people have that she's still hiding something and so the speculation goes on.

    This is how the Clintons – both of them – handle everything, and it's exactly why Hillary finds herself the topic of conversation and speculation everywhere.

    crittermom , September 12, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    Anne, you nailed it.

    timbers , September 12, 2016 at 10:22 am

    Yes to this (Anne. September 12, 2016 at 9:57 am):

    My real issue with this whole event is that, had Clinton not collapsed, we wouldn't know anything about the alleged pneumonia. It's the same old story: she does what she wants until events conspire to force her to make public whatever it was she wanted to remain private.

    And even then, she continues to hold close as much information as possible for as long as possible, before being more or less forced to get it all out there.

    Also, not sure I believe the pneumonia story. Wouldn't put it past them to fabricate that. How is taking about health issues w/o talking about her concussion, blood clots, and rat poison meds …. an honest talk about her health?

    Barmitt O'Bamney, September 12, 2016 at 10:50 am

    It's probably a lot worse than a case of walking pneumonia. The video below was posted to yootoobs three days before Hillary Clinton collapsed into her own footprint like a world tower of trade:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XtIzH9HoC8 (try to set aside the moronic wingnut host's editorializing, just listen to the doc testify)

    It should be noted that

    A) Parkinson's Disease has several stages. Hillary appears to be ten years into the progression at least and somewhere in the disease's middle stages. Also,

    B) the medication used to treat Parkinson's has its own serious side motor effects, which she seems to exhibit.

    C) And finally C, not only does Parkinson's debilitate its victim randomly and episodically, and ultimately in its latter stages will make keeping up a daily schedule of activities impossible, it also is typically accompanied by non-motor symptoms of delusions and hard mood swings: eg, anxiety/depression and rage.

    If Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's -- or some other neurological impairment leading to her frequent "spells" and falls -- the Democratic Party should ask her to step aside and allow someone in better health to run. Naturally being Hillary Clinton she would hotly refuse and retreat to her bunker with Eva Braun to lean on, but the certain ferocity of her reaction doesn't relieve the party leadership of this responsibility.

    I long ago abandoned any hope for that party, but in an alternate universe where they had not become mobbed-up and corrupt to the core, Clinton would get a public call from party elders now to do the right thing for the country and endorse a substitute candidate.

    FromColdMountain , September 12, 2016 at 11:26 am

    Having lived with someone who had Parkinson's, and after looking closely at the video of her on 9/11, I think she has Parkinson's.

    As they move her away from that post she was leaning against, her arms stay rigid behind her back. My friend used to call this "offing", as in on or off, which was different from his freezing of gait, and happened to him when he was under stress.

    Just too many things, the coughing, the blue sunglasses, the falling, the coughing, even the pneumonia could be caused by difficulty swallowing.

    It could be Vascular Parkinsonism. I just wish she would be strong enough to admit she is weak.

    ohmyheck , September 12, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    Ah, thanks for explaining why her arms were like that behind her back. At first I thought she was handcuffed. In my dreams….

    Benedict@Large , September 12, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    There is no test for Parkinson's. The diagnosis is made based on reviewing the patient's actions. In other words, the stuff you might see on YouTube.

    Noel's How to Prove Me Wrong about Hillary's Parkinson's Disease is worth a look.

    m , September 13, 2016 at 3:43 am

    Forget Parkinson's, what about MS.

    m , September 13, 2016 at 3:38 am

    What is concerning is that after the DVT Hillary would have been placed on an anticoagulant, especially with all those plane trips. Then there is that fall she had last year. If she were on Coumadin at that time with a fall & head trauma can cause a bleed. Also MDs are nervous about putting someone on a blood thinner that is at risk for frequent falls. This whole situation is crazy. Feel bad, don't like her, adios-time to take all that foundation money and retire.

    oho , September 12, 2016 at 11:43 am

    " Those are all kept on computers nowadays, as well."

    I'd bet that Clinton shopped around until she found a doctor willing to work with a minimal paper trail and certainly zero electronic trail.

    Brian , September 12, 2016 at 11:01 am

    It isn't logical to believe a sudden press release used as a distraction. With past episodes of fainting, falling, concussion and ongoing treatment, this qualifier is put out to run up the flagpole. Please note the moment the handlers suddenly jump to surround and hide the candidate from the cameras.

    Daily Mail even goes as far as to say the candidate was "thrown into the seat like a sack of beef" (paraphrasing) If this is so, that isn't a response for someone fainting as much as perhaps the attempt to hide symptoms from observers. Was that doctor EpiPen that opened the door to the van?

    Was this an attempt to divert attention from the real issue?

    As a great philosopher once said; "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat"

    apber , September 12, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    So she has what could be very contagious? And she rests at Chelsea's home and plays with the kids? Anyone want some real cheap swamp land in the Everglades?

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 12, 2016 at 4:47 pm

    This is the tell, if she actually had pneumonia they would not just have hustled her off to Chelsea's place, my guess is at Chelsea's they could give her a quick shot of amphetamines so we could then get the "look, the candidate can actually walk unaided!" photo op when she emerged.

    So that's how low we've sunk, we're supposed to vote for the elderly, sickly, serial war criminal, pathological liar old lady because she can actually walk. Oh, and "because she's a woman". (So we got the last 8 years of disaster because of the candidate's dermis, and we"ll get the next 4 years of disaster because of the candidate's pubis).

    jgordon , September 12, 2016 at 9:03 am

    I'd just like to point out how annoying it is that the media stenographers on many sites today are slavishly repeating the Hillary campaign's pneumonia story without a single speck of actually checking, either through logic or investigation, whether any of it makes sense. Though admittedly there is a tiny bit doubt starting to creep through the media narrative; maybe they're thinking that this is the fig leaf they need to feel like they still have credibility–which is just them fooling themselves.

    Since stuff coming from the mainstream media is provably guaranteed to be just some sht they made up, or passing along some sht someone else made up without questioning it, I don't think there's anything wrong with just ignoring the msm and believing whatever you feel like believing from the internet; unlike with the msm there is at least a decent chance that that stuff might be true.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 12, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Policies? Pay no attention to what emerges from the candidates mouths, as Obama said in 2008 "Hilary will say anything, and change nothing", she can be at a rally and yell "I'm fighting for you!" and 15 minutes later she is meeting with a Wall St CEO on new ways to rip people off. I'm not saying her opponent is any better

    PhilU , September 12, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    "By more than three-to-one, more Democrats and leaners think the campaign is not focused on important policy debates (71% vs. 20%). While a narrow majority of Republicans say the same (53%), 37% describe the campaign as focused on important policy debates."

    skeeter , September 12, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Focus on the candidate's health is always appropriate. Particularly so when the ability of the candidate to serve out their term is a legitimate question. It is the height of arrogance for a candidate to accept the nomination without the full expectation that they will be ready to serve the full term at stake. For a candidate to attempt to proceed through concealment of substantive health issues is an expression of complete unaccountability.

    It's not the candidate's prerogative to decide upon what information the voters will make their choice.

    robnume , September 12, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    If Hillary had been more honest about her physical condition, folks wouldn't be stooping to armchair diagnoses, which is normal human behavior for those to whom the truth has not been forthcoming.

    Bob , September 12, 2016 at 1:13 pm

    Not a one-time diagnosis. She apparently has had a deep venous thrombosis and more recently cavernous sinus thrombosis. I suspect because of this (two discrete episodes) a decision has been made for chronic continuing use of coumadin. Like all medications, a decision is made as to whether the benefits of treatment using that medication outweigh the projected risks of the medication. Properly managed, the risks are fairly small. But the key is proper management, which may be difficult given the demands of the position as POTUS.

    cwaltz , September 12, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    I also believe her travel did and would put her at greater risk. https://www.stoptheclot.org/learn_more/air_travel_and_thrombosis.htm

    Yves Smith , September 12, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    This just in: Hillary Clinton to Release More Medical Records After Pneumonia Diagnosis http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-plans-to-rest-amid-health-concerns-1473694474

    "More"? Like how many more? If this is more opining by her Chappaqua MD, that does not qualify as "records". This is beginning to resemble the forced drip of e-mails…..

    Anne , September 12, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    How many more? As many as it takes, one dollop at a time, until she hits the sweet spot where the questions stop. It was always destined to take the same path as the e-mails and every other questionable thing Clinton's been associated with – that's how they roll!

    What continues to boggle my mind is why she doesn't seem to understand that THIS is why such a significant segment of the electorate doesn't trust her; it's so obvious, and yet she continues to employ this strategy and it could cost her the election.

    Assuming she is healthy enough to participate in the first debate, it should be a doozy.

    Jim Haygood , September 12, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    "One-shoe" Hillary is now the butt of visual jokes, as her signature red arrow is repurposed into a stretcher: http://tinyurl.com/zbza8ph

    Anne , September 12, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    At this point, Clinton would have as much success convincing the public that she's released all the medical records that are relevant to her run for president as she would convincing us that she was part of a grand experiment whereby an entire medical team has been shrunk to Fantastic Voyage size, and injected into her bloodstream so that she can be under constant care.

    The Fantastic Voyage scenario might actually be more believable.

    In other words, it's just one more thing that doesn't really matter because only those in her basket of adorables believe anything she says – and they believe everything, no matter how the story shifts and changes.

    NYPaul , September 12, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    If she became spastic, and collapsed (unexpectedly) just trying to get into an SUV, what kind of risk is she going to be under during the first debate?

    The stress of being thrust into the biggest "fishbowl" imaginable ( largest TV audience ever being predicted) with all the "marbles" on the table would freak out the healthiest human alive.

    Everyone is going to be watching for any slight, "unnatural," twitch, or, movement for the whole episode.

    What drama! I wouldn't be surprised if some pretext is found to nix the debate. The risk for her is just too great, IMO, of course.

    Benedict@Large , September 12, 2016 at 4:47 pm

    Each time she releases medical records, it gives her chorus another chance to sing (in harmony) that she has clearly demonstrated that she is healthy. After a few of these, the corporate press will feign impatience, and any talk about Hillary's health will be cast aside as coming from conspiracy theorists. No one will ever question why the issue wasn't resolved up front with a full disclosure.

    All of this is fine (I guess) except if she is hiding Parkinson's, which is completely debilitating as far as the Presidency is concerned.

    crittermom , September 13, 2016 at 12:42 am

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785442/She-s-phoning-Sick-Hillary-CALL-California-fundraiser-instead-traveling-cross-country.html

    fresno dan , September 12, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    The question really is: Is a vote for Clinton a vote for Tim Kaine???

    Now, the REALLY cynical might conjecture that Clintoon is thinking the BEST meme to save the election for herself is that she spins it that she pulls a William Henry Harrison – don't worry about voting for Clintoon!!! I'll only be president for 30 or so days!

    Hey, your not really voting for me Your really voting for Kaine!

    Only decades later is the Clinton tomb excavated and it is revealed that she was a Disney animatronic programmed by Goldman Sachs – those "speeches" were really charades to allow the cables to be plugged in so the updated software could be downloaded…

    If the media is in the pocket of the Clintons, why now are we finding out about her "illness" ….hmmmmm….

    timbers , September 12, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    "Dilbert" on Clinton episode:

    The Race for President is (Probably) Over

    "If you are following breaking news, Hillary Clinton abruptly left the 9-11 memorial today because she was reportedly "overheated." Her campaign says she is fine now. You probably wonder if the "overheated" explanation is true – and a non-issue as reported – or an indication of a larger medical condition. I'm blogging to tell you it doesn't matter. The result is the same.

    Here's why. If humans were rational creatures, the time and place of Clinton's "overheating" wouldn't matter at all. But when it comes to American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel unsafe. And safety is our first priority.

    Hillary Clinton just became unelectable. The mainstream media might not interpret today's events as a big deal. After all, it was only a little episode of overheating. And they will continue covering the play-by-play action until election day. But unless Trump actually does shoot someone on 5th Avenue, he's running unopposed."

    Optimader , September 12, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Oooooh boy, is he ever going to get flamed for writing that

    uncle tungsten , September 13, 2016 at 12:43 am

    Teh Guardian is running reports and every accompanying image is of some other event with Killary stepping, smiling, unassisted into a car. What a disgrace that shill sheet is.

    robnume September 12, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    Having worked in an emergency/trauma center for years, no, I won't say what I did as I like anonymity, it seems to me that Hillary could likely be suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. Upon a diagnoses of this kind, one can expect to live from 3 to 5 years. If diagnosed in 2012-13, which seems likely given her concussion and brain clot diagnoses, she would now begin to experience a severe physical decline and pneumonia is a frequent cause of death for those suffering from subcortical vascular dementia.
    Rosario September 13, 2016 at 3:03 am
    I used to think all the health speculation with Hillary was sexist and bogus until her ordeal Sunday. The pneumonia diagnosis is absolutely bizarre and doesn't quite line up with her visual symptoms at the 9/11 memorial. Pneumonia was the best her staff could come up with? I guess they think we live in a world without the internet and Youtube. Hillary doesn't look like she had pneumonia Friday at the fundraiser. The same day she was apparently diagnosed, which implies the first day of treatment when symptoms for bacterial infections are at their absolute worst. She actually looked like she was in her element, bright as rain. In addition, how in the hell do you have a "pneumonia episode"? Apparently it came on real hard Sunday morning (ironically, the time of day when the body is most capable during illness) then magically went away an hour later for her to have a chipper, non-coughing, non-fatigued photo op with a little girl (it was so identity politics staged it was comical)...

    [Sep 12, 2016] Rile the masses up against the Commie Threat, as it worked so well in the 50s - 60s

    Red bating worked before and works now...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Rile the masses up against the Commie Threat, as it worked so well in the 50's - 60's. Save us the expense of rewriting the playbook. Sure. Duck and cover. ..."
    "... But the first place I would look is inside the DNC, if I were in charge. Russian intel releasing to wikileaks? Not much profit in that. ..."
    "... By the way, whatever became of dearest FBI frontman Comey? ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    stumpy | Aug 11, 2016 6:13:33 PM | 30
    "It might have well been an insider who copied the material and handed them to Wikileaks for publication"

    Why this idea gets no traction, obviously -- without an admission of authenticity from DNC, they have it both ways, the ability to ascribe guilt to Russia, and plausible deniability vis a vis Sanders. Let's not rule out a purposeful leak as a gloating advertisement for DNC sponsors/donors, or just as likely as a forgery using wikileaks as conduit for disinformation by anti-DNC ops. The Guccifer blip is just as believable valid as any of these theories, upo.

    Rile the masses up against the Commie Threat, as it worked so well in the 50's - 60's. Save us the expense of rewriting the playbook. Sure. Duck and cover.

    But the first place I would look is inside the DNC, if I were in charge. Russian intel releasing to wikileaks? Not much profit in that.

    By the way, whatever became of dearest FBI frontman Comey?

    [Sep 12, 2016] We should remember the prejudice of the DNC toward Sanders and criminal tricks they played to derail his candidacy

    Now in view of recent Hillary health problems actions of Wasserman Schultz need to be revisited. She somehow avoided criminal prosecution for interfering with the election process under Obama administration. That's clearly wrong. The court should investigate and determine the level of her guilt.
    Moor did his duty, moor can go. This is fully applicable to Wasserman Schultz. BTW it was king of "bait and switch" Obama who installed her in this position. And after that some try to say that Obama is not a neocon. Essentially leaks mean is that Sander's run was defeated by the Democratic Party's establishment dirty tricks and Hillary is not a legitimate candidate. It's Mission Accomplished, once again.
    "Clinton is a life-long Republican. She grew up in an all-white Republican suburb, she supported Goldwater, and she supported Wall Street banking, then became a DINO dildo to ride her husband's coattails to WH, until the NYC Mob traded her a NY Senator seat for her husband's perfidy. She never said one word about re-regulating the banks."
    How could this anti-Russian hysteria/bashing go on in a normal country -- the level of paranoia and disinformation about Russia and Putin is plain crazy even for proto-fascist regimes.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Wasserman Schultz reluctantly agreed to relinquish her speaking role at the convention here, a sign of her politically fragile standing. ..."
    "... Democratic leaders are scrambling to keep the party united, but two officials familiar with the discussions said Wasserman Schultz was digging in and not eager to vacate her post after the November elections. ..."
    "... Sanders on Sunday told CNN's Jake Tapper the release of DNC emails that show its staffers working against him underscore the position he's held for months: Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go. ..."
    "... "I don't think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC not only for these awful emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don't think her leadership style is doing that," Sanders told Tapper ..."
    "... But again, we discussed this many, many months ago, on this show, so what is revealed now is not a shock to me." ..."
    Jul 24, 2016 | cnn.com

    Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz will not have a major speaking role or preside over daily convention proceedings this week, a decision reached by party officials Saturday after emails surfaced raising questions about the committee's impartiality during the Democratic primary.
    The DNC Rules Committee on Saturday named Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, as permanent chair of the convention, according to a DNC source. She will gavel each session to order and will gavel each session closed.

    "She's been quarantined," another top Democrat said of Wasserman Schultz, following a meeting Saturday night. Wasserman Schultz faced intense pressure Sunday to resign her post as head of the Democratic National Committee, several party leaders told CNN, urging her to quell a growing controversy threatening to disrupt Hillary Clinton's nominating convention.

    Wasserman Schultz reluctantly agreed to relinquish her speaking role at the convention here, a sign of her politically fragile standing. But party leaders are now urging the Florida congresswoman to vacate her position as head of the party entirely in the wake of leaked emails suggesting the DNC favored Clinton during the primary and tried to take down Bernie Sanders by questioning his religion. Democratic leaders are scrambling to keep the party united, but two officials familiar with the discussions said Wasserman Schultz was digging in and not eager to vacate her post after the November elections.

    ... ... ...

    One email appears to show DNC staffers asking how they can reference Bernie Sanders' faith to weaken him in the eyes of Southern voters. Another seems to depict an attorney advising the committee on how to defend Hillary Clinton against an accusation by the Sanders campaign of not living up to a joint fundraising agreement.

    Sanders on Sunday told CNN's Jake Tapper the release of DNC emails that show its staffers working against him underscore the position he's held for months: Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go.

    "I don't think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC not only for these awful emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don't think her leadership style is doing that," Sanders told Tapper on "State of the Union," on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

    "I am not an atheist," he said. "But aside from all of that, it is an outrage and sad that you would have people in important positions in the DNC trying to undermine my campaign. It goes without saying, the function of the DNC is to represent all of the candidates -- to be fair and even-minded."

    He added: "But again, we discussed this many, many months ago, on this show, so what is revealed now is not a shock to me."

    ... ... ...

    Several Democratic sources told CNN that the leaked emails are a big source of contention and may incite tensions between the Clinton and Sanders camps heading into the Democratic convention's Rules Committee meeting this weekend.

    "It could threaten their agreement," one Democrat said, referring to the deal reached between Clinton and Sanders about the convention, delegates and the DNC. The party had agreed to include more progressive principles in its official platform, and as part of the agreement, Sanders dropped his fight to contest Wasserman Schultz as the head of the DNC.

    "It's gas meets flame," the Democrat said.

    Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesman, had no comment Friday.

    The issue surfaced on Saturday at Clinton's first campaign event with Tim Kaine as her running mate, when a protester was escorted out of Florida International University in Miami. The protester shouted "DNC leaks" soon after Clinton thanked Wasserman Schultz for her leadership at the DNC.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Polls Are Closed, They Lied

    Notable quotes:
    "... To hear the mainstream news media retell the story of the contentious 2000 presidential election, one would think that it all boils down to Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court decision created huge controversy and poisons public life to this day. But this focus on the decision serves to obscure an act of great duplicity on the part of the media that dwarfs the impact of that case: namely, that if it hadn't been for actions they took on television on Election Night, November 7, 2000, there never would have been a Bush v. Gore or a Florida recount in the first place. ..."
    "... by 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Election Night, a cover-up had already begun. ..."
    theamericanconservative.us4.list-manage.com

    To hear the mainstream news media retell the story of the contentious 2000 presidential election, one would think that it all boils down to Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court decision created huge controversy and poisons public life to this day. But this focus on the decision serves to obscure an act of great duplicity on the part of the media that dwarfs the impact of that case: namely, that if it hadn't been for actions they took on television on Election Night, November 7, 2000, there never would have been a Bush v. Gore or a Florida recount in the first place.

    It is a story of voter suppression. As it turns out, most of what we think was important about that election-hanging chads, butterfly ballots, 36 days of legal jousting-is unimportant. And by 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Election Night, a cover-up had already begun.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Should we be concerned about Hillary Clintons health by Vamsi Aribindi

    In view of the recent events the old question arise again: Was Hillary Clinton already on warafin when she suffered her latest fall?
    Notable quotes:
    "... Secretary Clinton was started on Coumadin, also known as warfarin. This medication significantly reduces - though it does not eliminate - the chance of a future blood clot. ..."
    "... This extends to other facets of life; a simple fall that would be shook off by anyone else can give a patient on blood thinners a lethal brain bleed. The risks and benefits of anticoagulation must be weighed against the risk of a stroke if one does not use blood thinners; and is a choice for every patient to make with their physician. ..."
    "... This does not include the possibility of an intracranial bleed, which could cause major cognitive disabilities without being lethal. ..."
    "... There is a non-trivial possibility that Secretary Clinton will suffer a major bleed of some kind. ..."
    "... Vamsi Aribindi is a medical student who blogs at the Medical Intellectual . ..."
    Apr 14, 2016 | www.kevinmd.com

    ... ... ...

    Her medical history includes two deep vein thromboses (DVTs) in 1998 and 2009, as well as a cerebral venous sinus thrombosis in 2012. A thromboses is a clot; basically, the formation of a solid plug inside a vein, a misfire of the body's ability to plug holes and stop bleeding. While I could not find news articles discussing the 2009 incident in further detail, the 1998 incident was a proximal DVT - one that had ascended into the popliteal vein - an especially dangerous form of DVT that is most likely to cause a condition called pulmonary embolus which can be fatal. A cerebral venous sinus thrombosis is also a deadly condition, with a mortality of approximately 10 percent and negative cognitive effects, though survivors make a good recovery.

    When anyone has multiple unprovoked clots, meaning there was no obvious reason for the body to misfire it's clot formation system such as surgery or active cancer, and especially when someone has a clot in an unusual location such as the brain, an extensive workup is indicated to look for causes. Some such causes include previously undetected cancers, inherited or random genetic disorders, and autoimmune disorders. That workup was negative in Secretary Clinton's case, per her doctor's letter. This is not unusual; there are many disorders that we have not yet discovered, and in all likelihood Secretary Clinton's particular clotting disorder happens to be one that has not yet been discovered.

    When someone has such a clotting disorder, as a precaution patients are often started on a medication to prevent the formation of clots. These medications are known as anticoagulants or blood thinners. Secretary Clinton was started on Coumadin, also known as warfarin. This medication significantly reduces - though it does not eliminate - the chance of a future blood clot.

    What is the side effect of blood thinners? A greater chance of bleeding and greater difficulty stopping a bleed once it happens. An elderly patient on blood thinners who is subsequently injured in a car crash is a nightmare for a trauma team. This extends to other facets of life; a simple fall that would be shook off by anyone else can give a patient on blood thinners a lethal brain bleed. The risks and benefits of anticoagulation must be weighed against the risk of a stroke if one does not use blood thinners; and is a choice for every patient to make with their physician.

    In Secretary Clinton's case, what is her risk of bleeding? Secretary Clinton is over 65, and she has had multiple falls (in 2005, 2009, and 2011, and 2012); the 2009 fall resulting in a broken elbow and the last one resulting in a concussion. According to guidelines put out by the American College of Chest Physicians, two risk factors puts her in the category of high-risk patients, meaning her risk of bleeding while on long-term anticoagulation is 6.5 percent per year. The mortality from a major bleed is approximately 10 percent. This does not include the possibility of an intracranial bleed, which could cause major cognitive disabilities without being lethal.

    What is Secretary Clinton's precise risk? It is difficult to say. She does receive excellent medical care, and presumably has her dose of warfarin closely monitored by many professionals. In addition, she may soon switch to newer anticoagulants which are easier to take and dose than warfarin, though it is unclear if they are truly any safer.

    Ultimately, all that can be said is this: There is a non-trivial possibility that Secretary Clinton will suffer a major bleed of some kind. The worst possible scenario? Trump and Clinton are nominated, and Clinton suddenly suffers a devastating bleed in the middle of the campaign, leaving a likely underqualified vice presidential pick to try and fight Donald Trump. However, the risk of this is likely small; and it is not as if 74-year-old Senator Bernie Sanders is free of health risks either. Patients and doctors both hate uncertainty, and yet we deal with it every day. I don't believe Secretary Clinton's increased risks are anything that should disqualify her from the presidency, but they are certainly something to ponder.

    Vamsi Aribindi is a medical student who blogs at the Medical Intellectual.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Wikileaks released 19K emails from the DNC burying Debbie Wasserman Schultz and hurting Hillary

    DNC is just a cesspool of neocon sharks. No decency whatsoever. What a bottom feeders. Will Sanders supporters walk out ?
    Notable quotes:
    "... They made Craigslist posts on fake Trump jobs talking about women needing to be hot for the job and "maintain hotness" https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803 ..."
    "... DNC and Hillary moles inside the Bernie campaign https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4776 ..."
    m.reddit.com

    This post will be updated. For bios on some of the people mentioned in these emails, please see /u/MrLinderman 's awesome post below.

    People copying this post across Reddit have had their posts removed on /r/politics and even was removed on /r/SandersForPresident .

    If you have one to add, either message me or post below. Contributors so far have been credited. I appreciate their help.

    Regarding Trump

    Regarding Bernie

    Media Collaboration

    GENERAL

    [Sep 12, 2016] Caught red handed and still deflecting: the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions

    The real question is whether the email are authentic or not. They are. Neoliberal propaganda honchos just decided to use a smoke screen to conceal this fact using Russia as a bogeyman. Russian might be guilty of many things, but in no way it is responsible for corruption of DNC and this subversive actions/covert operations used for installing Hillary Clinton as a candidate from the Democratic Party. .
    Notable quotes:
    "... Is it OK to cheat, lie and deceive - as Clintons and DNC did - and then defend themselves by saying that "nobody would know, if it wasn't for those damn Russians"? Even the idea is preposterous: how we find out about this corruption is irrelevant, the point is there was corruption and cheating. ..."
    "... So the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions. ..."
    "... [Under Clintons] democracy has become conspiracy ..."
    "... Are you constipated? Blame it on Russia. ..."
    "... Oh and blaming Russia for revealing the truth. The truth was not attacked, but who revealed the truth is suddenly the bad guy. So desperate and out of sorts. :) ..."
    "... There's no proof, besides an unsourced article in the Washington Post form 'security experts', that Russia had anything to do with this. What we do know is that immediately after the leaks became public various news outlets produced obviously planted hit pieces claiming some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin, and again with precisely zero evidence as back up. It's gob smacking that the Clinton campaign would risk an international incident with a nuclear power to cover for their shitty behaviour, but then again it's Hillary Clinton so perhaps not. ..."
    "... It may indeed be Russian hackers who gained access to the emails which confirm the DNC was all along in the tank for Clinton, and was actively placing a thumb on the scale from day one in the primary process. ..."
    "... But the bottom line here is that if the DNC had not so conspired, there would be no emails to leak, now would there? For Mook and others to now be placing blame on the hackers, rather than on those who produced the embarrassing material that the hackers exposed, is diversionary and inexcusable. ..."
    "... The funniest thing is, they don't even deny the authenticity of the emails. Basically, DNC says that someone is guilty of revealing the truth. You can hardly stoop any lower. Blaming Russia is just a cherry on the cake. ..."
    "... How nice to have an eternal scapegoat: TheRussiansAreComing!TheRussiansAreComing! This will obviously be RodHam's theme as President. Perhaps to the point of annihilation. Neo-Conne! ..."
    "... My biggest issue with Hillary from the start has been her continued nonchalance when it comes to matters of national security. She acts as if she is above the need to keep sensitive information safe from potential enemies, both foreign and domestic. That's a pretty scary attitude coming from someone who is likely to be this nation's next leader. ..."
    "... It's amazing. Caught red handed and still deflecting. Take responsibility for Christ sak ..."
    "... ".....Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced, in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize his support. ..."
    "... The more interesting part is that this blame is just a distraction from the larger issue, that the entire political system is corrupted and broken. This is just business as usual, only this instance was revealed. ..."
    From comments to: Clinton campaign blames Russia for leaked DNC emails about Sanders
    trholland1 , 2016-07-24 16:52:36
    Methinks the lady doth protest overmuch;
    NorthDakotan , 2016-07-24 16:46:50
    I honestly can't wait for when the pro-clinron commentors arrive. I can see it now "this doesn't matter if you vote 3rd party you're voting for trump." It won't matter that this is all the fault of the DNC, it will be on us. I'm calling it now ;)
    Beckow , 2016-07-24 16:42:09
    Is it OK to cheat, lie and deceive - as Clintons and DNC did - and then defend themselves by saying that "nobody would know, if it wasn't for those damn Russians"? Even the idea is preposterous: how we find out about this corruption is irrelevant, the point is there was corruption and cheating.

    Interestingly, this is a favorite defense of all authoritarians. They always claim that if it benefits the "enemy", it is ok to suppress it. Stalin had a concept of "objectively aiding the enemy" - it meant that maybe the person was not a conscious traitor, but his/her actions helped the enemy - and that was enough. Is Guardian and Clintons now marching down this road of extreme "us versus them" ideology?

    What's is next? Will Clintons ban Bernie from speaking because it would "aid Trump"? (and by extension in their paranoid thinking, it would aid Russia).

    calderonparalapaz , 2016-07-24 17:19:02
    "Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."

    So the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions.

    Another reason on the list as to why I won't be voting for Hillary. Why did DNC act very anti-democratic?

    A vote for Hillary is a vote for continued corruption.

    qqqqqqmn , 2016-07-24 17:15:14
    [Under Clintons] democracy has become conspiracy
    silverbeech , 2016-07-24 17:11:46
    Rather than blaming they ought to be taking responsibility for their own words. But they'd have to be adults with integrity to do that. The tragedy and travesty of it is the willful, routine, nonchalant effort to subvert the Constitution and the will of the people. These kinds of machinations have always gone on within both parties and should always be exposed. The SuperPACS, the dark money, the secret maneuverings, the totally broken primary system, all designed to stop our having our say. People elsewhere often wonder about "our" choices for the White House. Now they can see how much of that free choice has been wrested away over time, and how imperative it is that we ordinary people start working on positive change within the elective system. In my opinion all the DNC participants should lose their jobs and be made to cool their heels in jail a while, because without consequences we may as well just burn the Constitution and Bill of Rights right now and be done with it, for all the respect these documents are given by our politicians. What a revolting mess it all is on both sides, with ordinary people the losers, as always.
    Lorenzo68 , 2016-07-24 17:10:03
    Are you constipated? Blame it on Russia.
    farright -> Lorenzo68 , 2016-07-24 17:22:05
    Bad haircut? Blame Russia?
    Puro , 2016-07-24 17:09:52
    Oh and blaming Russia for revealing the truth. The truth was not attacked, but who revealed the truth is suddenly the bad guy. So desperate and out of sorts. :)
    furminator -> Puro , 2016-07-24 17:20:53
    There's no proof, besides an unsourced article in the Washington Post form 'security experts', that Russia had anything to do with this. What we do know is that immediately after the leaks became public various news outlets produced obviously planted hit pieces claiming some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin, and again with precisely zero evidence as back up. It's gob smacking that the Clinton campaign would risk an international incident with a nuclear power to cover for their shitty behaviour, but then again it's Hillary Clinton so perhaps not.
    JVRTRL , 2016-07-24 17:09:24
    A big part of the problem is that Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) is still in her position. If the Democratic Party place a value on performance, she should have been fired after the 2014 mid-terms.

    Part of the problem is that the DNC is too closely aligned with the interests of one political family. Competence and other considerations count for a lot less than loyalty. DWS kept her position because of the ties to Clinton and Clintons donors, not because she did a good job and grew the party. The opposite has happened.

    Frankly, Obama bears some degree of responsibility for this because he's the one who canned Howard Dean, who actually had a track record of success at winning elections and growing the party through two election cycles. Instead Obama replaced him with a guy like Tim Kaine, who wasn't up to the task either. Dean also did a good job of navigating the very difficult 2008 election. Kaine and DWS did poorly in the capacity as DNC Chair.

    As president, Obama has done a lot right. But his neglect of the DNC is part of his legacy, and it isn't a good one.

    Lester Smithson , 2016-07-24 17:08:20
    That's nice that those damn Russians 'stole' their email. However, those damn Russians didn't write them. I dislike and distrust Hillary and DWS more now that I did a week ago, and that takes some doing. Hillary is Nixon. Paranoid. Dishonest. Devious.
    qqqqqqmn , 2016-07-24 17:04:21
    how in the name of god can the overly compensated chairwoman of the democratic party conspire against a candidate supported by nearly half of democratic primary voters ???
    kcma79 qqqqqqmn , 2016-07-24 17:11:10
    Arrogance, power, support, money. Her overpowering arrogance has been a problem for a long time.
    mrmetrowest Haigin88 , 2016-07-24 17:13:27
    Kaine is in the same boat as Clinton on the TPP - the Good Ship Hypocrite. Both hope like hell that TPP gets passed in the lame duck so they can make a show of being against it to gain some progressive cred. If Obama and his colleagues Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan can't get TPP done before his term ends, Clinton and Kaine's reservations re TPP will disappear faster than a snowflake in July. It's like Clinton's about face on the Keystone pipeline - she got a heads up from Obama that he wasn't going to approve it anyway, so she came out against it.
    monteverdi1610 , 2016-07-24 16:57:30
    I love the irony of the comment from the Clinton Campaign..... '' This is further evidence the Russian Government is trying to influence the outcome of an election ''.

    Heavens forbid that the USA would ever stoop so low as to try and influence the outcome of other Countries elections !!!
    It of course being totally above Americians to indulge such devious behaviour .

    europeangrayling monteverdi1610 , 2016-07-24 17:06:33
    Very true, and Hillary was happy to support the violent Honduras coup of an elected government and still very much supports that new violent regime. And the new regime is very friendly to western big corporate 'interests'. Of course. Hillary is old-school.
    beenheretoolong , 2016-07-24 16:54:41
    Doesn't matter who did it, the Russians, Anonymous, Edward Snowden. The point is that the DNC is revealed as partisan and rigged. In addition to minimizing her role at the convention, I believe Wasserman Schultz should be dumped from any position of leadership, along with other DNC leaders. No wonder people are fed up with politics as usual.
    Anonymot , 2016-07-24 16:57:05
    "Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
    And Mook is the expert who whispered that lie in his own ear.

    Great photo, Mook the Spook, her lover, a few bigtime aids. They got caught like Nixon's plumbers at Watergate. So they would like to blame the Russians for their writing calumnies and antiSemitic slanders against Sanders. They look pretty stupid!

    gunnison , 2016-07-24 16:54:09

    Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."

    It may indeed be Russian hackers who gained access to the emails which confirm the DNC was all along in the tank for Clinton, and was actively placing a thumb on the scale from day one in the primary process.

    Sanders knew it, and we as his supporters also knew it and made reference to that very issue repeatedly in countless comment threads here at the Guardian and elsewhere.

    But the bottom line here is that if the DNC had not so conspired, there would be no emails to leak, now would there?
    For Mook and others to now be placing blame on the hackers, rather than on those who produced the embarrassing material that the hackers exposed, is diversionary and inexcusable.

    The Clinton campaign is moving closer and closer to blowing this election completely and allowing the most dangerous candidacy I've ever seen in my lifetime actually win this thing.

    They've already selected a VP pick which effectively thumbs their nose at the very progressives whose enthusiasm they will need at the voting booths, and now here they are trying to deflect blame for unconscionable skullduggery in the primary process onto foreign actors.
    Debbie Wassermann Schultz should have been fired long ago, so blatant and obvious were her shenanigans.

    This kind of tone-deaf ineptitude could see all of us paying an unimaginable price in November. All it will take at this point is a few more mass shootings (at which we here in the US have a particular talent) to feed into Trump's narrative and we'll all be waking up in January in a country we don't even recognize.

    ZombieMessiah -> gunnison , 2016-07-24 17:03:26
    That's pretty much how I see things playing out, but with the DNC blaming the progressives for not being enthusiastic enough about Hillary.
    Informed17 -> CarlosDaaanger , 2016-07-24 16:57:03
    The funniest thing is, they don't even deny the authenticity of the emails. Basically, DNC says that someone is guilty of revealing the truth. You can hardly stoop any lower. Blaming Russia is just a cherry on the cake.
    newjerseyboi , 2016-07-24 17:34:38
    Just saw Bernie on CNN basically saying the Nr1 priority is to defeat D. Trump, then keep fighting the good fight from within the Democratic Party trying to reform it from within.
    A big thing he misses here that the top honcho Mrs Hillary Clinton is one of the main reasons of what the Democratic Party has become. She will be a huge obstruction to anything resembling reform. You might as well pack up and go 3rd party and show the Dems that way what American voters want.

    4 years of Trump might actually be a lot better to shake up the corrupt DNC then 4-8 years of Hillary and who knows how many years of Republicans 2 follow (and believe me, Hillary will do a lot of damage to the democratic brand!)

    AfinaPallada , 2016-07-24 17:34:20
    Clinton is desperate to lurk voters by anything, then let it be those Russians that hacked her mail. A Russian proverb to the point - "A bad dancer always blames his balls that hamper him".
    furminator , 2016-07-24 17:31:47
    If they'd backed off, allowed their MSM protectors to bury the story, this whole thing would have died down in a week. A few angry Bernie Bros notwithstanding there's nothing in the emails that we didn't know already. Yes the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign were one and the same....shock! Yes sections of the corporate owned media are colluding with the Democratic Party....wowsers!! But no, they couldn't help themselves. Now we've got the Democratic nominee for the Presidency alleging, with zero proof, that her opponent is engaged in a conspiracy to commit criminal acts with a foreign power! Seriously who thought this was a good idea?
    mijkmijld , 2016-07-24 17:31:26
    How nice to have an eternal scapegoat: TheRussiansAreComing!TheRussiansAreComing! This will obviously be RodHam's theme as President. Perhaps to the point of annihilation. Neo-Conne!
    smokinbluebear , 2016-07-24 17:31:25
    Sanders should demand that Tulsi Gabbard replace DWS at the convention (or as VP)
    PottyPants , 2016-07-24 17:31:20
    My biggest issue with Hillary from the start has been her continued nonchalance when it comes to matters of national security. She acts as if she is above the need to keep sensitive information safe from potential enemies, both foreign and domestic. That's a pretty scary attitude coming from someone who is likely to be this nation's next leader.
    Janosik53 , 2016-07-24 17:29:59
    Hillary Wasserman Clinton Kaine--the same democratic corruptocracy; plus ça change, plus c'est la męme chose.

    Putin is waiting to release Hillary's SoS emails. October Surprise, anyone? Bwah-ha-ha-ha.

    BigL64 , 2016-07-24 17:29:20
    It's amazing. Caught red handed and still deflecting. Take responsibility for Christ sake!
    HenneyAndPizza , 2016-07-24 17:27:56
    lol

    Putin ate my homework (TM). What Debbie and the gang did is worse, much worse than this sorry article tries to portray. For example, what sort of Democratic Party tries to use Bearnie's religion agsinst him ?!?

    ".....Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced, in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize his support.

    ****"It might may [sic] no difference, but for KY and WA can we get someone to ask his belief," Brad Marshall, CFO of DNC, wrote in an email on May 5, 2016. "Does he believe in God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage.

    I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My southern baptist peeps woudl draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."****

    "Amy Dacey, CEO of the DNC, subsequently responded "AMEN," according to the email"

    Yikes!

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/emails-released-wikileaks-show-dnc-aid-hillary-clinton/story?id=40815253

    And this is the "democracy" they keep telling you is the 'better of two evils'.

    Hilarious

    JelloBeyonce , 2016-07-24 16:53:50
    The more interesting part is that this blame is just a distraction from the larger issue, that the entire political system is corrupted and broken. This is just business as usual, only this instance was revealed.

    Has anyone here worked, I mean truly worked in the pre-election process, behind the scenes, witnessing the dirty business that is gathering electoral votes during caucuses and primaries? It is a total sham. It is where under-the-table deals are made for promised loyalties to certain candidates, where those that have the most, bribe others to vote a certain way, where quid pro quo rules over democracy or a candidates stance on issues and/or policies. It is where future cabinet positions are secured, based on allegiance to party hierarchy and strong-arming. Your vote means nothing, only a small select group determines candidates, and ultimately the president.

    DNC Chair Wasserman is just one cog in a massive political machine, one run rampantly out of control. And this happens on both sides, among both parties. It is where the personal selfish love of money, power, and fame outstrip the will of the people.

    Long live hackers for keeping a check on an obviously corrupted system. The mainstream media isn't doing their jobs anymore, someone has to. The media have merely become the pretorian band for the super class, those elite that truly control this country from behind the scenes, pulling the puppet strings attached to the soulless politicians.

    We are again presented with two candidates whom have each proven their desire to negate the will of the nation, for purely selfish reasons. Neither is truly qualified for this office.

    "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to trust no [hu]man living with the power to endanger the public liberty".
    -John Adams-

    "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters"
    -Ben Franklin-

    [Sep 12, 2016] Reducing the election to personalities is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism in which corporatations seized all of the political levers

    This short article contains several very deep observations. Highly recommended...
    Notable quotes:
    "... There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. ..."
    "... This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over. ..."
    "... First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form. ..."
    "... So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. ..."
    "... I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign. ..."
    "... Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children. ..."
    "... Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile ..."
    Aug 06, 2016 | www.democracynow.org

    CHRIS HEDGES : Well, reducing the election to personalities is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism. It's a system where corporate power has seized all of the levers of control. There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. We've seen the executive branch misinterpret the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving itself the right to assassinate American citizens, including children. I speak of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son. We have bailed out the banks, pushed through programs of austerity. This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over.

    I just came back from Poland, which is a kind of case study of how neoliberal poison destroys a society and creates figures like Trump. Poland has gone, I think we can argue, into a neofascism.

    First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form.

    So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. We've got to break away from political personalities and understand and examine and critique the structures of power. And, in fact, the Democratic Party, especially beginning under Bill Clinton, has carried water for corporate entities as assiduously as the Republican Party. This is something that Ralph Nader understood long before the rest of us, and stepped out very courageously in 2000. And I think we will look back on that period and find Ralph to be an amazingly prophetic figure. Nobody understands corporate power better than Ralph. And I think now people have caught up with Ralph.

    And this is, of course, why I support Dr. Stein and the Green Party. We have to remember that 10 years ago, Syriza, which controls the Greek government, was polling at exactly the same spot that the Green Party is polling now-about 4 percent. We've got to break out of this idea that we can create systematic change within a particular election cycle. We've got to be willing to step out into the political wilderness, perhaps, for a decade. But on the issues of climate change, on the issue of the destruction of civil liberties, including our right to privacy-and I speak as a former investigative journalist, which doesn't exist anymore because of wholesale government surveillance-we have no ability, except for hackers.

    I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign.

    The fact is, Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children.

    This debate over -- I don't like Trump, but Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile, maybe Ted Cruz.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Globalization, Rise of Neo-Nationalism and the Bankruptcy of the Left

    Notable quotes:
    "... On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries. ..."
    "... The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. ..."
    "... In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves. ..."
    "... The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites. ..."
    "... In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. ..."
    "... Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process; ..."
    "... Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands. ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". ..."
    "... by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement. ..."
    "... it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. ..."
    "... "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage" ..."
    "... It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria) ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left ..."
    "... the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. ..."
    Jul 07, 2016 | www.liveleak.com
    On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries.

    The huge expansion of the anti-globalization movement over the past few years was under control, for the time being, and the EU elites would not have to resort to sanctions against a country at the core of the Union – such as those which may soon be imposed against Poland.

    In fact, the only reason they have not as yet been imposed is, presumably, the fear of Brexit, but as soon as the British people finally submit to the huge campaign of intimidation ("Project Fear") launched against them by the entire transnational elite, Poland's – and later Hungary's – turn will come in earnest.

    The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. The interesting thing, however, is that in the Greek case it was the so-called "NewLeft" represented by SYRIZA, which not only accepted the worst package of measures imposed on Greece (and perhaps any other country) ever,[ii] but which is also currently busy conducting a huge propaganda campaign (using the state media, which it absolutely controls, as its main propaganda tool) to deceive the exhausted Greek people that the government has even achieved some sort of victory in the negotiations! At the same time, the working class – the traditional supporters of the Left – are deserting the Left en masse and heading towards the neo-nationalist parties: from Britain and France to Austria. So how can we explain these seemingly inexplicable phenomena?

    Nationalism vs. neo-nationalism

    As I tried to show in the past,[iii] the emergence of the modern nation-state in the 17th-18th centuries played an important role in the development of the system of the market economy and vice versa. However, whereas the 'nationalization' of the market was necessary for the development of the 'market system' out of the markets of the past, once capital was internationalized and therefore the market system itself was internationalized, the nation state became an impediment to further 'progress' of the market system. This is how the NWO emerged, which involved a radical restructuring not only of the economy, with the rise of Transnational Corporations, but also of polity, with the present phasing out of nation-states and national sovereignty.

    Inevitably, the phasing out of the nation-state and national sovereignty led to the flourishing of neo-nationalism, as a movement for self-determination. Yet, this development became inevitable only because the alternative form of social organization, confederalism, which was alive even up to the time of the Paris Commune had in the meantime disappeared.

    In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves.

    The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites.

    This globalist culture is based on the globalization ideology of multiculturalism, protection of human rights etc., which in fact is an extension of the classical liberal ideology to the NWO. In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. It is not therefore accidental that globalist ideologists characterize the present flourishing of what I called neo-nationalism, as the rise of 'illiberalism'.'[iv] It is therefore clear that we have to distinguish between old (or classical) nationalism and the new phenomenon of neo-nationalism. To my mind, the main differences between them are as follows:

    a) Nationalism developed in the era of nation-states as a movement for uniting communities with a common history, culture and usually language under the common roof of nation-states that were emerging at the time but also even in the 20th century when national liberation movements against colonialist empires were fighting for their own nation states. On the other hand, neo-nationalism developed in the era of globalization with the aim of protecting the national sovereignty of nations which was under extinction because of the integration of their states into the NWO;

    b) Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process;

    c) Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands.

    Naturally, given the origin of many neo-nationalist parties and their supporters, elements of the old nationalist ideology may penetrate them, such as the Islamophobic and anti-immigration trends, which provide the excuse to the elites to dismiss all these movements as 'far right'. However, such demands are by no means the main reasons why such movements expand. Particularly so, as it can easily be shown that the refugee problem is also part and parcel of globalization and the '4 freedoms' (capital, labor, goods and services) its ideology preaches.

    The rise of the neo-nationalist movement

    Therefore, neo-nationalism is basically a movement that arose out of the effects of globalization, particularly as far as the continuous squeezing of employees' real incomes is concerned––as a result of liberalizing labor markets, so that labor could become more competitive. The present 'job miracle', for instance, in Britain, (which is characterized as "the job creation capital of the western economies"), hides the fact that, as an analyst pointed out, "unemployment is low, largely because British workers have been willing to stomach the biggest real-terms pay cut since the Victorian era".[v]

    The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". Of course, given the political and economic power that the elites have concentrated against these neo-nationalist movements, it is possible that neither Brexit nor any of these movements may take over, but this will not stop of course social dissent against the phasing out of national sovereignty.

    The same process is repeated almost everywhere in Europe today, inevitably leading many people (and particularly working class people) to turn to the rising neo-nationalist Right. This is not of course because they suddenly became "nationalists" let alone "fascists", as the globalist "NewLeft" (that is the kind of Left which is fully integrated into the NWO and does not question its institutions, e.g. the EU) accuses them in order to ostracize them. It is simply because the present globalist "NewLeft" does not wish to lead the struggle against globalization, while, at the same time, the popular strata have realized that national and economic sovereignty is incompatible with globalization. This is a fact fully realized, for example, by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement.

    But, it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. As Le Pen stressed, (in a way that the "NewLeft" has abandoned long ago!):

    "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage".[vi]

    In fact, the French National Front is the most important neo-nationalist party in Europe and may well be in power following the next Presidential elections in 2017, unless of course a united front of all globalist parties (including the "NewLeft" and the Greens), supported by the entire TE and particularly the Euro-elites and the mass media controlled by them, prevents it from doing so (exactly as it happens at present in Britain with respect to Brexit). This is how Florian Philippot the FN's vice-president and chief strategist aptly put its case in a FT interview:

    "The people who always voted for the left, who believed in the left and who thought that it represented an improvement in salaries and pensions, social and economic progress, industrial policies  . these people have realized that they were misled."[vii]

    As the same FT report points out, to some observers of French politics, the FN's economic policies, which include exiting the euro and throwing up trade barriers to protect industry, read like something copied from a 1930s political manifesto, while Christian Saint-Étienne, an economist for Le Figaro newspaper, recently described this vision as "Peronist Marxism".[viii] In fact, in a more recent FT interview, Marine Le Pen, the FN president went a step further in the same direction and she called, apart from exiting from the Euro––that she expects to lead to the collapse of the Euro, if not of the EU itself, (which she-rightly–welcomes)––for the nationalization of banks. At the same time she championed public services and presented herself as the protector of workers and farmers in the face of "wild and anarchic globalization which has brought more pain than happiness ".[ix]

    For comparison, it never even occurred to SYRIZA (and Varoufakis who now wears his "radical" hat) to use such slogans before the elections (let alone after them!) Needless to add that her foreign policy is also very different from that of the French establishment, as she wants a radical overhaul of French foreign policy in which relations with the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would be restored and those with the likes of Qatar and Turkey, which she alleges support terrorism, reviewed. At the same time, Le Pen sees the US as a purveyor of dangerous policies and Russia as a more suitable friend.

    Furthermore, as it was also stressed in the same FT report, "the FN is not the only supposedly rightwing European populist party seeking to draw support from disaffected voters on the left. Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party has adopted a similar approach and has been discussing plans "to ring-fence the National Health Service budget and lower taxes for low earners, among a host of measures geared to economically vulnerable voters who would typically support Labor".[x]

    Similar trends are noticed in other European countries like Finland, where the anti-NATO and pro-independence from the EU parties had effectively won the last elections,[xi] as well as in Hungary, where neo-nationalist forces are continuously rising,[xii] and Orban's government has done more than any other EU leader in protecting his country's sovereignty, being as a result, in constant conflict with the Euro-elites. Finally, the rise of a neo-nationalist party in Poland enraged Martin Schulz, the loudmouthed gatekeeper of the TE in the European Parliament, who accused the new government as attempting a "dangerous 'Putinization' of European politics."[xiii]

    However, what Eurocrats like Martin Schulz "forget" is that since Poland joined the EU in 2004, at least two million Poles have emigrated, many of them to the UK. The victory of the Law and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc, PiS) in October 2015 was due not just to a backlash by traditional Polish voters to the bulldozing of their values by the ideology of globalization but also to the fact, as Cédric Gouverneur pointed out, that "the nationalist, pro-religion, protectionist, xenophobic PiS has attracted these disappointed people with an ambitious welfare programme: a family allowance of 500 zloty ($130) a month per child, funded through a tax on banks and big business; a minimum wage; and a return to a retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men (PO had planned to raise it to 67 for both).[xiv] In fact, PiS used to be a conservative pro-EU party when they were in power between 2005 and 2007, following faithfully the neoliberal program, and since then they have become increasingly populist and Eurosceptic. As a result, in the last elections they won the parliamentary elections in both the lower house (Sejm) and the Senate, with 37.6% of the vote, against 24.1% for the neoliberals and 8.8% for the populist Kukiz while the "progressive" camp failed to clear the threshold (5% for parties, 8% for coalitions) and have no parliamentary representation at all!

    The bankruptcy of the Left

    It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria).

    Furthermore, there is little doubt anymore that it was the intellectual failure of the Left to grasp the real significance of a new systemic phenomenon, (i.e. the rise of the Transnational Corporation that has led to the emergence of the globalization era) and its consequent political bankruptcy, which were the ultimate causes of the rise of a neo-nationalist movement in Europe. This movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left, whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order. In fact, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization, thanks mainly to the activities of the globalist Left, it was left to the neo-nationalist movement to fight against globalization in general and against the EU in particular.

    Almost inevitably, in view of the campaigns of the TE against Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria), worrying Islamophobic trends have developed within several of these neo-nationalist movements, some of them turning their old anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, supported on this by Zionists themselves![xv] Even Marine Le Pen did not avoid the temptation to lie about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, stressing that "there is no Islamophobia in France but there is a rise in anti-Semitism".

    Yet, she is well aware of the fact that Islamophobia was growing in France well before Charlie Hebdo,[xvi] with racial attacks against Islamic immigrants, (most of whom live under squalid conditions in virtual ghettos) being very frequent. At the same time, it is well known that the Jewish community is mostly well off and shares a very disproportionate part of political and economic power in the country to its actual size, as it happens of course also––and to an even larger extent–– in UK and USA. This is one more reason why Popular Fronts for National and Social Liberation have to be built in every country of the world to fight not only Eurofascism and the NWO-which is of course the main enemy––but also any racist trends developing within these new anti-globalization movements, which today take the form of neo-nationalism. This would also prevent the elites from using the historically well-tested 'divide and rule' practice to divide the victims of globalization.

    Similarly, the point implicitly raised by the stand of the British "NewLeft" in general on the issue of Brexit cannot just be discussed in terms of the free trade vs. protectionism debate, as the liberal (or globalist) "NewLeft" does (see for instance Jean Bricmont[xvii] and Larry Elliott[xviii] of the Guardian). Yet, the point is whether it is globalization itself, which has led to the present mass economic violence against the vast majority of the world population and the accompanying it military violence. In other words, what all these "NewLeft" trends hide is that globalization is a class issue. But, this is the essence of the bankruptcy of the "NewLeft" , which is reflected in the fact that, today, it is the neo-nationalist Right which has replaced the Left in its role of representing the victims of the system in its globalized form , while the Left mainly represents those in the middle class or the petty bourgeoisie who benefit from globalization. Needless to add that today's bankrupt "NewLeft" promptly characterized the rising neo-nationalist parties as racist, if not fascist and neo-Nazis, fully siding with the EU's black propaganda campaign against the rising movement for national sovereignty.

    This is obviously another nail in the coffin of this kind of "NewLeft" , as the millions of European voters who turn their back towards this degraded "NewLeft" are far from racists or fascists but simply want to control their way of life rather than letting it to be determined by the free movement of capital, labor and commodities, as the various Soroses of this world demand!

    The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left,[xix] whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. In the Austrian elections, it became once more clear that the Left expresses now the middle class, while the neo-nationalists the working class. As the super-globalist BBC presented the results:

    Support for Mr Hofer was exceptionally strong among manual workers – nearly 90%. The vote for Mr Van der Bellen was much stronger among people with a university degree or other higher education qualifications. In nine out of Austria's 10 main cities Mr Van der Bellen came top, whereas Mr Hofer dominated the rural areas, the Austrian broadcaster ORF reported (in German).[xx]

    The process of the NewLeft's bankruptcy has been further enhanced by the fact that, faced with political collapse in the May 2014 Euro-parliamentary elections, it allied itself with the elites in condemning the neo-nationalist parties as fascist and neo-Nazi. However, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization (mainly through the World Social Forum, thanks to the activities of the globalist "NewLeft" ),[xxi] it is up to the neo-nationalist movement to fight globalization in general and the EU in particular. It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties which are, in fact, all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements that have simply filled the huge gap created by the globalist "NewLeft" . Thus, this "NewLeft" , Instead of placing itself in the front line among all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty, it has indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, supposedly founded on Marxism.

    On the other side, as one might expect, most members of the Globalist "NewLeft" have joined the new 'movement' by Varoufakis to democratize Europe, "forgetting" in the process that 'Democracy' was also the West's propaganda excuse for destroying Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Today, it seems that the Soros circus is aiming to use exactly the same excuse to destroy Europe, in the sense of securing the perpetuation of the EU elites' domination of the European peoples and therefore the continuation of the consequent economic violence involved. The most prominent members of the globalist "NewLeft" who have already joined this new DIEM 'movement' range from Noam Chomsky and Julian Assange to Suzan George and Toni Negri, and from Hillary Wainwright of Red Pepper to CounterPunch and other globalist "NewLeft" newspapers and journals all over the world. In this context, it is particularly interesting to refer to Slavoj Žižek's commentary on the 'Manifesto' that was presented at the inaugural meeting of Varoufakis's new movement in Berlin on February 2016.[xxii]

    Neo-nationalism and immigration

    So, the unifying element of neo-nationalists is their struggle for national sovereignty, which they (rightly), see as disappearing in the era of globalization. Even when their main immediate motive is the fight against immigration, indirectly their fight is against globalization, as they realize that it is the opening of all markets, including the labor markets, particularly within economic unions like the EU, which is the direct cause of their own unemployment or low-wage employment, as well as of the deterioration of the welfare state, given that the elites are not prepared to expand social expenditure to accommodate the influx of immigrants. Yet, this is not a racist movement but a purely economic movement, although the TE and the Zionist elites, with the help of the globalist "NewLeft" , try hard to convert it into an Islamophobic movement––as the Charlie Hebdo case clearly showed[xxiii]–––so that they could use it in any way they see fit in the support of the NWO.

    But, what is the relationship of both neo-nationalists and Euro-fascists to historical fascism and Nazism? As I tried to show elsewhere,[xxiv] fascism, as well as National Socialism, presuppose a nation-state, therefore this kind of phenomenon is impossible to develop in any country fully integrated into the NWO, which, by definition, cannot have any significant degree of national sovereignty. The only kind of sovereignty available in the NWO of neoliberal globalization is transnational sovereignty, which, in fact, is exclusively shared by members of the TE. In other words, fascism and Nazism were historical phenomena of the era of nation-state before the ascent of the NWO of neoliberal globalization, when states still had a significant degree of national and economic sovereignty.

    However, in the globalization era, it is exactly this sovereignty that is being phased out for any country fully integrated into the NWO. Therefore, the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. However, as there is overwhelming evidence of the full support they have enjoyed by the Transnational Elite and (paradoxically?) even by the Zionist elite,[xxv] they should more accurately be called Euro-fascists.

    It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties, which are all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements that simply filled the huge gap left by the globalist Left, which, instead of placing itself in the front line of all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty,[xxvi] indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, developed a hundred years ago or so. The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy.

    National and Social Liberation Fronts everywhere!

    So, at this crucial historical juncture that will determine whether we shall all become subservient to neoliberal globalization and the transnational elite (as the DIEM25 Manifesto implies through our subordination to the EU) or not, it is imperative that we create a Popular Front in each country which will include all the victims of globalization among the popular strata, regardless of their current political affiliations.

    In Europe, in particular, where the popular strata are facing economic disaster, what is urgently needed is not an "antifascist" Front within the EU, as proposed by the 'parliamentary juntas' in power and the Euro-elites, also supported by the globalist "NewLeft" (such as Diem25, Plan B in Europe, Die Linke, the Socialist Workers' Party in the UK, SYRIZA in Greece and so on), which would, in fact, unite aggressors and victims. An 'antifascist' front would simply disorient the masses and make them incapable of facing the real fascism being imposed on them[xxviii] by the political and economic elites, which constitute the transnational and local elites. Instead, what is needed is a Popular Front for National and Social Liberation, which that could attract the vast majority of the people who would fight for immediate unilateral withdrawal from the EU – which is managed by the European part of the transnational elite – as well as for economic self- reliance, thus breaking with globalization.

    To my mind, it is only the creation of broad Popular Fronts that could effect each country's exit from the EU, NAFTA and similar economic unions, with the aim of achieving economic self-reliance. Re-development based on self-reliance is the only way in which peoples breaking away from globalization and its institutions (like the EU) could rebuild their productive structures, which have been dismantled by globalization. This could also, objectively, lay the ground for future systemic change, decided upon democratically by the peoples themselves. Therefore, the fundamental aim of the social struggle today should be a complete break with the present NWO and the building of a new global democratic community, in which economic and national sovereignty have been restored, so that peoples could then fight for the ideal society, as they see it.

    Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher, editor of Society & Nature/ Democracy and Nature/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. He has also been a columnist for the Athens Daily Eleftherotypia since 1990. Between 1969 and 1989 he was Senior Lecturer in Economics at the University of North London (formerly Polytechnic of North London). He is the author of over 25 books and over 1,500 articles, many of which have been translated into various languages.

    This article is based on Ch. 4 of the book to be published next month by Progressive Press, The New World Order in Action, vol. 1: The NWO, the Left and Neo-Nationalism. This is a major three-volume project aiming to cover all aspects of the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization http://www.progressivepress.com/book-listing/new-world-order-action

    Notes:

    Bruno Waterfield, "Juncker vows to use new powers to block the far-right", [i]The Times, 24/5/2016

    The original source of this article is Global Research. Copyright © Takis Fotopoulos , Global Research, 2016

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/globalization-the-massive-rise-of-neo-nationalism-and-the-bankruptcy-of-the-left/5527157

    [Sep 10, 2016] As Resistance Mounts, TPP Becoming 2016 Elections Third Rail

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal," as the Washington Post ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.commondreams.org

    As the White House prepares for its final " all-out push " to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress, lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle are being made vulnerable due to growing opposition to the controversial, corporate-friendly trade deal.

    "[I]n 2016," the Guardian reported on Saturday, "America's faltering faith in free trade has become the most sensitive controversy in D.C."

    Yet President Barack Obama "has refused to give up," wrote Guardian journalists Dan Roberts and Ryan Felton, despite the fact that the 12-nation TPP "suddenly faces a wall of political opposition among lawmakers who had, not long ago, nearly set the giant deal in stone."

    ... ... ...

    Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal," as the Washington Post reported Thursday, but once-supportive Dems are also poised to jump ship.

    To that end, in a column this week, Campaign for America's Future blogger Dave Johnson listed for readers "28 House Democrat targets...who-in spite of opposition from most Democrats and hundreds of labor, consumer, LGBT, health, human rights, faith, democracy and other civil organizations-voted for the 'fast-track' trade promotion authority (TPA) bill that 'greased the skids' for the TPP by setting up rigged rules that will help TPP pass."

    Of the list that includes Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), Jared Polis (Colo.), and Ron Kind (Wis.), Johnson wrote: "Let's get them on the record before the election about whether they will vote for TPP after the election."

    [Sep 10, 2016] Sanders might run as a sheepdog from the very beginning. His attitude toward email skandal was an early warning that the game was rigged

    Notable quotes:
    "... Sanders is a touchy subject with me. The man was offered a spot on the Green party ticket, and obviously didn't take it. Considering the public disgust with the two slimeballs we're stuck with now, I believe he'd have had a real shot at the presidency. Despite my rating him as a C- at best, I'd have voted for the man. It's my opinion he'd have gotten a whole lot of Trump's base too. The poorer members of the GOP know they're getting the shaft, and I suspect a great many of them would have defected too. ..."
    "... There was a theory early-on that Sanders never was really serious, but instead was running as a "sheepdog" to lead the dirty hippy lefties to Clinton. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    Zachary Smith August 31, 2016 12:13 am

    Sanders is a touchy subject with me. The man was offered a spot on the Green party ticket, and obviously didn't take it. Considering the public disgust with the two slimeballs we're stuck with now, I believe he'd have had a real shot at the presidency. Despite my rating him as a C- at best, I'd have voted for the man. It's my opinion he'd have gotten a whole lot of Trump's base too. The poorer members of the GOP know they're getting the shaft, and I suspect a great many of them would have defected too.

    There was a theory early-on that Sanders never was really serious, but instead was running as a "sheepdog" to lead the dirty hippy lefties to Clinton. That theory looks more plausible now than it did earlier.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Donald Trump is right about defense spending – and that should scare you

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less. ..."
    "... U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582 billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40 billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil, sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand ..."
    "... As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. ..."
    "... "I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary, "like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor." ..."
    "... America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said during a campaign stop in South Carolina. ..."
    "... Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent. ..."
    "... Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute, estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next eight years. ..."
    "... He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. ..."
    "... The Super PAC that backed Bush funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending by $102 billion a year. ..."
    "... Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner to audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects. ..."
    "... Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut in defense spending. ..."
    "... At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National Guard. ..."
    "... Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest employers in the area. ..."
    "... During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're spending billions." ..."
    "... Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got the right idea. ..."
    "... In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more with so much less. ..."
    blogs.reuters.com

    Donald Trump could be the only presidential candidate talking sense about for the American military's budget. That should scare everyone.

    "I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right now," the real- estate-mogul-turned-tautological-demagogue said on Meet the Press. "It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less."

    He's right.

    U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582 billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40 billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil, sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand

    As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

    The much-maligned F-35 will cost at least $1.5 trillion during the 55 years that its manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, expects it to be flying. That number is up $500 billion from the original high estimate. But with a long list of problems plaguing the stealth fighter, that price will most likely grow.

    "I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary, "like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor."

    America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said during a campaign stop in South Carolina.

    Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent.

    Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute, estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next eight years.

    Ballistic-missile-launching submarines aren't cheap, for example, and Cruz wants 12 of them. "If you think it's too expensive to defend this nation," Cruz said, "try not defending it."

    He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

    Ohio Governor John Kasich might be expected to have a more reasonable stance. After all, he sat on the House Armed Services Committee for almost 18 years, where he slashed budgets and challenged wasteful Pentagon projects.

    But that past is a liability for him. The Super PAC that backed Bush funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending by $102 billion a year.

    Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner to audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects.

    Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut in defense spending.

    A Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II joint strike fighter flies toward its new home at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, January 11, 2011. REUTERS/U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Joely Santiago/Handout

    At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National Guard.

    Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest employers in the area.

    Yet, Sanders ideological beliefs can sometimes color his views. He was chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee in 2014 as scandal swept the Department of Veterans Affairs. Even as many VA supporters called for reforms, Sanders defended the hospital system because he felt conservatives were attacking a major government social-welfare agency.

    He still defends his stewardship of the committee. "When I was chairman, what we did is pass a $15-billion piece of legislation," Sanders said during a recent debate with Clinton. "We went further than any time in recent history in improving the healthcare of the men and women in this country who put their lives on the line to defend us."

    In the age of terrorism and Islamic State bombers, the prevailing political wisdom holds that appearing soft on defense can lose a candidate the general election. For many of the 2016 presidential candidates, looking strong means spending a ton of cash. Even if you're from the party that holds fiscal responsibility as its cornerstone.

    But Trump doesn't care about any of that. In speech after speech, he has called out politicians and defense contractors for colluding to build costly weapons systems at the price of national security.

    During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're spending billions."

    Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got the right idea.

    In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more with so much less.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems

    www.theguardian.com

    Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you'll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?

    Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?

    Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

    So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin's theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.

    Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

    Bookmarks is our new weekly email from the books team with our pick of the latest news, views and reviews, delivered to your inbox every Thursday

    Read more

    Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

    We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

    Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it's your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.

    Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us

    Paul Verhaeghe

    Paul Verhaeghe: An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities

    Read more

    Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it's unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all neoliberals now.

    ***

    The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.

    In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control. Like Mises's book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin Society – it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.

    With their help, he began to create what Daniel Stedman Jones describes in Masters of the Universe as "a kind of neoliberal international": a transatlantic network of academics, businessmen, journalists and activists. The movement's rich backers funded a series of thinktanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among them were the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They also financed academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities of Chicago and Virginia.

    As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek's view that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way – among American apostles such as Milton Friedman – to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for efficiency.

    Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost its name. In 1951, Friedman was happy to describe himself as a neoliberal. But soon after that, the term began to disappear. Stranger still, even as the ideology became crisper and the movement more coherent, the lost name was not replaced by any common alternative.

    At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at the margins. The postwar consensus was almost universal: John Maynard Keynes's economic prescriptions were widely applied, full employment and the relief of poverty were common goals in the US and much of western Europe, top rates of tax were high and governments sought social outcomes without embarrassment, developing new public services and safety nets.

    But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the mainstream. As Friedman remarked, "when the time came that you had to change ... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up". With the help of sympathetic journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially its prescriptions for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter's administration in the US and Jim Callaghan's government in Britain.

    It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have been promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative'

    After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services. Through the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation, neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much of the world. Most remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged to the left: Labour and the Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes, "it is hard to think of another utopia to have been as fully realised."

    ***

    It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been promoted with the slogan "there is no alternative". But, as Hayek remarked on a visit to Pinochet's Chile – one of the first nations in which the programme was comprehensively applied – "my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism". The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which sounds so beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the pike, not for the minnows.

    Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.

    Naomi Klein documented that neoliberals advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted. Photograph: Anya Chibis for the Guardian

    As Naomi Klein documents in The Shock Doctrine, neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted: for example, in the aftermath of Pinochet's coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, which Friedman described as "an opportunity to radically reform the educational system" in New Orleans.

    Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed internationally, through trade treaties incorporating "investor-state dispute settlement": offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict sales of cigarettes, protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre.

    Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one

    Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition relies upon universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime of assessment and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the losers. The doctrine that Von Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic nightmare of central planning has instead created one.

    Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one. Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since 1980 in Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for the very rich. Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after 60 years of decline, rose rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade unions, tax reductions, rising rents, privatisation and deregulation.

    The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel.

    Those who own and run the UK's privatised or semi-privatised services make stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India, oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon became the world's richest man.

    Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in Why We Can't Afford the Rich, has had a similar impact. "Like rent," he argues, "interest is ... unearned income that accrues without any effort". As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer, the rich acquire increasing control over another crucial asset: money. Interest payments, overwhelmingly, are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As property prices and the withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the switch from student grants to student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.

    Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by a transfer of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy: from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those who make their money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest or capital gains. Earned income has been supplanted by unearned income.

    Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not only are the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in Ill Fares the Land, Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot be allowed to collapse, which means that competition cannot run its course. Business takes the profits, the state keeps the risk.

    The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every organ of the public sector.

    Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics.

    Chris Hedges remarks that "fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the 'losers' who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment". When political debate no longer speaks to us, people become responsive instead to slogans, symbols and sensation. To the admirers of Trump, for example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant.

    Judt explained that when the thick mesh of interactions between people and the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared is more likely to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that arises from the delivery of public services, are reduced to "cajoling, threatening and ultimately coercing people to obey them".

    ***

    Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of anonymities.

    The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement. We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks, noted that "in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised".

    The nouveau riche were once disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Today, the relationship has been reversed

    The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. "The market" sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What "the market wants" tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. "Investment", as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities "camouflages the sources of wealth", leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.

    A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off as rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors style themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.

    These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that even the police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.

    The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are influenced by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some justice – that it is used today only pejoratively. But they offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both misleading and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel about The Road to Serfdom, Bureaucracy or Friedman's classic work, Capitalism and Freedom.

    ***

    For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal project, at least in its early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted by a coherent network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action. It was patient and persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to power.

    Neoliberalism, Locke and the Green party

    Letters: For neoliberals to claim that their view supports the current distribution of property and power is almost as bonkers as the Lockean theory of property itself

    Read more

    Neoliberalism's triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the 70s, there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008 there was ... nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years.

    Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To propose Keynesian solutions to the crises of the 21st century is to ignore three obvious problems. It is hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 70s have not gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our gravest predicament: the environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating consumer demand to promote economic growth. Consumer demand and economic growth are the motors of environmental destruction.

    What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it's not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century.

    George Monbiot's How Did We Get into This Mess? is published this month by Verso. To order a copy for Ł12.99 (RRP Ł16.99) ) go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over Ł10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of Ł1.99.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Be afraid, Donald Trump. Were about to see the best of Barack Obama

    All this discussion missed the most important point: Obama is neocon and neoliberal and he did what he was supposed to do. "Change we can believe is" was a masterful "bait and switch" operation to full the gullible electorate. he was just a useful puppet for globalist. They used him and they will threw him to the dust bin of history sweetened with $200k speeches.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people! ..."
    "... So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes? ..."
    "... Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency. ..."
    "... Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328 ..."
    "... 'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with???? ..."
    "... Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy! ..."
    "... Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder. ..."
    "... Obama's presidency: 1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up. 2. Record # of people living on food stamps. 3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it) 4. Stagnant income for average family 5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income. 6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up. 7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore. ... ... Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over. ..."
    "... Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed. ..."
    "... Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts. ..."
    "... Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary? Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement. ..."
    "... "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries. ..."
    "... "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter? ..."
    "... Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians. ..."
    "... Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined. ..."
    "... Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
    "... Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.) ..."
    "... Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did. ..."
    "... Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed). ..."
    "... Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence. ..."
    "... Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states. ..."
    "... Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street. ..."
    "... Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color, ..."
    "... Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state. ..."
    "... Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen ..."
    "... Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons. ..."
    "... Which of these things make you "so proud?" ..."
    "... You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it. ..."
    "... To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd. ..."
    "... This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on. ..."
    "... Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world. ..."
    "... Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-). ..."
    "... TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    slorter

    The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people!

    kittehpavolvski

    So, if we're about to see the best of Obama, what have we been seeing hitherto?

    waitforme

    So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes?

    ForestTrees

    Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency.

    ForestTrees -> Glenn J. Hill 31m ago

    Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

    HelenPatterson

    'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with????

    What a fatuous article about the world's leading terrorist.

    And of course we shouldn't forget that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined.

    Let's not forget that he claims and has exercised his 'right' to murder his own citizens on the basis of secret evidence - one being a 16 year old boy. And when the White House spokesman was asked why the boy was murdered by drone, he said 'He should have had a more responsible father'.

    He sings off on his 'Kill List' of domestic and foreign nationals every Tuesday, dubbed 'Terror Tuesday' by his staff.

    Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy!

    ID7715785

    Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder.

    ninjamia

    Oh, I know. He'll repeat the snide and nasty remarks about Trump that he gave at the Press Club dinner. Such style and grace - not.

    J.K. Stevens -> ninjamia

    Sit back and weep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

    fflambeau

    Casting Donald Trump as the Big Bad Wolf doesn't bring about real change.

    And sadly, in his almost 8 years in office (2 years with absolute control over the Congress) Barack Obama has brought about little real change. For him it is a slogan.

    Larry Robinson

    Obama's presidency:
    1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up.
    2. Record # of people living on food stamps.
    3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it)
    4. Stagnant income for average family
    5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income.
    6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up.
    7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore.
    ... ...

    Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over.

    shinNeMIN -> Larry Robinson

    $500 million worth of arm supply?

    hadeze242 -> Major MajorMajor

    while Obama's messy military interventions become more and more confused, chaotic and tragic his personal appearance gets ever more Hollywood: perfect attire, smile and just the right words. I would prefer the inverse, less tailoring and neat haircuts, but more honesty and transparency. e.g., Obama lied about the NSA for how long in this first term. Answer: all four years long and beyond into the 2nd term.

    BostonCeltics

    Six more months until he goes into the dustbin of history. Small minded people in positions of power who take things personally are the epitome of incompetence.

    Mats Almgren

    Obama became a worse president than Bush. Endless moneyprinting, bombing nine countries, created a operation Condor 2.0 with interventions in Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina, didn't withdraw any troops from Afghanistan, lifted the weapon embargo on Vietnam to sell US weapons and at the same time forcing Vietnam to not do trade deals with China, intimidating the Phillipines from doing trade with China, restarted the cold war which had led to biggest military ramp up in Eastern Europe since 1941, drone bombed weddings and hospitals and what not, supported islam militants in Libya, Syria and Iraq which has led to total devastation in these countries. And there has been an increase in the constant US interventionism regarding European elections and referendums. And has continuously protected the dollar hegemony causing death and destruction thoughout the world.

    With that track record it's easy to say that Obama might be worst US president ever. And there has been hardly any critism and critical thinking in the more and more propagandistic and agenda driven western media.

    It's like living in the twilight zone reading the media in Sweden and Britain.

    Jose Sanchez -> Mats Almgren

    Blame a president for trying to sell what we still manufacture are you?

    Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed.

    NewWorldWatcher

    The new leader of the Republican party thinks that that it was stupid to go into Iraq and Afghanistan but it would be good to carpet bomb ISIS. He IS a great Republican. No wonder this party is on the fringe of extinction.

    Mats Almgren -> NewWorldWatcher

    Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts.

    trundlesome1

    Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary?

    Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement.

    zootsuitbeatnick

    "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries.

    That's as hyper-competitive as Trump is selfless.
    Try to be at least a little reality-based.

    hadeze242

    the best of Pres. Obama? Perhaps only someone living a life in the UK could dream this strange dream? Great, compared to whom, to what? Never since WW2 has the US & world seen such a weak, openly-prejudiced, non-performing Pres. Remember O's plan to save Afghanistan? Lybia? Then, working (bombing) with Putin's Russia to collaterally bomb the beautiful, developed, cultural nation of Syria. To what end I ask? To create refugees? Obama has never been at his best, always only at his worst. Ah, yes, his smooth-lawyered sentences come with commas & periods and all that, but there is no feeling inside the man. This man is a great, oratory actor. His promises are well-written & endless, but delivery is never coming. Yes, we can .. was his electoral phrase. No, we can't ... after 8 long, wasted yrs was his result.

    NewWorldWatcher

    In Las Vegas they are gaming on how many votes will Trump lose by not who will win. A Trump loss will be in excess of 10 Million votes.......5to2 odds. The worse loss in recent history!

    Janet Re Johnson -> NewWorldWatcher

    From your mouth to God's ears. But I'm a big baseball fan, so I know it ain't over till it's over.

    Larry Robinson

    Also it's when Obama talks out of outburst rather than from a teleprompter that you can tell his true capability as a leader or lack thereof.

    Notice that Obama said ... not once has an advisor tells him to use the term "radical Islam" ... . Well Mr Obama, it's your own call to decide what term to use on this issue so why are you bringing your advisors out for credence. Right or wrong that's your own decision so you should stand behind it. When you bring advisors in to defend what should be your own call it shows WEAKNESS.

    Obama basically tells everyone that he needs his advisors to tell him what do b/c he does NOT know how to handle it by himself. So who's the leader here, Obama or his advisors? Is Obama just a puppet that needs his advisors to pull the string constantly? Ouch.

    It's the prompter-free moment like this that the truth about Obama comes out. I wonder why Trump has not picked this clear hole up yet.

    raffine

    The POTUS will crush Mr Trump like a 200 year old peanut.

    Carolyn Walas Libbey -> raffine

    The POTUS is about as useful as an old condom.

    PortalooMassacre

    Exposed to the toxic smugness of Richard Wolffe, I'm beginning to see what people find attractive about Donald Trump's refreshing barbarism.

    guy ventner -> synechdoche

    "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter?

    Ron Shuffler

    "Greatest President since Lincoln" "I am proud - so proud! - to say that this man is MY President! Personally, I am ashamed that this man is my President.
    But anyway, here's what Richard Wolffe and y'all are so proud of:

    Here's what your favorite President actually did:

    1. Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians.
    2. Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined.
    3. Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    4. Deported at least 2.8 million "illegal" immigrants
    5. Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.)
    6. Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did.
    7. Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed).
    8. Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence.
    9. Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states.
    10. Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street.
    11. Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color,
    12. Left Guantanamo open (though as Commander-in-Chief he could have closed it down with a phone call).
    13. Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state.
    14. Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen
    15. Sent billions of dollars to the new military rulers of Egypt
    16. Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons.

    Which of these things make you "so proud?"

    BG Davis -> Ron Shuffler

    You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it.
    At the same time, you overestimate the simplicity of just closing Guantanamo prison with "a phone call." So he makes the phone call; then what happens to the prisoners? They aren't all innocent non-entities who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Larry Robinson

    It's only in the mind of die hard liberals that Obama has been strong against terrorists. Just look at how he handles Syria situation. Asad - a Shiite govt - is a sworn enemy to ISIS - a Sunni organization so if you are serious about ISIS you should utilize Asad, right? Well no, Obama is so hell-bent on unseating Asad that he supports those rebels that are also Sunni-based and cozy with ISIS. To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd.

    Lafcadio1944

    What part of Obama's criminal acts in office do think are the best? For me the very best of Obama is how he can project power so suavely while standing before the world as a prima facia criminal. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!! Under the law those who order and/or carry out torture MUST be prosecuted. THAT IS INTERNATIONAL, TREATY AND DOMESTIC US LAW.

    The oh so great and powerful Obama he of such dignity in office has SHOWN UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE RULE OF LAW!!!

    But that's OK he will say bad things about Trump.

    This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on.

    I want to vomit when the press acts so hypocritically ready to jump all over Putin or China in a heart beat - but challenge US officials who openly violate the law - not a chance.

    babymamaboy

    Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world.

    It would be really easy for him to call it like it is -- we don't care who you worship, just don't mess with our oil. But he actively feeds the narrative while chiding Trump for being too enthusiastic about it. I guess that's what passes for US leadership these days.

    urgonnatrip

    Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex.

    How has Barack done? He's held them in check and avoided an escalation to WW3. I wish I could say the next president was going to continue the trend but somehow I doubt it.

    KerryB -> urgonnatrip

    You had me right up until the last line. I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-).

    zolotoy -> KerryB

    Yeah, just ignore Hillary Clinton's actual record, right?

    AgnosticKen

    TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy.

    [Sep 10, 2016] The Pitchforks Are Coming For Us Plutocrats

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent. ..."
    "... The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren't only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they'd be able to afford his Model Ts. ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.politico.com

    Memo: From Nick Hanauer
    To: My Fellow Zillionaires

    You probably don't know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than 30 companies across a range of industries-from itsy-bitsy ones like the night club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising company that was sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I'm no different from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that the other 99.99 percent of Americans can't even imagine. Multiple homes, my own plane, etc., etc. You know what I'm talking about. In 1992, I was selling pillows made by my family's business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then, that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed. I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough-and that time wasn't far off-people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor. And Filene's. And Borders. And on and on.

    Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy, was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends, both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was a guy you've probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time. It just happened that the second Jeff-Bezos-called me back first to take up my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online idea; people just weren't yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don't vary in quality-Bezos' great insight). Cybershop didn't make it, just another dot-com bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.

    But let's speak frankly to each other. I'm not the smartest guy you've ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at all-I can't write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?

    I see pitchforks.

    At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.

    But the problem isn't that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.

    Memo: From Nick Hanauer
    To: My Fellow Zillionaires

    You probably don't know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than 30 companies across a range of industries-from itsy-bitsy ones like the night club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising company that was sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I'm no different from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that the other 99.99 percent of Americans can't even imagine. Multiple homes, my own plane, etc., etc. You know what I'm talking about. In 1992, I was selling pillows made by my family's business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then, that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed. I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough-and that time wasn't far off-people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor. And Filene's. And Borders. And on and on.

    Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy, was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends, both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was a guy you've probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time. It just happened that the second Jeff-Bezos-called me back first to take up my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online idea; people just weren't yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don't vary in quality-Bezos' great insight). Cybershop didn't make it, just another dot-com bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.

    But let's speak frankly to each other. I'm not the smartest guy you've ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at all-I can't write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?

    I see pitchforks.

    At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.

    But the problem isn't that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.

    And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won't last.

    If we don't do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn't eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It's not if, it's when.

    Many of us think we're special because "this is America." We think we're immune to the same forces that started the Arab Spring-or the French and Russian revolutions, for that matter. I know you fellow .01%ers tend to dismiss this kind of argument; I've had many of you tell me to my face I'm completely bonkers. And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced that because you saw a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is a fiction.

    Here's what I say to you: You're living in a dream world. What everyone wants to believe is that when things reach a tipping point and go from being merely crappy for the masses to dangerous and socially destabilizing, that we're somehow going to know about that shift ahead of time. Any student of history knows that's not the way it happens. Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and then suddenly. One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. And then there's no time for us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and fly to New Zealand. That's the way it always happens. If inequality keeps rising as it has been, eventually it will happen. We will not be able to predict when, and it will be terrible-for everybody. But especially for us.
    ***

    The most ironic thing about rising inequality is how completely unnecessary and self-defeating it is. If we do something about it, if we adjust our policies in the way that, say, Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression-so that we help the 99 percent and preempt the revolutionaries and crazies, the ones with the pitchforks-that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks, too. It's not just that we'll escape with our lives; it's that we'll most certainly get even richer.

    The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren't only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they'd be able to afford his Model Ts.

    What a great idea. My suggestion to you is: Let's do it all over again. We've got to try something. These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base. And yours too.

    It's when I realized this that I decided I had to leave my insulated world of the super-rich and get involved in politics. Not directly, by running for office or becoming one of the big-money billionaires who back candidates in an election. Instead, I wanted to try to change the conversation with ideas-by advancing what my co-author, Eric Liu, and I call "middle-out" economics. It's the long-overdue rebuttal to the trickle-down economics worldview that has become economic orthodoxy across party lines-and has so screwed the American middle class and our economy generally. Middle-out economics rejects the old misconception that an economy is a perfectly efficient, mechanistic system and embraces the much more accurate idea of an economy as a complex ecosystem made up of real people who are dependent on one another.

    Which is why the fundamental law of capitalism must be: If workers have more money, businesses have more customers. Which makes middle-class consumers, not rich businesspeople like us, the true job creators. Which means a thriving middle class is the source of American prosperity, not a consequence of it. The middle class creates us rich people, not the other way around.

    On June 19, 2013, Bloomberg published an article I wrote called "The Capitalist's Case for a $15 Minimum Wage." Forbes labeled it "Nick Hanauer's near insane" proposal. And yet, just weeks after it was published, my friend David Rolf, a Service Employees International Union organizer, roused fast-food workers to go on strike around the country for a $15 living wage. Nearly a year later, the city of Seattle passed a $15 minimum wage. And just 350 days after my article was published, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray signed that ordinance into law. How could this happen, you ask?

    It happened because we reminded the masses that they are the source of growth and prosperity, not us rich guys. We reminded them that when workers have more money, businesses have more customers-and need more employees. We reminded them that if businesses paid workers a living wage rather than poverty wages, taxpayers wouldn't have to make up the difference. And when we got done, 74 percent of likely Seattle voters in a recent poll agreed that a $15 minimum wage was a swell idea.

    The standard response in the minimum-wage debate, made by Republicans and their business backers and plenty of Democrats as well, is that raising the minimum wage costs jobs. Businesses will have to lay off workers. This argument reflects the orthodox economics that most people had in college. If you took Econ 101, then you literally were taught that if wages go up, employment must go down. The law of supply and demand and all that. That's why you've got John Boehner and other Republicans in Congress insisting that if you price employment higher, you get less of it. Really?

    The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich and our employees poor.

    Because here's an odd thing. During the past three decades, compensation for CEOs grew 127 times faster than it did for workers. Since 1950, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio has increased 1,000 percent, and that is not a typo. CEOs used to earn 30 times the median wage; now they rake in 500 times. Yet no company I know of has eliminated its senior managers, or outsourced them to China or automated their jobs. Instead, we now have more CEOs and senior executives than ever before. So, too, for financial services workers and technology workers. These folks earn multiples of the median wage, yet we somehow have more and more of them.

    The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich and our employees poor. So for as long as there has been capitalism, capitalists have said the same thing about any effort to raise wages. We've had 75 years of complaints from big business-when the minimum wage was instituted, when women had to be paid equitable amounts, when child labor laws were created. Every time the capitalists said exactly the same thing in the same way: We're all going to go bankrupt. I'll have to close. I'll have to lay everyone off. It hasn't happened. In fact, the data show that when workers are better treated, business gets better. The naysayers are just wrong.
    Most of you probably think that the $15 minimum wage in Seattle is an insane departure from rational policy that puts our economy at great risk. But in Seattle, our current minimum wage of $9.32 is already nearly 30 percent higher than the federal minimum wage. And has it ruined our economy yet? Well, trickle-downers, look at the data here: The two cities in the nation with the highest rate of job growth by small businesses are San Francisco and Seattle. Guess which cities have the highest minimum wage? San Francisco and Seattle. The fastest-growing big city in America? Seattle. Fifteen dollars isn't a risky untried policy for us. It's doubling down on the strategy that's already allowing our city to kick your city's ass.

    It makes perfect sense if you think about it: If a worker earns $7.25 an hour, which is now the national minimum wage, what proportion of that person's income do you think ends up in the cash registers of local small businesses? Hardly any. That person is paying rent, ideally going out to get subsistence groceries at Safeway, and, if really lucky, has a bus pass. But she's not going out to eat at restaurants. Not browsing for new clothes. Not buying flowers on Mother's Day.

    Is this issue more complicated than I'm making out? Of course. Are there many factors at play determining the dynamics of employment? Yup. But please, please stop insisting that if we pay low-wage workers more, unemployment will skyrocket and it will destroy the economy. It's utter nonsense. The most insidious thing about trickle-down economics isn't believing that if the rich get richer, it's good for the economy. It's believing that if the poor get richer, it's bad for the economy.

    I know that virtually all of you feel that compelling our businesses to pay workers more is somehow unfair, or is too much government interference. Most of you think that we should just let good examples like Costco or Gap lead the way. Or let the market set the price. But here's the thing. When those who set bad examples, like the owners of Wal-Mart or McDonald's, pay their workers close to the minimum wage, what they're really saying is that they'd pay even less if it weren't illegal. (Thankfully both companies have recently said they would not oppose a hike in the minimum wage.) In any large group, some people absolutely will not do the right thing. That's why our economy can only be safe and effective if it is governed by the same kinds of rules as, say, the transportation system, with its speed limits and stop signs.

    Wal-Mart is our nation's largest employer with some 1.4 million employees in the United States and more than $25 billion in pre-tax profit. So why are Wal-Mart employees the largest group of Medicaid recipients in many states? Wal-Mart could, say, pay each of its 1 million lowest-paid workers an extra $10,000 per year, raise them all out of poverty and enable them to, of all things, afford to shop at Wal-Mart. Not only would this also save us all the expense of the food stamps, Medicaid and rent assistance that they currently require, but Wal-Mart would still earn more than $15 billion pre-tax per year. Wal-Mart won't (and shouldn't) volunteer to pay its workers more than their competitors. In order for us to have an economy that works for everyone, we should compel all retailers to pay living wages-not just ask politely.

    We rich people have been falsely persuaded by our schooling and the affirmation of society, and have convinced ourselves, that we are the main job creators. It's simply not true. There can never be enough super-rich Americans to power a great economy. I earn about 1,000 times the median American annually, but I don't buy thousands of times more stuff. My family purchased three cars over the past few years, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. I bought two pairs of the fancy wool pants I am wearing as I write, what my partner Mike calls my "manager pants." I guess I could have bought 1,000 pairs. But why would I? Instead, I sock my extra money away in savings, where it doesn't do the country much good.

    So forget all that rhetoric about how America is great because of people like you and me and Steve Jobs. You know the truth even if you won't admit it: If any of us had been born in Somalia or the Congo, all we'd be is some guy standing barefoot next to a dirt road selling fruit. It's not that Somalia and Congo don't have good entrepreneurs. It's just that the best ones are selling their wares off crates by the side of the road because that's all their customers can afford.

    So why not talk about a different kind of New Deal for the American people, one that could appeal to the right as well as left-to libertarians as well as liberals? First, I'd ask my Republican friends to get real about reducing the size of government. Yes, yes and yes, you guys are all correct: The federal government is too big in some ways. But no way can you cut government substantially, not the way things are now. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush each had eight years to do it, and they failed miserably.

    Republicans and Democrats in Congress can't shrink government with wishful thinking. The only way to slash government for real is to go back to basic economic principles: You have to reduce the demand for government. If people are getting $15 an hour or more, they don't need food stamps. They don't need rent assistance. They don't need you and me to pay for their medical care. If the consumer middle class is back, buying and shopping, then it stands to reason you won't need as large a welfare state. And at the same time, revenues from payroll and sales taxes would rise, reducing the deficit.

    This is, in other words, an economic approach that can unite left and right. Perhaps that's one reason the right is beginning, inexorably, to wake up to this reality as well. Even Republicans as diverse as Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum recently came out in favor of raising the minimum wage, in defiance of the Republicans in Congress.

    ***

    One thing we can agree on-I'm sure of this-is that the change isn't going to start in Washington. Thinking is stale, arguments even more so. On both sides.

    But the way I see it, that's all right. Most major social movements have seen their earliest victories at the state and municipal levels. The fight over the eight-hour workday, which ended in Washington, D.C., in 1938, began in places like Illinois and Massachusetts in the late 1800s. The movement for social security began in California in the 1930s. Even the Affordable Health Care Act-Obamacare-would have been hard to imagine without Mitt Romney's model in Massachusetts to lead the way.

    Sadly, no Republicans and few Democrats get this. President Obama doesn't seem to either, though his heart is in the right place. In his State of the Union speech this year, he mentioned the need for a higher minimum wage but failed to make the case that less inequality and a renewed middle class would promote faster economic growth. Instead, the arguments we hear from most Democrats are the same old social-justice claims. The only reason to help workers is because we feel sorry for them. These fairness arguments feed right into every stereotype of Obama and the Democrats as bleeding hearts. Republicans say growth. Democrats say fairness-and lose every time.

    But just because the two parties in Washington haven't figured it out yet doesn't mean we rich folks can just keep going. The conversation is already changing, even if the billionaires aren't onto it. I know what you think: You think that Occupy Wall Street and all the other capitalism-is-the-problem protesters disappeared without a trace. But that's not true. Of course, it's hard to get people to sleep in a park in the cause of social justice. But the protests we had in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis really did help to change the debate in this country from death panels and debt ceilings to inequality.

    It's just that so many of you plutocrats didn't get the message.

    Dear 1%ers, many of our fellow citizens are starting to believe that capitalism itself is the problem. I disagree, and I'm sure you do too. Capitalism, when well managed, is the greatest social technology ever invented to create prosperity in human societies. But capitalism left unchecked tends toward concentration and collapse. It can be managed either to benefit the few in the near term or the many in the long term. The work of democracies is to bend it to the latter. That is why investments in the middle class work. And tax breaks for rich people like us don't. Balancing the power of workers and billionaires by raising the minimum wage isn't bad for capitalism. It's an indispensable tool smart capitalists use to make capitalism stable and sustainable. And no one has a bigger stake in that than zillionaires like us.

    The oldest and most important conflict in human societies is the battle over the concentration of wealth and power. The folks like us at the top have always told those at the bottom that our respective positions are righteous and good for all. Historically, we called that divine right. Today we have trickle-down economics.

    What nonsense this is. Am I really such a superior person? Do I belong at the center of the moral as well as economic universe? Do you?

    My family, the Hanauers, started in Germany selling feathers and pillows. They got chased out of Germany by Hitler and ended up in Seattle owning another pillow company. Three generations later, I benefited from that. Then I got as lucky as a person could possibly get in the Internet age by having a buddy in Seattle named Bezos. I look at the average Joe on the street, and I say, "There but for the grace of Jeff go I." Even the best of us, in the worst of circumstances, are barefoot, standing by a dirt road, selling fruit. We should never forget that, or forget that the United States of America and its middle class made us, rather than the other way around.

    Or we could sit back, do nothing, enjoy our yachts. And wait for the pitchforks.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Sanders was the geriatric Obama, dispensing more Hopium for the dopes. And when Clinton feigns adoption of Sanders policy, like not signing the TPP, she is LYING.

    Picked from comments...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that reality appears. ..."
    "... spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. ..."
    "... sheepdog is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his so-called campaign. ..."
    OffGuardian

    Richard Le Sarcophage, July 28, 2016

    Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that reality appears. He is, in fact, with his total and immediate roll-over, even as the corruption of the process was categorically exposed by the e-mails, making no pretense otherwise, spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. He was the geriatric Obama, dispensing more Hopium for the dopes. And when Clinton feigns adoption of Sanders policy, like not signing the TPP, she is LYING.

    Diana, July 28, 2016

    Sanders' own campaign called him the "youth whisperer", but sheepdog is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his so-called campaign. Perhaps he did so hoping that the DNC would play fair, but that goes to show you he's no socialist. A real socialist would have been able to size up the opposition, not made any gentleman's agreements with them and waged a real campaign.


    rtj1211, July 26, 2016

    So far as I'm aware, there must be a mechanism for an Independent to put their name on the ballot.

    If the majority of people in the USA are really thinking that voting for either Hillary or the Donald is worse than having unprotected sex with an HIV+ hooker, then the Independent would barely need any publicity. They'd just need to be on the ballot.

    Course, the Establishment might get cute and put a far-right nutcase up as 'another Independent' so as they would have someone who'd do as they were told no matter what.

    But until the US public say 'da nada! Pasta! Finito! To hell with the Democrats and the GOP!', you'll still get the choice of 'let's invade Iran' or 'let's nuke Russia'. You'll get the choice of giving Israel a blowjob or agreeing to be tied up and have kinky sex with Israel. You'll get the choice of bailing out Wall Street or bailing out Wall Street AND cutting social security for the poorest Americans. You'll get the choice of running the USA for the bankers or running the USA for the bankers and a few multinational corporations.

    Oh, they'll have to fight for it, just as Martin Luther King et al had to fight for civil rights. They may have the odd candidate shot by the CIA, the oil men or the weapons men. Because that's how US politics works.

    But if they don't want a Republican or a Republican-lite, they need to select an independent and vote for them.

    The rest of us? We have to use whatever influence we have to try and limit what they try to do overseas…….because we are affected by what America does overseas…….

    [Sep 10, 2016] Bernie Sanders should regret what he has done -- he betrayed the very people who believed in this political revolution repeating Obama bat and switch maneuver of 2008

    Sanders as a pupil of the king of "bait and switch" Obama
    Notable quotes:
    "... I think he will come to deeply regret what he has done. He has betrayed these people who believed in this political revolution. We heard this same kind of rhetoric, by the way, in 2008 around Obama. ..."
    Aug 06, 2016 | www.democracynow.org

    CHRIS HEDGES : Well, I didn't back Bernie Sanders because-and Kshama Sawant and I had had a discussion with him before-because he said that he would work within the Democratic structures and support the nominee.

    And I think we have now watched Bernie Sanders walk away from his political moment. You know, he - I think he will come to deeply regret what he has done. He has betrayed these people who believed in this political revolution. We heard this same kind of rhetoric, by the way, in 2008 around Obama.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Sanders is now backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Whether he plays Gorbachov or this is Stockholm syndrome shame on him!

    Notable quotes:
    "... That means backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Shame on him! He told his followers to think of pie in the sky in the decades it will take to take over the Democratic Party from below, from school boards, etc. ..."
    "... What on earth is revolution if it doesn't include either remove the rot in the Democratic Party, the Wall Street control, or start another party? It had to be one or the other. Here was his chance. I think he missed it. ..."
    "... He did miss his chance. Some people were suggesting that he should walk and form his own party. Particularly how the party treated him. ..."
    "... The Democrats and the Republicans together have made it almost impossible for a third party to get registered in every state. To run in every state. To get just all of the mechanics you need because of all the lawsuits against them. The Green Party is the only party that had already solved that. Apart from the Libertarian Party. ..."
    "... The oligarchs have joined the Republicans and the Democrats are now seen to be the same party, called the Democratic Party. Here was his chance to make an alternative. ..."
    "... I believe Hillary's the greater evil, not Trump, because Trump is incompetent and doesn't have the staff around him, or the political support that Hilary has. ..."
    "... I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care. ..."
    "... I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight! ..."
    "... Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. ..."
    "... I agree with Hudson that HRC is the greater threat. I also agree with him that Bernie makes no sense. What the hell did Bernie have to lose? He could have accepted the prez nomination with the Greens. In fact, he should have run third party from the git-go. By sucking up to the dems that politically raped him, Bernie is exhibiting a variation of Stockholm syndrome. ..."
    "... Bernie's problem in the end is that he couldn't see that in order to gain power in the Democratic Party (i.e., in order to dislodge the Clintons), the Left might (probably would) have to lose an election. ..."
    "... The Democratic PoC (Party of Clinton) had to be shown as a party that could not win an election without its left half. He wrongly saw the powerless Trump as the greater threat, something that could only be done if he still at least marginally trusted Hillary to ever keep her word on anything. He will come to see that as his greatest mistake of all. ..."
    "... Bernie reminds me of Gorbachev. Both clearly saw what the problem was with their respective societies, but still thought that things could be fixed by changing their respective parties. Bernie it seems, like Gorbachev before him, can not intellectually accept that effective reforms require radical action on the existing power structures. Gorbachev could not break with the Communist system and Bernie can not break with the Democratic party. ..."
    "... I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care. ..."
    "... I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight! ..."
    "... Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. ..."
    Aug 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    PERIES: Let's turn to Sanders's strategy here. Now, Sanders is, of course, asking people to support Hillary. And if you buy into the idea that she is the lesser of two evils candidate, then we also have to look at Bernie's other strategy – which is to vote as many people as we possibly can at various other levels of the elections that are going on at congressional levels, Senate level, at municipal levels. Is that the way to go, so that we can avoid some of these choices we are offered?

    HUDSON: Well, this is what I don't understand about Sanders's strategy. He says we need a revolution. He's absolutely right. But then, everything he said in terms of the election is about Trump. I can guarantee you that the revolution isn't really about Trump. The way Sanders has described things, you have to take over the Democratic Party and pry away the leadership, away from Wall Street, away from the corporations.

    Democrats pretend to be a party of the working class, a party of the people. But it's teetering with Hillary as it's candidate. If ever there was a time to split it, this was the year. But Bernie missed his chance. He knuckled under and said okay, the election's going to be about Trump. Forget the revolution that I've talked about. Forget reforming the Democratic Party, I'm sorry. Forget that I said Hillary is not fit to be President. I'm sorry, she is fit to be President. We've got to back her.

    That means backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Shame on him! He told his followers to think of pie in the sky in the decades it will take to take over the Democratic Party from below, from school boards, etc.

    Labor unions said this half a century ago. It didn't work. Bernie gave up on everything to back the TPP candidate, the neocon candidate.

    What on earth is revolution if it doesn't include either remove the rot in the Democratic Party, the Wall Street control, or start another party? It had to be one or the other. Here was his chance. I think he missed it.

    PERIES: I think there's a lot of people out there that agree with that analysis, Michael. He did miss his chance. Some people were suggesting that he should walk and form his own party. Particularly how the party treated him. But there is another choice out there. In fact, we at the Real News is out there covering the Green Party election as we are speaking here, Michael. Is that an option?

    HUDSON: It would have been the only option for him. He had decided that you can't really mount a third party, because it's so hard. The Democrats and the Republicans together have made it almost impossible for a third party to get registered in every state. To run in every state. To get just all of the mechanics you need because of all the lawsuits against them. The Green Party is the only party that had already solved that. Apart from the Libertarian Party.

    So here you have the only possible third party he could have run on this time, and he avoided it. I'm sure he must of thought about it. He was offered the presidency on it. He could of used that and brought his revolution into that party and then expanded it as a real alternative to both the Democrats and the Republicans. Because the Republican Party is already split, by the fact that the Tea Party's pretty much destroyed it. The oligarchs have joined the Republicans and the Democrats are now seen to be the same party, called the Democratic Party. Here was his chance to make an alternative.

    I don't think there will be a chance like this again soon. I believe Hillary's the greater evil, not Trump, because Trump is incompetent and doesn't have the staff around him, or the political support that Hilary has. I think Bernie missed his chance to take this party and develop it very quickly, just like George Wallace could have done back in the 1960s when he had a chance. I think Chris Hedges and other people have made this point with you. I have no idea what Bernie's idea of a revolution is, if he's going to try to do it within the Democratic Party that's just stamped on him again and again, you're simply not going to have a revolution within the Democratic party.

    Butch In Waukegan ,, August 10, 2016 at 9:51 am

    Sanders' convention endorsement:

    I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care.

    I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled.

    Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight!

    Sanders' campaign was premised on exactly the opposite. How can anyone now take Bernie seriously?

    Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

    crittermom ,, August 10, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    Okay. I know this comment will bring forth much backlash, but I'm gonna put it out there anyway since my 'give-a-shitter' was severely cracked over 4 yrs ago (when 2 sheriff's deputies evicted me from my home while I had been current on my pymts when the bank foreclosed and the response from EVERY govt agency I contacted told me to "hire a lawyer", which I couldn't afford, with one costing much more than I owed on my home of 20 yrs). I had bought my first house by the time I graduated h.s. and had owned one ever since until now.

    My 'give-a-shitter' completely shattered this year with the election, so here goes:

    So it seems we are offered 3 choices when we vote. Trump, Hillary or Green.

    To someone who is among the 8-10 MILLION (depending on whose figures you believe) whose home was illegally taken from them by the banksters, I would welcome a 4th choice since none of the 3 offered will improve my life before I die.

    The consensus seems to be that it'll take decades to create change through voting.

    I'm a divorced woman turning 65. I don't feel I have decades to wait, while I am forced to live in a place that doesn't even have a flush toilet because it's all I can afford. To someone my age with no degrees or special skills, the job market is nonexistent, even if I lived in a big city (where I couldn't afford the rent).

    When I see reports of an increase in new homes being built, I'd love to see a breakdown showing exactly how many of those homes will be primary residences and how many are second (or third, or fourth) homes.

    There are 4 new custom homes being built within a half mile of me.
    None will be primary residences. All will be 'vacation' homes.

    Yet if we're to believe the latest figures, "the housing market is improving!"
    For whom?

    Yes, I'm extremely disappointed that Bernie bailed on us. I doubt either of us will live long enough to see the change required to change this govt and save the planet with our current choices this election.

    I fear the only thing that this election has given me was initially great hope for my future, before being plunged into the darkness of the same ol', same ol' as my only choices.

    I was never radical or oppositional in my life but I would now welcome a revolution. I don't see me living long enough to welcome that change by voting. Especially with the blatant voter suppression and all else that transpired this election.

    While the govt and political oligarchs may fear Russia & ISIS, if they met 8-10 million of us victims of the banksters, they would come to realize real fear, from those within their homeland.

    Most are horrified when I offer this view, saying I'd be thrown in prison.
    Hmmm…considering that…I'd be fed, clothed, housed-and I'd have a flush toilet!

    Gads, I'd love to see millions of us march on Washington & literally throw those in power out of their seats onto the lawn, saying "enough is enough"!

    So I guess my question is, does anyone else feel as 'at the end of their rope' as I do?
    Can you even truly imagine being in my position and what you would do or how you would feel?

    Yes. I screamed, cried, and wrote Bernie's campaign before his endorsement speech was even completed, expressing my disappointment, after foregoing meals to send him my meager contributions.

    My hopes were shattered and I'm growing impatient for change.

    backwardsevolution ,, August 10, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    crittermom/Bullwinkle – here's one of the articles by Chris Hedges on Bernie Sanders:

    "Because the party is completely captive to corporate power," Hedges said. "And Bernie has cut a Faustian deal with the Democrats. And that's not even speculation. I did an event with him and Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein and Kshama Sawant in New York the day before the Climate March. And Kshama Sawant ,the Socialist City Councilwoman from Seattle and I asked Sanders why he wanted to run as a Democrat. And he said - because I don't want to end up like Nader."

    "He didn't want to end up pushed out of the establishment," Hedges said. "He wanted to keep his committee chairmanships, he wanted to keep his Senate seat. And he knew the forms of retribution, punishment that would be visited upon him if he applied his critique to the Democratic establishment. So he won't."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/15/chris-hedges-on-bernie-sanders-and-the-corporate-democrats/

    Lambert Strether ,, August 10, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    I don't get what's wrong with not ending up like Nader.

    And if Sanders saved the left from another two decades of "Nader Nader neener neener!" more power to him, say I.

    backwardsevolution ,, August 10, 2016 at 8:55 pm

    Fair enough. I don't know enough about Nader to care. To me, it was just the about-face that Bernie did, going from denouncing Hillary (albeit not very strongly) to embracing her. I think if I had been one of his supporters who cheered him on, sent him money, got my hopes raised that he would go all the way, I would have been very disappointed. Almost like a tease.

    crittermom ,, August 10, 2016 at 8:51 pm

    Thanks for that link.

    I'd wanted Bernie to run as an Independent more than anything, but I can understand him wanting to keep his Senate seat and chairs. Without them, he has no power to bring change.
    I had believed he had a good chance to win, whipping a big Bernie Bird to both parties and changing things in my lifetime, running Independent.

    I now realize just how completely corrupt our political system is. Far worse than I ever could have imagined. Wow, have my eyes been opened!

    I'm beginning to think this election may just come down to who has the bigger thugs, Trump or HRC.

    EndOfTheWorld , August 10, 2016 at 5:04 am

    I agree with Hudson that HRC is the greater threat. I also agree with him that Bernie makes no sense. What the hell did Bernie have to lose? He could have accepted the prez nomination with the Greens. In fact, he should have run third party from the git-go. By sucking up to the dems that politically raped him, Bernie is exhibiting a variation of Stockholm syndrome.

    Benedict@Large , August 10, 2016 at 7:26 am

    Bernie's problem in the end is that he couldn't see that in order to gain power in the Democratic Party (i.e., in order to dislodge the Clintons), the Left might (probably would) have to lose an election.

    The Democratic PoC (Party of Clinton) had to be shown as a party that could not win an election without its left half. He wrongly saw the powerless Trump as the greater threat, something that could only be done if he still at least marginally trusted Hillary to ever keep her word on anything. He will come to see that as his greatest mistake of all.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 11:34 am

    Very well stated++

    Another Anon , August 10, 2016 at 7:27 am

    Bernie reminds me of Gorbachev. Both clearly saw what the problem was with their respective societies, but still thought that things could be fixed by changing their respective parties. Bernie it seems, like Gorbachev before him, can not intellectually accept that effective reforms require radical action on the existing power structures. Gorbachev could not break with the Communist system and Bernie can not break with the Democratic party.

    diptherio , August 10, 2016 at 11:33 am

    Bernie is too nice for his own good. He should have used the DNC machinations as an excuse to go back on his promise to endorse. "I made that promise on the assumption that we would all be acting in good faith. Sadly, that has proved not to be the case."

    But no, he's too much of a politician, or too nice, or has too much sense of personal pride…or had his life and his family threatened if he didn't toe the line (not that I'm foily). Whatever his motivations, we don't get a "Get out of Responsibility Free" card just because one dude made some mis-steps. If that's all it takes to derail us, we're so, so screwed.

    Reply
    perpetualWAR , August 10, 2016 at 11:42 am

    No, Bernie is exhibiting behavior of a man whose family was theatened. There's no other explanation for his pained face at the convention.

    Griffith W Jones , August 10, 2016 at 5:30 am

    I also agree with Hudson and EndOfTheWorld that HRC is the greater threat and that Sanders makes no sense.

    Sure, the Dems probably threatened to kick him off of Congressional Committees and to back a rival in Vermont.

    So what! With his tenure and at his age, what's really to lose? If he couldn't face off someone in his home state, it's probably time to retire anyway. And it's not like he was ever in it for the money.

    The best he gets now is mild tolerance from his masters. "Give me your followers and lick my boots." What a coward, could have made history, now he's a goat.

    Fortunately, his "followers" have more integrity…

    Eman , August 10, 2016 at 5:33 am

    It's actually not so surprising given his long history of working within the mainstream system, simply along its fringes. I think many may have been falling into the '08 Obama trap of seeing what they wanted to see in him.

    As a senator he's had plenty of opportunities to grandstand, gum up the works, etc, and he really never does. Even his "filibuster" a few years back wasn't all that disruptive.

    Reply
    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 5:37 am

    EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie. Diametrically opposed to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces her! What? I will never understand that.

    "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."

    He's right too. I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals.

    She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again said she wants to take out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just hope that there's a big Clinton Foundation email leak to finish her off.

    Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of course, if war wasn't making so many people rich, it would be stopped tomorrow). He's questioning why NATO is necessary, never mind its continual expansion, and he wants to stop the TPP.

    God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP, more NATO, more war, and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails hanging around, now is the time!

    Butch In Waukegan , August 10, 2016 at 9:51 am

    Sanders' convention endorsement:

    I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care.

    I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled.

    Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight!

    Sanders' campaign was premised on exactly the opposite. How can anyone now take Bernie seriously?

    Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she now? Here's a good quote on how she felt about universal health care:

    "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)

    "David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary Clinton's weary and exasperated response – as head of the White House's health reform initiative – to Harvard medical professor David Himmelstein in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health Program. He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive, single-payer "Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds of the U.S. public. Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/27/feel-the-hate/

    That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care.

    Perhaps Yves could highlight Hillary's disdain for single-payer healthcare on another post. Thanks.

    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen CBS

    [Sep 10, 2016] Twenty silver coins for Bernie

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bernie had cashed in on the Revolution that he had betrayed, citing as evidence the purchase of a third ..."
    "... I said there might be more to the story, like the fact that Bernie had signed a book deal (ala the Clintons) where he would tell the story of his Glorious Revolution (which ended up with him dumping his foot soldiers into the vaults of the very machine they were warring against.) And guess what? I was right. ..."
    "... Los Angeles Times ..."
    Aug 14, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org

    On Tuesday afternoon, my friend Michael Colby, the fearless environmental activist in Vermont, sent me news that Bernie Sanders had just purchased a new waterfront house on in North Hero, Vermont. I linked to the story on my Facebook page, quipping that Bernie had cashed in on the Revolution that he had betrayed, citing as evidence the purchase of a third house for the Sanders family, a lakefront summer dacha for $600,000.

    This ignited a firestorm on Zuckerburg's internet playpen. People noted that Bernie and Jane lived a penurious existence, surviving on coupons and the kindness of strangers, and the house was just a cramped four-bedroom fishing shack on a cold icy lake with hardly any heat–a place so forsaken even the Iroquois of old wouldn't camp there–which they were only able to afford because Jane sold her dead parents' house.

    I said there might be more to the story, like the fact that Bernie had signed a book deal (ala the Clintons) where he would tell the story of his Glorious Revolution (which ended up with him dumping his foot soldiers into the vaults of the very machine they were warring against.) And guess what? I was right.

    Coming in November to a bookstore near you….Our Revolution by Thomas Dunne Books.

    The love for Bernie is truly blind. It's also touching. I've never seen Leftists defend the purchase of $600,000 lakefront summer homes with such tenacity!

    ... ... ...

    By the way, the median cost of homes sold in North Hero, Vermont so far this year is $189,000.

    ... ... ...

    Fulfilling his pledge to Hillary, Bernie Sanders took to the pages of the Los Angeles Times to plead with his followers to get behind Clinton as the one person who could "unite the country" against Trump.

    In the wake of this pathetic capitulation to the Queen of Chaos, our Australian Shepard, Boomer, drafted an Open Letter on behalf of all sheepdogs renouncing any association with Bernie Sanders. One of the signatories (a Blue Healer from Brentwood) swore, however, that she saw Sander's head popping out of Paris Hilton's handbag…

    A friend lamented the fact that all of the fun and spirit had gone out of the election campaign since Sanders was "neutralized." Was Bernie neutralized? I thought that Bernie neutralized himself. And it was hard to watch. Like an x-rated episode of Nip/Tuck.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Democrats struggle for unity as protesters swarm Netroots convention

    vice presidential pick is a proxy for what we can expect from her administration. Now we know the result.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "The super delegate vote will determine the healthy survival or possible death of the Democratic party! Hillary or Trump are both unacceptable candidates and would be disasters for the country! We should not be forced to choose between them! ..."
    "... Are you high?!?! She has NO record of achieving ANYTHING of consequence, other than have a road and a post office named. And her "experience" includes things like supporting (and receiving money from) violent third-world dictators, peddling fracking all over the world, selling political favors in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation Money-Laundering Operation, and leaving a trail of bodies composed of people who "accidentally" died when they knew too much about her and her criminal/sexual predator husband. ..."
    "... #NeverHillary #DropOutHillary #CorruptedDNC #BernieOrBust ..."
    "... The article references tpp as a deal breaker for progressives, which of course it should be. The writer should have mentioned that Obama is pushing hard for the tpp - corporate sellout that he is. ..."
    "... That's a pretty small consolation to struggling people and why they gravitate to a guy like Trump. Trump is successfully attacking from the left. I had a Trump supporter arguing TPP to me the other day. Democrats claim to be the "unity" party, but still tell those of us on the left to shut up and put up with their corporate policy. I have yet to have a Democrat argue anything but Trump fear in support of their candidate. ..."
    "... Just a heads up. Trump is AGAINST TPP. Trump is AGAINST Super PAC's & ridiculous money in politics. Trump is AGAINST foreign interventionist wars. On the flip side, Hillary WILL sign TPP into law if elected. She will NEVER fight against Super PAC's or campaign finance because she IS the problem in that arena. Hillary is also a war hawk who not only supported the Iraq War, but also delivered us Libya, Syria, ISIS, and so on. ..."
    "... The Guardian seemingly could care less about Hillary's crimes! They want to shove her cluelessness down everyones throats. She was a disaster as Secretary of State, and would be an even worse President. People are starting to wise up about the agenda of left-wing media. Hillary is a criminal, and the Guardian supports her totally... It speaks to the lack of integrity at the Guardian! ..."
    "... And for the record, Hillary is NOT a progressive, will NEVER be a progressive, and has NO interest in progressives after they vote for her. THAT IS THE TRUTH. ..."
    "... I won't vote for a party that rigged the primaries from Sanders by committing election fraud against his supporters. ..."
    Jul 18, 2016 | theguardian.com

    "For many progressives, and Democrats in general, it's a wait-and-see moment around [Clinton's] vice presidential pick," said Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), who called the imminent decision "a proxy for what we can expect from her administration".

    "If she picks someone like [Massachusetts senator] Elizabeth Warren who has this track record of fighting for the issues that people care about ... that will be a signal that will energise greatly the Democratic base," Taylor told the Guardian in an interview. Picking the moderate Virginia governor, Tim Kaine, or the US agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, would do the opposite, she warned.

    Despite some recent gestures toward the Warren and Sanders wing of the party, progressives are nervous due to Clinton's refusal to budge on trade, where the Obama administration has been trying to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement through Congress.

    "There are very powerful corporate interests who are very strongly opposed to blocking TPP," said Taylor. "It's the ugly reality of corporate capture that we are seeing.

    "If Clinton picks someone like Tim Kaine who voted for fast-track, that – combined with the glaring omission of TPP from the Democratic platform – will depress energy and will be an anaemic choice," she added.

    ... ... ...

    "For many progressives, and Democrats in general, it's a wait-and-see moment around [Clinton's] vice presidential pick," said Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), who called the imminent decision "a proxy for what we can expect from her administration".

    "If she picks someone like [Massachusetts senator] Elizabeth Warren who has this track record of fighting for the issues that people care about ... that will be a signal that will energise greatly the Democratic base," Taylor told the Guardian in an interview. Picking the moderate Virginia governor, Tim Kaine, or the US agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, would do the opposite, she warned.

    Despite some recent gestures toward the Warren and Sanders wing of the party, progressives are nervous due to Clinton's refusal to budge on trade, where the Obama administration has been trying to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement through Congress.

    "There are very powerful corporate interests who are very strongly opposed to blocking TPP," said Taylor. "It's the ugly reality of corporate capture that we are seeing.

    "If Clinton picks someone like Tim Kaine who voted for fast-track, that – combined with the glaring omission of TPP from the Democratic platform – will depress energy and will be an anaemic choice," she added.

    Rachman Cantrell

    Trying to change the minds of Hillary fans is not productive at this point in time. None of our votes matter until after the convention. Only the super delegates can decide what happens with the Democratic nominee! We need to put our efforts into changing their minds! The following is a letter I sent to my state super delegates. Please use the following link to write to your own delegates and feel free to copy or modify what I wrote.

    "The super delegate vote will determine the healthy survival or possible death of the Democratic party! Hillary or Trump are both unacceptable candidates and would be disasters for the country! We should not be forced to choose between them! Polls show that most Bernie supporters will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances and I am one of them! Hillary may survive her legal woes past the primary but Trump will use them to win if she is the candidate. To avoid that probability please vote for Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee for president! Super delegates have a serious decision to make. Vote for Hillary with the likelihood of a Trump presidency and a drastically shrinking party or vote for Bernie and open the doors to millions of new Democrats with a revitalized and growing party! I hope you make the right decision! Thank you"

    Use the link below to send to all super delegates. Copy my message, modify or write your own. It only takes about fifteen minutes to send to all delegates state by state but leave your zip code blank in the form. This may be our last chance to get Bernie in the White House!
    http://www.lobbydelegates.com/engage.php

    Eileen Kerrigan -> aguy777

    Are you high?!?! She has NO record of achieving ANYTHING of consequence, other than have a road and a post office named. And her "experience" includes things like supporting (and receiving money from) violent third-world dictators, peddling fracking all over the world, selling political favors in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation Money-Laundering Operation, and leaving a trail of bodies composed of people who "accidentally" died when they knew too much about her and her criminal/sexual predator husband.

    As for continuing in Obama's footsteps, that would mean more war, more fracking, passing the TPP, more pollution, more corruption, more income inequality, more offshore tax havens ... yeah, that sounds like a GREAT plan!!

    #NeverHillary #DropOutHillary #CorruptedDNC #BernieOrBust

    maraba1

    Vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. Bernie should have endorsed her, but took the safe route (for him to remain in the thick of the Dem party).

    toosinbeymen

    The article references tpp as a deal breaker for progressives, which of course it should be. The writer should have mentioned that Obama is pushing hard for the tpp - corporate sellout that he is.

    DrRoss555

    I just watched Mrs. Clinton speak in Ohio. She is such a nasty, pandering fear monger....I guess the other side is too, but this woman takes it to unprecedented levels.

    Nasty...no wonder black people are on the hunt for cops....just listen to this woman

    dougtheavenger -> DrRoss555

    THE WAGES OF MOST BLACK AMERICANS ARE KEPT ARTIFICIALLY LOW BY POLICIES ENDORSED BY HILLARY.

    The influx of cheap, immigrant labor keeps wages low, but this is NOT the result of free market forces. Cheap immigrant labor is subsidized by the government. Without government subsidy 50% of immigrants would not come and 100% of those earning less than $15/hour would not come. Lacking certain advantages that natives have, immigrants cannot live on the wages half of them earn. Only governmenT subsidy of low wages EITC, etc. make immigration (at the cost of $7,000 for a family of 4) a rational choice for them.

    SagiGirl -> DrRoss555

    Jill Stein is such a contrast to Hillary. She's calm and cool, well spoken, and has human-based values along with a mighty strength and intellect. I can't wait to vote for her.

    mjclarity

    Clinton is the Blair of the Democratic party, a Republican/Tory in progressive clothing. So emulating the failed politics of laying opposition cuckoos in the progressive nest seems like a bad tactic to me.

    dougtheavenger -> mjclarity

    Hillary is mainly a crook. Yes, she supports TPP and NAFTA and other policies that keep wages artificially low, but she does it for money, not ideology.

    ID704291

    When Ann O'Leary says, "We are not going to get there unless we elect Hillary Clinton to be president," she sounds pretty tone deaf. Kossacks have banned all discussion of concerns about Clinton on their blog, basically telling the left to get lost.

    Democracy for America is toothless and leaderless, and its unattended locals tend to go off the rails attracting neo Nazis and other extremists. DNC is pushing education as they have since the 1980s, but that really only means that if you cannot afford it, or aren't among the highest in your class, you don't matter, and it's your fault you are doing better.

    That's a pretty small consolation to struggling people and why they gravitate to a guy like Trump. Trump is successfully attacking from the left. I had a Trump supporter arguing TPP to me the other day. Democrats claim to be the "unity" party, but still tell those of us on the left to shut up and put up with their corporate policy. I have yet to have a Democrat argue anything but Trump fear in support of their candidate.


    Otterboxman Yep

    Hillary will never get my vote. I've voted democrat in the past but will not vote democrat this year. I can barely stand it when Trump opens his mouth, but it is even worse when Hillary does. The current POTUS has taken us so far off course that Hillary's plan will never bring us back on course. It is about jobs, our productivity, and our pursuit of happiness. The two parties don't get it. They want to make it about race, gender, abortion, guns, citizenship...They should make it about the good things that the USA had going for it and quit picking out which group got trampled to get there. We were great but now we just sit across from each other pointing fingers and calling names.


    Stephen Mitchell 11h ago

    1. Sanders: Clinton has backed "virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions of jobs"
    2. Sanders: Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street
    3. Sanders: Hillary Clinton = D.C. Establishment
    4. Sanders: Democrat Establishment immigration policies would drive down Americans' wages, create open borders
    5. Sanders: Clinton supports nation-building in Middle East through war and invasion

    Sanders: "And now, I support her 100%."

    DurbanPoisonWillBurn

    Anyone who believes Hillary is progressive deserves the horrible outcome a Hillary presidency will bring. How ANYONE can still support Hillary is beyond me. The woman has accomplished NOTHING except chaos & failure. Wake up folks. Hillary does NOT care about you. She cares about power, money, and making deals that benefit HER. Vote Jill Stein


    DurbanPoisonWillBurn JimJayuu

    Just a heads up. Trump is AGAINST TPP. Trump is AGAINST Super PAC's & ridiculous money in politics. Trump is AGAINST foreign interventionist wars. On the flip side, Hillary WILL sign TPP into law if elected. She will NEVER fight against Super PAC's or campaign finance because she IS the problem in that arena. Hillary is also a war hawk who not only supported the Iraq War, but also delivered us Libya, Syria, ISIS, and so on.

    Daniel Staggers

    "If she picks someone like [Massachusetts senator] Elizabeth Warren who has this track record of fighting for the issues that people care about ... that will be a signal that will energise greatly the Democratic base,"

    All that would mean is she knows that's all she'd have to do to get the stupid people to vote for her. You know, like the person who wrote this article? Never mind committing treason hundreds of times over, just get Warren, right?

    clicker2 -> Daniel Staggers

    The Guardian seemingly could care less about Hillary's crimes! They want to shove her cluelessness down everyones throats. She was a disaster as Secretary of State, and would be an even worse President. People are starting to wise up about the agenda of left-wing media. Hillary is a criminal, and the Guardian supports her totally... It speaks to the lack of integrity at the Guardian!

    DurbanPoisonWillBurn -> Daniel Staggers

    Pocahontas is a sellout just like Bernie. Elizabeth Warren is a fraud. She claims progressive but lives like a neo-liberal war hawk. Just the sight of Warren disgusts progressives the world over. And for the record, Hillary is NOT a progressive, will NEVER be a progressive, and has NO interest in progressives after they vote for her. THAT IS THE TRUTH.

    Steve Connor

    Hillary (and Bernie) shows just how low the Democrat party has become in terms of true leadership and ideas for making America great again. They have none. Bernie's popularity was with young voters looking for a free ride and typical idealistic view of the world, Hillary was the embodiment of corruption in politics and she rose to power on that, not what she did for her adopted State of NY, or the country. Her ideas (not her's) are of failed Democrat policy and ideas over the past 10 years and especially the last 25.

    Ezajur -> Steve Connor

    Bernie was not about a free ride. He was about reprioritisation. His ideas to make America great again are excellent.

    eastbayradical

    Wall Street's Warmongering Madame is the perfect foil for Donald Trump's huckster-populism: a pseudo-progressive stooge whose contempt for the average person and their intelligence is palpable.

    She's an arch-environmentalist who has worked tirelessly to spread fracking globally.

    She supports fortifying Social Security but won't commit to raising the cap on taxes to do so.

    She's a humanitarian who has supported every imperial slaughter the US has waged in the past 25 years.

    She cares deeply about the plight of the Palestinians but supported the starvation blockade and blitzkrieg of Gaza and couldn't bother to mention them but in passing in a recent speech before AIPAC.

    She's a stalwart civil libertarian, but voted for Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and believes Edward Snowden should be sent to federal prison for decades.

    She stands with the working class but has supported virtually every international pact granting increased mobility and power to the corporate sector at its expense in the past 25 years.

    She cares with all her heart about African-Americans but supports the objectively-racist death penalty and the private prison industry.

    She will go to bat for the poor but supported gutting welfare in the '90s, making them easier prey to exploiters, many of whom supported her husband and her financially.

    She worries about the conditions of the poor globally, but while Sec. of State actively campaigned against raising the minimum wage in Haiti to 60 cents an hour, thinking 31 cents an hour sounded better for the investor class whose interests are paramount to her.

    She's not a bought-and-paid-for hack, oh no, no, no, but she won't ever release the Wall Street speeches for which she was paid so handsomely.

    She's a true-blue progressive, just ask her most zealous supporters, who aren't.

    Missy Saugus

    I won't vote for a party that rigged the primaries from Sanders by committing election fraud against his supporters. Why is this being ignored and shoved under the rug? The nomination rightfully belongs to Sanders. It is the ultimate insult to expect people to vote for the ones who stole this from Sanders. The ones who, now that the precedent has been set, will be sure that the next Bernie Sanders has no chance. The Dems are dirty. They are criminal. And apparently untouchable.

    Bernie should have walked. #FreeBernie

    ID550456

    If Clinton picks a Clintonite neoliberal VP: pro TPP, pro GMO, pro banker, pro oil, etc. I think it's a safe bet that most of Sanders' supporters will either sit out the election or vote Green Party, however revolting the prospect of Trump/Pence may be. I know I will.

    Fear4Freedom
    "A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicates one third of Bernie Sanders' supporters cannot see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton in November. This could spell trouble for Clinton who will likely need Sanders' backers in order to win the White House." Hillary has a way with "everyday Americans", it's just not a good way...no one wants to vote for someone they think is "UNTRUSTWORTHY".

    eastbayradical

    The new talking point being put forward by Clinton's hapless supporters is that she'll push to overturn Citizens United.

    They know this because she said so in passing at a $20,000 a plate soiree she had recently in Dollarsville County, USA.


    Ezajur -> Rich Fairbanks

    Her hapless supporters won primaries with media, establishment, DNC and big money entirely for her and against Bernie. And he went from 3 to 46% in 12 months. Now that's worth bragging about.

    I suppose getting 54% for such a lousy candidate as Hillary is something to brag about.


    Ezajur -> markdman

    I'm a Bernie supporter.

    Killary. Drillary. Billary. Shillary.

    Its all good.

    I also hate Trump.


    eastbayradical -> Joe Smith

    "The Clinton platform is pretty good for any progressive..."

    Clinton has shown a willingness to say whatever she feels needs to be said to further her political career. She speaks in different dialects depending the audience. She's a principle combatant against racism when speaking to African-American audience. She's an ardent feminist when in front of liberal women's groups. She's not one to spare a laudatory word for corporate America and Wall Street when speaking before bankers.

    What we can and should go on is her record going back to her time as First Lady during the presidency of Bill Clinton (whom she never differed with on policy and whom she says will manage the economy if elected).

    Here are policies, initiatives, and actions that Hillary Clinton has supported over the years:

    --Deregulation of the investment banks (and against reinstatement of Glass-Steagall)
    --The destruction of welfare (which has caused the numbers living in extreme poverty to double since its passage)
    --NAFTA
    --The Defense of Marriage Act
    --TPP
    --Fracking
    --The objectively-racist death penalty
    --The private prison industry
    --Patriot Acts 1 and 2
    --The Iraq War
    --The bombing of Libya
    --Military intervention in Syria
    --The Saudi dictatorship
    --Israel's starvation blockade and blitzkrieg against Gaza
    --The right-wing coup in Honduras
    --Investor-friendly repression and cronyism in Haiti
    --A 31 cents/hour minimum wage in Haiti (and against attempts to raise it)
    --The fight against free public university tuition
    --The fight against single-payer health care
    --Acceptance of tens of millions of dollars of corporate money
    --Credit-card industry favored bankruptcy laws
    --The bail-out of Wall Street

    Her record is "pretty good for any progressive" whose head is lodged in their ass.


    eastbayradical

    The bankers' buddy and spittle-flecked Clinton surrogate Barney Frank just the other day declared contemptuously that party platforms are "irrelevant."

    You know, party platforms--like the Democratic Party platform that's being larded with Sanders-friendly "policy goals" that Wall Street's Warmongering Madame will feel no obligation to fulfill if she's elected president.

    With his coming endorsement, Sanders makes himself not simply useless to the fight against the capitalist status quo; no--he has become a direct impediment to it.

    Whenever people on the left side of the political spectrum, whatever their reasoning, vote for servants of Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus, the political center of gravity moves another notch decisively to the right.


    We're constantly told that if we don't vote for the latest pseudo-progressive stooge the Dems put forward that we're effectively voting for the Republicans.

    In other words, if we don't vote for stooges who in many respects are indistinguishable from Republicans, that systematically cede the political initiative to Republicans, that it is we who might as well be Republicans!

    Meanwhile, these same "progressives" are nowhere to be seen when a fight kicks off in the streets against imperial war or austerity or police brutality or lay-offs. No, of course not: they're too busy doing nothing waiting for the next opportunity to vote for another crop of corporate liberals who'll save us from the Republicans.

    It's fair to ask what all this voting for corporate liberals has gotten us over the past 25 years. Here's a list of signature policies supported and/or enacted by the last two Democratic Party presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama:

    --Deregulation of investment banks and telecommunications
    --The Omnibus Crime Bill (mass incarceration)
    --The destruction of welfare (which caused extreme poverty to double in the 15 years after its passage)
    --The sanctions regime against Iraq (which killed 500,000 Iraqi children)
    --NAFTA
    --CAFTA
    --TPP
    --Fracking
    --The objectively-racist death penalty
    --The Defense of Marriage Act
    --Historic levels of repression against whistle-blowers
    --Preservation of Bush-era tax cuts on the rich
    --Patriots Acts 1 and 2
    --Massive expansion of NSA spying
    --Years of foot-dragging on climate change
    --Support for Israeli atrocities
    --Support for the right-wing coup in Honduras
    --Support for fraudulent election in Haiti
    --Support for the Saudi dictatorship
    --Support for a 31 cents/hour minimum wage in Haiti and against attempts to raise it
    --Oil drilling on the Atlantic seaboard, Gulf of Mexico, and the Arctic
    --A $1 trillion 20-year "modernization" of the US's nuclear weapons arsenal
    --Historically high numbers of deportations
    --Drone missile strikes that have killed large numbers of civilians and inflamed anti-US hatred
    --Health care reform that has fortified the power of the insurance cartel not weakened or obliterated it
    --Industry-approved bankruptcy "reform"
    --The bail-out of Wall Street


    ClearItUp

    Her reflexive warmongering attitude is what majority of progressives have problems with. There is absolutely nothing in this article about it. Elizabeth Warren won't solve Hillary's problem, but a foreign policy, total opposite of her last speech, that was reviewed by neocon talking heads, as a sober analysis, is what is wrong. What people want to hear is: "We made a mistake in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. We will do our best and resolve them without machinations, and never engage in regime change." No ifs and buts, we will defend out friends and allies, nonsense she constantly says, no annihilating threat to any country, for any reason. Bring someone like Phyllis Bennis on board as an adviser. Maybe she can teach Hillary a few things. Only, then if she clearly shows she has changed course, she may start getting a little ahead.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Donald Trump and the Danger of the Imperial Presidency

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post. ..."
    "... If undertaken in earnest, the exercise will prove uncomfortable. The establishment centrists who oppose Trump worry, as they should, that he will violate the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, yet few spoke up when Michael Bloomberg presided over a secret program that profiled and spied on Muslim American students, sowing mistrust while generating zero counterterrorism leads. ..."
    "... The establishment centrists who denounced Edward Snowden would have to admit that, if Trump is half as bad as they fear, Americans will be better served knowing the scope and capabilities of NSA surveillance than living in ignorance of it. Some will be forced to admit to themselves that they hope the military remains sprinkled with whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning to speak out against serious abuses. ..."
    "... For 16 years or more, establishment centrists have been complicit in a historically reckless trend. Come 2017, it may place Donald Trump at a big table, much like the one on The Apprentice ..."
    May 24, 2016 | www.theatlantic.com

    End the Imperial Presidency Before It's Too Late

    Why aren't the critics comparing Donald Trump to a fascist acknowledging that the office he seeks is too powerful?

    Wake up, establishment centrists: Donald Trump is coming!

    After the Vietnam War and Watergate and the spying scandals uncovered by the Church Committee and the Nixon Administration cronies who nearly firebombed the Brookings Institution, Americans were briefly inclined to rein in executive power-a rebuke to Richard Nixon's claim that "if the president does it, that means it's not illegal." Powerful committees were created to oversee misconduct-prone spy agencies. The War Powers Resolution revived a legislative check on warmaking. "In 34 years," Vice President Dick Cheney would lament to ABC News in a January 2002 interview, "I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job. I feel an obligation... to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them to our successors."

    The Bush Administration aggressively moved to expand executive power, drawing on the dubious legal maneuvering of David Addington, John Yoo, and their enablers. Starting in 2005, the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, would repeatedly insist that Bush's assertions of executive power violated the Constitution. Nonetheless, Obama inherited a newly powerful executive branch, just as Cheney had hoped. And rather than dismantle it, Obama spent two terms lending the imprimatur of centrist, establishment bipartisanship to Cheney's vision.

    Now, Donald Trump is coming.

    Civil libertarians have long warned the partisans who trusted Bush and Obama, and the establishment centrists who couldn't imagine anyone in the White House besides an Al Gore or John Kerry or John McCain or Mitt Romney, that they were underestimating both the seriousness of civil liberties abuses under Bush and Obama and the likelihood of even less responsible leaders wreaking havoc in the White House.

    Three years ago, in " All the Infrastructure a Tyrant Would Need, Courtesy of Bush and Obama ," I warned that "more and more, we're counting on having angels in office and making ourselves vulnerable to devils," and that come January, 2017, an unknown person would enter the Oval Office and inherit all of these precedents:

    Now, Donald Trump is coming. And many establishment centrists are professing alarm. There is nothing more establishment than Robert Kagan, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, writing an op-ed in the Washington Post. He begins by observing that if Trump wins, his coalition will include tens of millions of Americans.

    "Imagine the power he would wield then," Kagan wrote . "In addition to all that comes from being the leader of a mass following, he would also have the immense powers of the American presidency at his command: the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military. Who would dare to oppose him then? Certainly not a Republican Party that laid down before him even when he was comparatively weak. And is a man like Trump, with infinitely greater power in his hands, likely to become more humble, more judicious, more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life? Does vast power un-corrupt?"

    Kagan's article seemed well-received and widely shared among establishment centrists.

    Yet neither he nor most others who share his fears have yet acknowledged their bygone failures of imagination, or granted that civil libertarians were right: The establishment has permitted the American presidency to get dangerously powerful.

    While writing or sharing articles that compare Trump to Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, few if any have called on Obama or Congress to act now " to tyrant-proof the White House ." However much they fear Trump, however rhetorically maximalist they are in warning against his elevation, even the prospect of him controlling the entire apparatus of the national security state is not enough to cause them to rethink their reckless embrace of what Gene Healy calls " The Cult of the Presidency ," a centrist religion that persisted across the Bush administration's torture chambers and the Obama administration's unlawful War in Libya.

    With a reality-TV bully is on the doorstep of the White House, still they hesitate to urge reform to a branch of government they've long regarded as more than co-equal.

    They needn't wait for the Nixon-era abuses to replay themselves as farce or worse to change course. Their inaction is irresponsible. Just as the conservative movement is duty bound to grapple with its role in a populist demagogue seizing control of the Republican Party, establishment centrists ought to grapple with the implicit blessing they've given to the extraordinary powers Trump would inherit, and that even the less-risky choice, Hillary Clinton, would likely abuse.

    If undertaken in earnest, the exercise will prove uncomfortable. The establishment centrists who oppose Trump worry, as they should, that he will violate the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, yet few spoke up when Michael Bloomberg presided over a secret program that profiled and spied on Muslim American students, sowing mistrust while generating zero counterterrorism leads.

    The establishment centrists who denounced Edward Snowden would have to admit that, if Trump is half as bad as they fear, Americans will be better served knowing the scope and capabilities of NSA surveillance than living in ignorance of it. Some will be forced to admit to themselves that they hope the military remains sprinkled with whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning to speak out against serious abuses.

    For 16 years or more, establishment centrists have been complicit in a historically reckless trend. Come 2017, it may place Donald Trump at a big table, much like the one on The Apprentice , where he'll decide not which B-list celebrity to fire, but which humans to kill. Establishment centrists could work to strip the presidency of that power.

    Instead they do nothing.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Bernie sold out. If not that, then he was simply in it as faux opposition from the start.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bernie disgraced himself and drove a dagger through the heart of youth involvement in the democratic process. Millions of kids believd in him. He's is even more repellent that Clinton. Faced with evidence that the DNC had rigged the nomination process in favour of Clinton, what did he do? He backed her. Beyond shame. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Mistaron MacSpeaker

    Bernie sold out. If not that, then he was simply in it as faux opposition from the start. Having unified the militant and disgruntled outliers, he then readily doffed his cap and sheperded his gullible followers towards the only practical Democratic alternative available.

    Wasted effort. The 'masters' in the shadows are about to throw the harridan under the bus. Her brazen air of arrogance and entitlement is about to fade as she comes to realise, that albeit Comey having been got at, he's still succeeded in striking a severe blow against her, and also at the not-so-tin-hat conspiracy of inappropriate, and increasingly overt, institutional support, in the face of documented lies, in your face hypocrisy, and corruption oozing from every orifice of a maverick administration.

    The seeds have been planted for a defense of diminished responsibility. Don't fall for it! Hillary, (and her illustrious spouse), deserve not a smidgen of pity.

    ''We came, we saw, he died'', she enthusiastically and unempathically cackled.

    Just about sums it up


    Michael109 fflambeau 2d ago

    Bernie disgraced himself and drove a dagger through the heart of youth involvement in the democratic process. Millions of kids believd in him. He's is even more repellent that Clinton. Faced with evidence that the DNC had rigged the nomination process in favour of Clinton, what did he do? He backed her. Beyond shame.

    [Sep 04, 2016] As soon liberalism overcome the socialist and fascist challenges, the adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was no longer, so bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... As soon liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have moved overcome the socialist and fascist challenges (the Fukuyamaist "end of history" and/or "end of ideology") these ideologues are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism ..."
    "... I'm thinking more of local governments like the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago. ..."
    "... So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc. through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people and institutions that will ..."
    "... Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt. ..."
    "... The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed ..."
    "... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. ..."
    "... That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing. ..."
    "... The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed ..."
    "... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
    "... I do think it is helpful to see the deregulation of finance beginning in the Carter and Reagan Administrations leading eventually to the GFC of 2008 as an historical project and a political whole, in which there have been deviations between the stated intentions of advocates, the reasonable anticipation of consequences by experts and the self-interested pursuit of short-term advantage in regulatory evasion and reform. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Will G-R 09.03.16 at 4:21 pm 115

    As far as a definition, at least on the level of ideology I'd go with the following simplified-to-the-utmost historical overview…

    1. Liberalism (the 18th- and 19th-century bourgeois ideology of capitalism) defeats conservatism (the 18th- and 19th-century aristocratic ideology of anti-capitalism)

    2. Triumphant liberalism faces insurgent ideological challenges from its left and right (i.e. Quiggin's "three-party system" model, except the three parties are clearly understood to be socialism, liberalism, and fascism)

    3. Liberalism is forced to respond to these challenges, in particular responding to the socialist critique with the ideology of Keynesian interventionist "welfare liberalism" - ideologues of older liberalism consider this response itself a taint of corruption

    4. As soon liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have moved overcome the socialist and fascist challenges (the Fukuyamaist "end of history" and/or "end of ideology") these ideologues are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism

    In any case, it's utterly bizarre to see people object so stridently to "neoliberalism" who simultaneously don't seem to have a problem with the imperialist, anti-intellectual, and quite frankly racist connotations of the term "tribalism".

    Will G-R 09.02.16 at 4:19 pm

    Bruce @ 104, I'm not clued into the SoCal-specific issues (so I don't know exactly how much a Chinatown -esque narrative should be raised in contrast to your description of LA water infrastructure as "the best of civic boosterism") but I'm thinking more of local governments like the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago.

    he fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every American, even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe a sigh of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at local government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are asserting their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts.

    So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc. through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people and institutions that will get rid of these officials if they overstep the bounds of what we as a nation consider acceptable. (This also extends to more informal institutions like the media: the local paper might not be shining the light on local corruption, but the media as such can fulfill its function and redeem its institutional legitimacy if something too egregious falls into the national spotlight.)

    Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt.

    The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed . This is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations. I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed.

    Peter K. 09.02.16 at 8:38 pm 109

    @46

    " American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also been pro-union…"

    Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.

    I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered.

    That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing.

    The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed. This is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations. I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed.

    bruce wilder 09.03.16 at 4:05 am 110

    ... I do think it is helpful to see the deregulation of finance beginning in the Carter and Reagan Administrations leading eventually to the GFC of 2008 as an historical project and a political whole, in which there have been deviations between the stated intentions of advocates, the reasonable anticipation of consequences by experts and the self-interested pursuit of short-term advantage in regulatory evasion and reform.

    [Sep 03, 2016] The USA neoliberal elite considers Russia to be an obstacle in the creation of the USA led global neoliberal empire. So Carthago delenda est is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin. ..."
    "... The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of the orders from Washington. ..."
    angrybearblog.com

    likbez , September 3, 2016 9:42 pm

    All this anti-Russian warmongering from esteemed commenters here is suspect. And should be taken with a grain of salt.

    The USA neoliberal elite considers Russia to be an obstacle in the creation of the USA led global neoliberal empire (with EU and Japan as major vassals),

    So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin.

    The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of the orders from Washington.

    That means that as bad as Trump is, he is a safer bet than Hillary, because the latter is a neocon warmonger, which can get us in the hot war with Russia. And this is the most principal, cardinal issue of the November elections.

    All other issues like climate change record (although nuclear winter will definitely reverse global warming), Supreme Court appointments, etc. are of secondary importance.

    As John Kenneth Galbraith said, "Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."

    [Sep 02, 2016] After neoliberalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... The era of unchallenged neoliberal dominance is clearly over. Hopefully, it will prove to have been a relatively brief interruption in a long term trend towards a more humane and egalitarian society. Whether that is true depends on the success of the left in putting forward a positive alternative. ..."
    "... Third, the "individualist" thingies work as long as people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have reason to be pro leftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is, and this drum should be banged more. ..."
    "... Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not ..."
    "... I can't speak for other industrialized democracies, but in the US, there is essentially no ability for the left to engage in structural change. Every avenue has been either blocked by the 18th century political structures of the US (sometimes exploited in extraordinary ways by the monied powers that those structures enable) or subsumed by the neoliberal individualist marketification of everything. ..."
    "... To just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature. ..."
    "... I just think we should call what he calls "tribalism" by its proper name - fascism - instead of deliberately tainting our theories with overtones of an "enlightened civilized wisdom versus backwards tribal savages" narrative that itself is central to fascist/"tribalist" ideology and therefore belongs in the dustbin of history. Surely flouting Godwin's Law is a lesser sin than knowingly perpetuating the discourses of racism. ..."
    "... Marxism isn't evil and Nazism is evil. So political ideology can be evil or just wrong and accomplish evil. We are indebted to Marx for describing the nature of class warfare and the natural trends of accumulation based economics , but we now know his solution is a failure. So either we learn from this or we cling on to outmoded ideas and remain irrelevant. ..."
    "... It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not planning around it would be foolish. ..."
    "... It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money. ..."
    "... Punching "globalism" into Google returns the following definition from Merriam-Webster: "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence - compare imperialism, internationalism." ..."
    "... I agree with bob mcm that Trump_vs_deep_state isn't fascism. It's not a serious analysis to say that it is. ..."
    "... I take note of the Florida primary results, just in: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz did just fine, as did her hand-picked Democratic Senate candidate, the horrible Patrick Murphy. ..."
    "... Oh, and Rubio is back. Notice of the death of neoliberalism might be premature. ..."
    "... I mean Judas Iscariot, I mean Bill Clinton, you can make a case that he did his best to salvage something from the wreckage. To repeat what I've said here before, when he was elected the Democrats had lost five of the last six elections, most by landslides. The one exception was the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, who was despised by the left. The American people had decisively rejected what the Democrats were selling. False consciousness, no doubt. ..."
    "... The obscurity and complexity of, say, Obamacare or the Greek bailout is a cover story for the looting. ..."
    "... The problem is not that the experts do not understand consequences. The problem is that a broken system pays the top better, so the system has to be broken, but not so broken that the top falls off in collapse. ..."
    "... Very well said. Resource limits shadow the falling apart of the global order that the American Interest link Peter T points to. If the billionaires are looting from the top and the response is a criminal scramble at the bottom, the unnecessariat will be spit out uncomprehending into the void between. ..."
    "... So much concern about the term tribalism. Well what is fascism? The use of tribalism to grasp political power and establish a totalitarian political order. Sound reasonable? Pick any fascism you like, the Nazis ( master race) the theocratic fascists in the US ( Christian rule ) Catholic Fascism ( Franco's Spain) , you name it. It walks and talks like tribalism. Trump-ism is the not so new face of American fascism. It's race based, it xenophobic, it's embraces violence, has a disdain for civil liberties and human rights, and it features the great leader. Doesn't seem to difficult to make the connection. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism is the politics of controlled dismantling of the institutions of a society that formerly worked for a larger portion of its participants. Like a landlord realizing increased cash flow from a decision to forego maintenance and hire gangsters to handle rent collection, neoliberalism seeks to divert the dividends from disinvestment to the top ..."
    "... The cadre managing this technically and politically difficult task - it is not easy to take things apart without critical failures exemplified by system collapse prompting insurrection or revolution - are rewarded as are society's owners, the 1/10th of 1%. Everybody else is screwed - either directly, or by the consequences of the social disintegration used to feed a parasitic elite. ..."
    "... "Lesser evil" is a story told to herd the masses. If there are two neoliberal politicians, both are corrupt. Neither intends to deliver anything to you on net; they are competing to deliver you. ..."
    "... I am not enthusiastic about this proposed distinction between "hard" and "soft" neoliberalism. Ideologically, conservative libertarians have been locked in a dialectic with the Clintonite / Blairite neoliberals - that's an old story, maybe an obsolete story, but apparently not one those insist on seeing neoliberalism as a monolithic lump fixed in time can quite grasp, but never mind. ..."
    "... Good cop, bad cop. Only, the electorate is carefully divided so that one side's good cop is the other side's bad cop, and vice versa. ..."
    "... In fact, there was a powerful fascist movement in many Allied states as well. Vichy France had deep, strong domestic roots in particular, but the South African Broederbond and Jim Crow USA with its lynchings show how fascism and democracy (as understood by anti-Communists) are not separate things, but conjunctural developments of the capitalist states, which are not organized as business firms. ..."
    "... "an obligation to vote in a democracy" ..."
    "... orders you to consent ..."
    "... if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right ..."
    "... Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent. ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    The failure of neoliberalism poses both challenges and opportunities for the left. The greatest challenge is the need to confront rightwing tribalism as a powerful political force in itself, rather than as a source of political support for hard neoliberalism. Given the dangers posed by tribalism this is an urgent task. One part of this task is that of articulating an explanation of the failure of neoliberalism and explaining why the simplistic policy responses of tribalist politicians will do nothing to resolve the problems. The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism, such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions and to counterpose them to the self-seeking individualism central to neoliberalism, particularly in the hard version with which political tribalism has long been aligned.

    The great opportunity is to present a progressive alternative to the accommodations of soft neoliberalism. The core of such an alternative must be a revival of the egalitarian and activist politics of the postwar social democratic moment, updated to take account of the radically different technological and social structures of the 21st century. In technological terms, the most important development is undoubtedly the rise of the Internet. Thinking about the relationship between the Internet economy and public policy remains embryonic at best. But as a massive public good created, in very large measure, by the public sector, the Internet ought to present opportunities for a radically remodeled progressive policy agenda.

    In political terms, the breakdown of neoliberalism implies the need for a political realignment. This is now taking place on the right, as tribalists assert their dominance over hard neoliberals. The most promising strategy for the left is to achieve a similar shift in power within the centre-left coalition of leftists and soft neoliberals.

    This might seem a hopeless task, but there are positive signs, notably in the United States. Although Hillary Clinton, an archetypal soft neoliberal, has won the Democratic nomination for the Presidency and seems likely to win, her policy proposals have been driven, in large measure by the need to compete with the progressive left. There is reason to hope that, whereas the first Clinton presidency symbolised the capture of the Democratic Party by soft neoliberalism, the second will symbolise the resurgence of social liberalism.

    The era of unchallenged neoliberal dominance is clearly over. Hopefully, it will prove to have been a relatively brief interruption in a long term trend towards a more humane and egalitarian society. Whether that is true depends on the success of the left in putting forward a positive alternative.

    Brett 08.30.16 at 5:49 am

    I don't know. I think for a true triumph over the existing order, we'd need true international institutions designed to enhance other kinds of protections, like environmental and labor standards world-wide. That doesn't seem to be in the wings right now, versus a light version of protectionism coupled with perhaps some restoration of the welfare state (outside of the US – inside the US we're going to get deadlock mildly alleviated by the Supreme Court and whatever types of executive orders Clinton comes up with for the next eight years).
    Andrew Bartlett 08.30.16 at 6:15 am
    "The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism, such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions"

    My only worry with that is the strong overlap between tribalism and racism, at least in it's political forms. Harking to the myth of a monocultural past could be seen by some as 'affection for long-standing institutions'. (I know that's not what the author is thinking, but left has had it's racism and pro-discrimination elements, and I am wary of giving too much opportunity for those to align with that of the right)

    bruce wilder 08.30.16 at 7:29 am
    I wonder, how do you envision this failure of neoliberalism?

    It seems like an effective response would depend somewhat on how you think this anticipated political failure of neoliberalism plays out over the next few years. And, it is an anticipated failure, yes? or do you see an actual political failure as an accomplished fact?

    And, if it is still an anticipated failure, do you see it as a political failure - the inability to marshall electoral support or a legislative coalition? Or, an ideological style that's worn out its credibility?

    Or, do you anticipate manifest policy failure to play a role in the dynamics?

    MisterMr 08.30.16 at 9:31 am
    "The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism, such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions and to counterpose them to the self-seeking individualism central to neoliberalism"

    I don't agree with this. First, appealing to tribalism without actually believing in it is a dick move. Second, actually existing tribalists are arseholes, or rather everyone when is taken by the tribalist demon becomes an arsehole.

    Third, the "individualist" thingie work as long as people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have reason to be pro lftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is, and this drum should be banged more.

    PS: about increasing inequality, there are two different trends that usually are mixed up:

    1) When we look at inequality at an international level, the main determinant is differential "productivity" among nations. The productivity of developing nations (mostly China) went up a lot, and this causes a fall in international inequality.

    2) When we look at inequalityinside a nation, it depends mostly on how exploitative the economic system is, and I think that the main indicator of this is the wage share of total income; as the wage share fell, income inequality increased. This happened both in developed and developing countries.

    These two determinants of inequality are mixed up and this creates the impression that, say, the fall in wages of American workers is caused by the ascent of Chinese workers, whereas instead both American and Chinese workes lost in proportion, but the increase in productivity more than compensated the fall in relative wages.

    Mixing up these two determinants causes the rise in nationalism, as workers in developed nations believe that they have been sacrificed to help workers in developing nations (which isn't true). This is my argument against nationalism and the reason I'm skeptic of stuff like brexit, and this makes me sort of allergic to tribalism.

    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 11:43 am
    This analysis by Quiggin is spot on. Clearly the way forward holds both promise and great peril, especially in the nuclear age. The notion that Trump is just more of the same from the GOP is deluded. He represents a dangerous insurgency of radical rightists , who can be quite fairly be called racist and religious extremist based fascists. A Trump win could well close the curtain on democracy in America. Neo liberalism is being repudiated , will the elite now turn to the fascists to hold their ground, as happened in Germany? It's a troubling question.
    casmilus 08.30.16 at 11:46 am
    "The great opportunity is to present a progressive alternative to the accommodations of soft neoliberalism. The core of such an alternative must be a revival of the egalitarian and activist politics of the postwar social democratic moment, updated to take account of the radically different technological and social structures of the 21st century. In technological terms, the most important development is undoubtedly the rise of the Internet."

    Why is that any more important than the invention of digital computers, starting from the 1940s? Just a further evolution. The real challenge is from robotics, 3D printing and AI drivers for such processes. That really will liquidate a lot of skilled labour; computing created a new industry of jobs and manufacturing.

    bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 11:59 am
    4: From my point of view, neoliberalism…long supply chains and logistics; downward pressure on wages and the social wage; the growth of finance to supply consumer credit to prop up effective demand; the culture of self-improvement and self-management to reduce overhead and reproduction costs…no longer supports accumulation of capital or reproduction of political legitimacy. IOW, an economic failure.

    (Anwar Shaikh's new book is definitive)

    Martin 08.30.16 at 1:21 pm
    Is there any knowledge of who supports tribalism? The analysis so far seems to be in terms of tribalist policies, emotions etc, but not of who the tribalists are, and why they support tribalist 'solutions' rather than say socialism.
    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 1:36 pm
    Is there any knowledge of who supports tribalism? The analysis so far seems to be in terms of tribalist policies, emotions etc, but not of who the tribalists are, and why they support tribalist 'solutions' rather than say socialism.

    Tribalism is hard wired in our genes. It can be over come with education but too few voters ever get beyond an emotional response to what they perceive. It's no accident that conservatives do anything they can to undermine education and promote religious based ignorance. That's how they win elections. But this is a dangerous game, sometimes a Hitler or a Trump shows up and steals the show.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:00 pm
    MisterMr @ 5: Third, the "individualist" thingies work as long as people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have reason to be pro leftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is, and this drum should be banged more.

    This is where it becomes problematic that so much of this conversation happens within individual First-World nation-states, because the inequalities "tribalists" are interested in maintaining are precisely the inequalities between nations on a global scale. If the "most people" you're talking about includes the masses of recently-proletarianized working people in the Third World, then sure "most people" have reason to be pro-left. But when we have this conversation in a setting like this, we all implicitly know that "most people" refers at best to the working classes of countries like Australia and the US, and these people still perceive a decided interest in maintaining the global economic hierarchies for which "tribalism" serves this conversation as a signifier.

    For the working classes of the First World wrapped up in their "tribalist" defense of a global aristocracy of nations, to truly believe they're on the losing side would mean to accept that the defense of national sovereignty from neoliberal globalization is an inherently lost cause. If they're to defect from the cause of "tribalism" and join the Left, this would mean accepting a critique of the "long-standing institutions" of First-World social democracy that appears to go much farther left even than John Quiggin appears willing to go. (As in, the implementation of social-democratic institutions in First-World capitalist societies is inherently a tool for enabling the economic domination of the First World over the Third World, by empowering a racialized labor aristocracy to serve as foot soldiers of global imperialism, and so on and so on ŕ la Lenin.)

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
    Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not "hard-wired in our genes", it's an inherently modern creation of the inherently modern political and economic forces that first created the "imagined community" of the modern nation-state and continue to put incredible amounts of energy into indoctrinating various populations in its various national mythologies.

    Far from being an inherent solution to this problem, education - within the context of a national education system, educating its pupils as Americans/Australians/etc. - is an utterly indispensable mechanism by which this process is accomplished.

    Z 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
    Interestingly, I share all the premises, and yet none of the optimistic conclusions. Because soft neoliberalism (and in fact even hard neoliberalism) is much closer sociologically, politically and ideologically to the left than tribalism is, I see the end of the hegemonic neoliberal ideology and the correlative rise of tribalism as (somewhat paradoxically) the guarantee for perpetual neoliberal power in the short and middle term, at least for two reasons.

    First of all, left-inclined citizens will most likely always vote for neoliberal candidates if the alternative is a tribalist candidate (case in point: in 9 months or so, I will in all likelihood be offered a choice between a hard neoliberal and Marine Le Pen; what then?).

    Moreover, even if/when tribalist parties gain power, their relative sociological estrangement from the elite sand correlative relative lack of political power all but guarantees in my mind that they will govern along the path of least resistance for them; that is to say hard neoliberalism (with a sprinkle of tribalist cultural moves). This is how the FPO ruled Carinthia, for instance, and how I would expect Trump to govern in the (unlikely) eventuality he reached power.

    Finally, mass migration are bound to intensify because of climate change (if for no other reason) and the trend internationally in advanced democratic countries seems to be towards national divergence and hence national reversion.

    I don't see how an ideologically coherent left-oriented force can emerge in this context, but of course I would love to be proved wrong on all counts.

    Lupita 08.30.16 at 2:22 pm
    Bravo, Will G-R!
    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 2:37 pm
    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
    Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not "hard-wired in our genes", it's an inherently modern creation of the inherently modern political and economic forces that first created the "imagined community" of the modern nation-state and continue to put incredible amounts of energy into indoctrinating various populations in its various national mythologies. Far from being an inherent solution to this problem, education - within the context of a national education system, educating its pupils as Americans/Australians/etc. - is an utterly indispensable mechanism by which this process is accomplished.

    )))))))))))))))

    I don't agree. It's true that tribalism has morphed into what you call national mythologies , but the basis for this is our evolutionary heritage which divides the world into them and us. This no doubt had survival benefits for hunter gatherer social units but it's dangerous baggage in today's world. I find your comments about education curious. Are you advocating ignorance? I think you confuse education with indoctrination , they are not the same thing.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.30.16 at 2:45 pm
    The question of what ideology an ideologically coherent left-oriented force would come together around is indeed an important question, but I'll try not to dwell on my hobbyhorses too much.

    For now I'll add a slightly different area to consider this through: current First World "left" populations (especially in the U.S.) want to turn everything into individual moral questions through which a false solidarity can be expressed and through which opposing people can be shamed. For instance, I've thought a good deal about how environmental problems are the most important problems in general at the moment, and how it's clear that they require a redesign of our infrastructure. This is not an individual problem - no amount of volunteer action will work. Yet people on the left continually exert pressure to turn this into a conflict of morally good renouncers vs wasters, something that the right is quite ready to enhance with their own ridiculous tribal boundary markers (google "rolling coal").

    You see this with appeals to racism. Racism is a real problem and destroys real people's lives. But treating it as an individual moral problem rather than a social, structural one is a way of setting boundaries around an elite. The challenge for the left is going to be developing a left that, no matter what it's based around, doesn't fall back into this individualist new-class status preservation.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 3:15 pm
    @ Bob Zannelli, you're continuing to draw on the language of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology without the social-scientific rigor to justify it. (Of course, to many if not most social scientists, the very fields of sociobiology and evopsych are largely premised on a lack of such rigor to begin with, but that's another story.) In particular, the term doing the heavy lifting to provide your get-out-of-rigor-free card is "morphed". What has been the historical trajectory of this "morphing"? What social and political institutions have been involved? With what political interests, and what economic ones? If you think about those kinds of questions, you might make some headway toward understanding why social scientists generally interpret the sociocultural aspects of racism and fascism as essential, and the biological aspects as essentially arbitrary.

    To be fair, a large part of the fault here is John Quiggin's for using a word with as much fraught ideological baggage as "tribalism" to do so much of his own heavy lifting. The ironic thing is, the polemical power that probably motivated Quiggin to use that word in the first place comes from the very same set of ideological associations (e.g. "barbaric", "savage", "uncivilized", etc.) whose application to modern political issues of race and nationality he would probably characterize as "tribalist" in the first place!

    Holden Pattern 08.30.16 at 3:20 pm
    @ comment 16:

    I can't speak for other industrialized democracies, but in the US, there is essentially no ability for the left to engage in structural change. Every avenue has been either blocked by the 18th century political structures of the US (sometimes exploited in extraordinary ways by the monied powers that those structures enable) or subsumed by the neoliberal individualist marketification of everything.

    So what remains, especially given the latter, is marketing and individual action - persuasion, shame, public expressions of virtue. That's all that is available to the left in the United States, especially on issues like racism and environmental problems.

    So while it's good fun to bash the lefty elites in their tony coastal enclaves and recount their clueless dinner party conversations, it's shooting fish in a barrel. Easy for you and probably satisfying in a cheap way, but the fish probably didn't put themselves in the barrel, and blaming them for swimming in circles is… problematic.

    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 3:26 pm
    @ Bob Zannelli, you're continuing to draw on the language of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology without the social-scientific rigor to justify it. (Of course, to many if not most social scientists, the very fields of sociobiology and evopsych are largely premised on a lack of such rigor to begin with, but that's another story.) In particular, the term doing the heavy lifting to provide your get-out-of-rigor-free card is "morphed". What has been the historical trajectory of this "morphing"? What social and political institutions have been involved? With what political interests, and what economic ones? If you think about those kinds of questions, you might make some headway toward understanding why social scientists generally interpret the sociocultural aspects of racism and fascism as essential, and the biological aspects as essentially arbitrary.

    )))))))))))

    I hope it's clear that I do not discount the assertion that nationalism and racism are part of social constructs that favor class interest. My point is that political agendas have to work with the clay they start with. To just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature. This is a dangerous illusion, it leads right to the gulags.

    ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    To be fair, a large part of the fault here is John Quiggin's for using a word with as much fraught ideological baggage as "tribalism" to do so much of his own heavy lifting. The ironic thing is, the polemical power that probably motivated Quiggin to use that word in the first place comes from the very same set of ideological associations (e.g. "barbaric", "savage", "uncivilized", etc.) whose application to modern political issues of race and nationality he would probably characterize as "tribalist" in the first place!

    )))))))))

    I think Quiggen's analysis is not to be scorned

    Rich Puchalsky 08.30.16 at 3:33 pm
    "Easy for you and probably satisfying in a cheap way, but the fish probably didn't put themselves in the barrel, and blaming them for swimming in circles is… problematic."

    I come out of the same milieu, so I don't see why it's problematic to call attention to this. I
    helped to change JQ's opinion on part of it (as he wrote later, the facts were the largest influence on his change of opinion, but apparently what I wrote helped) and he's an actual public intellectual in Australia. As intellectuals our personal actions don't matter but sometimes our ideas might.

    Activism and social movements can help, even in the U.S. (I think that 350.org has had a measurable effect) so I wouldn't say that a structural approach means that nothing is possible.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 4:06 pm

    @ Bob Zannelli: To just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature.

    As hesitant as I am to play the "Fallacy Man" game, this is a common strawman about Marxism. In the words of Mao Tse-Tung, as quoted by the eminent evolutionary biologist and Marxist Richard Lewontin: "In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis." As far as human biological capacities, it's perfectly clear from any number of everyday examples that we're able to ignore all sorts of outward phenotypic differences in determining which sorts of people to consider more and less worthy of our ethical consideration, as long as the ideological structure of our culture and society permits it - so the problem is how to build the sort of culture and society we want to see, and telling wildly speculative "Just-So stories" about how the hairless ape got its concentration camps doesn't necessarily help in solving this problem.

    On the contrary, the desire to root social phenomena like what Quiggin calls "tribalism" in our genes is itself an ideological fetish object of our own particular culture, utilizing our modern reverence for science to characterize social phenomena allegedly dictated by "biology" as therefore natural, inevitable, or even desirable. Here, have a reading / listening recommendation.

    RobinM 08.30.16 at 4:20 pm
    Like Will G-R at 17 and Bob Zannelli at 19, I, too, found the use of the term "tribalism" in the original post a bit disturbing. It's almost always used as a pejorative. And it suggests that the "tribalists" require no deeper analysis. I'm sure it's been around for much longer, but I think I first took note of it when the Scottish National Party was shallowly dismissed as a mere expression of tribalism. That the SNP (which, by the way, I do not support) was raising questions about the deep failures of the British system of politics and government long before these failures became widely acknowledged was thus disregarded. Currently, an aspect of that deep failure, the British Labour Party seems to be in the process of destroying itself, again in part, in my estimation, because one side, among whom the 'experts' must be numbered, seem to think that those who are challenging them can be dismissed as "tribalists." There are surely a lot more examples.

    More generally, the resort to "tribalism" as an explanation of what is now transpiring is also, perhaps, neoliberalism's misunderstanding of its own present predicaments even while it is part of the arsenal of weapons neoliberals direct against their critics?

    But in short, the evocation of "tribalism" is not only disturbing, it's dangerously misleading. Those seeking to understand what may now be unfolding should avoid using it, not least because there are also almost certainly a whole lot of different "tribes."

    awy 08.30.16 at 5:06 pm
    so what's the neoliberal strategy for preserving good governance in the face of insurgencies on the left and right?
    Yankee 08.30.16 at 5:08 pm
    This just in , about good tribalism (locality-based) vs bad tribalism ("race"-based, ie perceived or assumed common ancestry). It's about cultural recognition; nationalism, based on shared allegiance to a power structure, is different, although related (sadly)
    James Wimberley 08.30.16 at 5:14 pm
    "But as a massive public good created, in very large measure, by the public sector .." With a large assist from non-profit-making community movements, as with Wikipedia and Linux. (IIRC the majority of Internet servers run on variants of the noncommercial Linux operating system, as do almost all smartphones and tablets.) CT, with unpaid bloggers and commenters, is part of a much bigger trend. Maybe one lesson for the state-oriented left is to take communitarianism more seriously.

    The Internet, with minimal state regulation after the vital initial pump-priming, technical self-government by a meritocratic cooptative technocracy, an oligopolistic commercial physical substructure, and large volumes of non-commercial as well as commercial content, is an interesting paradigm of coexistence for the future. Of course there are three-way tensions and ongoing battles, but it's still working.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 5:42 pm
    RobinM, to clarify, I do think that what Quiggin calls tribalism is worth opposing in pretty absolute terms, and I even largely agree with the meat of his broader "three-party system" analysis. I just think we should call what he calls "tribalism" by its proper name - fascism - instead of deliberately tainting our theories with overtones of an "enlightened civilized wisdom versus backwards tribal savages" narrative that itself is central to fascist/"tribalist" ideology and therefore belongs in the dustbin of history. Surely flouting Godwin's Law is a lesser sin than knowingly perpetuating the discourses of racism.
    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 6:18 pm
    In the words of Mao Tse-Tung, as quoted by the eminent evolutionary biologist and Marxist Richard Lewontin:

    Now Mao Tse-Tung, there's role model to be quoted. The thing about science is that's it true whether you believe it not, the thing about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and
    it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious. I know, I know , maybe someone will get it right some day.

    A realist politics doesn't ignore science , this doesn't mean that socialism is somehow precluded, in fact the exact opposite. We have to extend democracy into the economic sphere, until we do this, we don't have a democratically based society. It's because of human nature we need to democratize every center of power, no elite or vanguard if you prefer can be ever be trusted. But democracy isn't easy, you have to defeat ignorance , a useful trait to game the system , by the elite, and create a political structure that takes account of human nature , not try to perfect it. One would hope leftists would learn something from history, but dogmas die hard.

    Igor Belanov 08.30.16 at 6:50 pm
    Bob Zannelli @27

    "about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious."

    To claim that Marxism 'gave us' all those wicked people must be one of the least Marxist statements ever written! No doubt if Stalin and Pol Pot hadn't come across the works of a 19th century German émigré then they would have had jobs working in a florists and spending all the rest of their time helping old ladies over the road.

    Good to see Bob being consistent though. A few comments back he was suggesting that humans are biologically 'tribalist', but now he's blaming all evil on political ideology.

    Raven Onthill 08.30.16 at 7:06 pm
    "I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment; though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will co-operate with private initiative."
    Sebastian_H 08.30.16 at 7:26 pm
    'Tribalism' is giving members of what you perceive as your tribe more leeway than you give others. (Or negatively being much more critical of others than you would be of your tribe). It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not planning around it would be foolish. Lots of 'civilization' is about lubricating the rough spots created by tribalism while trying to leverage the good sides.

    One of the failures of neo-liberalism is in assuming that it can count on the good side of tribalism while ignoring the perceived responsibilities to one's own tribe. It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money. So then when it comes time to say "for the good of the UK we need you to do X" lots of people won't listen to you. John asks a good question in exploring what comes next, but it isn't clear.

    Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 7:30 pm
    about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and
    it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious."

    To claim that Marxism 'gave us' all those wicked people must be one of the least Marxist statements ever written! No doubt if Stalin and Pol Pot hadn't come across the works of a 19th century German émigré then they would have had jobs working in a florists and spending all the rest of their time helping old ladies over the road.

    Good to see Bob being consistent though. A few comments back he was suggesting that humans are biologically 'tribalist', but now he's blaming all evil on political ideology.

    )))))))))))))

    Marxism isn't evil and Nazism is evil. So political ideology can be evil or just wrong and accomplish evil. We are indebted to Marx for describing the nature of class warfare and the natural trends of accumulation based economics , but we now know his solution is a failure. So either we learn from this or we cling on to outmoded ideas and remain irrelevant.

    In the Soviet Union , science, art and literature were under assault, with scientists, artist and writers sent to the gulag or murdered for not conforming to strict Marxist Leninist ideology. Evolution, quantum mechanics, and relativity were all attacked as bourgeois science. ( The need for nuclear weapons forced Stalin later to allow this science to be sanctioned) These days, like the Catholic Church which can no longer burn people at the stake , old Marxists can just castigate opinions that don't meet Marxist orthodoxy.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 8:53 pm
    @ Sebastian_H: It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not planning around it would be foolish.

    But again, when we're talking about "tribalism" not in terms of some vague quasi-sociobiological force of eternal undying human nature, but in terms of the very modern historical phenomena of racism and nationalism, we have to consider the way any well-functioning modern nation-state has a whole host of institutions devoted to indoctrinating citizens in whatever ideological mythology is supposed to underpin a shared sense of national and/or racial identity. It should go without saying that whatever we think about general ingroup/outgroup tendencies innately hardwired into human nature or whatever, this way of relating our identities to historically contingent social institutions and their symbols is only as innate or hardwired as the institutions themselves.

    It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money.

    At least in my view, economists are usually slipperier than that. The arguments I've seen for neoliberal free trade (I'm not quite sure what to make of the term "globalism") generally involve it being good for "the economy" in a much more abstract sense, carefully worded to avoid specifying whether the growth and prosperity takes place in Manchester or Mumbai. And there's even something worth preserving in this tendency, in the sense that ideally the workers of the world would have no less international/interracial solidarity than global capital already seems to achieved.

    To me the possibility that neoliberal free trade and its degradation of national sovereignty might ultimately undermine the effectiveness of all nationalist myths, forging a sense of global solidarity among the collective masses of humanity ground under capital's boot, is the greatest hope or maybe even the only real hope we have in the face of the neoliberal onslaught. Certainly if there's any lesson from the fact that the hardest-neoliberal political leaders are often simultaneously the greatest supporters or enablers of chauvinistic ethnonationalism, it's that this kind of solidarity is also one of global capital's greatest nightmares.

    Will G-R 08.30.16 at 9:05 pm
    Punching "globalism" into Google returns the following definition from Merriam-Webster: "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence - compare imperialism, internationalism." I find it fascinating, and indicative of the ideological tension immanent in fascist reactionaries' use of the term, that the two terms listed as comparable to it are traditionally understood in modern political theory as diametrically opposed to each other.
    bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 9:17 pm
    Recommending Joshua Clover's new book. Riot -Strike – Riot Prime

    The strike, the organized disruption at the point of production, is no longer really available. Late capitalism, neoliberalism is now extracting surplus from distribution, as it did before industrialism, and is at the transport and communication streams that disruption will occur. And this will be riot, and there won't be much organization, centralization, hierarchy or solidarity. I am ok with "tribalism" although still looking for a better expression, and recognizing that a tribe is 15-50 people, and absolutely not scalable. Tribes can network, and people can have multiple and transient affiliations.

    Clover's model is the Paris Commune.

    (PS: If you don't like "tribe" come up with a word or expression that usefully describes the sociality of Black Lives Matter (movement, maybe) or even better Crooked Timber.)

    Lee A. Arnold 08.30.16 at 9:21 pm
    The left scarcely knows how to respond.

    Almost all people are primarily led by emotions and use reason only secondarily, to justify the emotions.

    There is a rude set of socio-economic "principles" which they call upon to buttress these arguments. You can hear these principles at any blue-collar job site, and you can hear them in a college lecture on economics, too:

    –nature is selfish
    –resources are scarce
    –money measures real value
    –wants are infinite
    –there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL)
    –you have to work for your daily bread
    –incentives matter
    –people want to keep up with the Joneses
    –labor should be geographically mobile
    –government is inefficient
    –welfare destroys families
    –printing money causes inflation
    –the economy is a Darwinian mechanism

    These are either false, or else secondary and ephemeral, and/or becoming inopportune and obsolete. None of them survives inspection by pure reason.

    Yet this is an aggregate that buzzes around in almost everyone's head, is INTERNALIZED as true, for expectations both personal and social. And which causes most of our problems.

    Consider TANSTAAFL: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Yet obviously there is such a thing as a cheaper lunch, or else there would be no such thing as the improvement in the standard of living. …Okay, you say, but "resources are scarce." …Well no, we are quickly proceeding to the point where technological change and substitution will end real scarcity, and without ecological degradation. Therefore: can cheaper lunches proceed to the point where they are effectively free for the purposes of meeting human need, "your daily bread"? …Well no, you say, because people are greedy, and beyond their needs, they have wants: "wants are infinite." …But wait, wants really cannot be infinite, because a "want" takes mental time to have, and you only have so many hours in every day, and so many days in your life. In fact your wants are finite, and quite boring, and the Joneses' wants are finite sand boring too. (Though why you want to keep up with those boneheads the Joneses is a bit beyond me.) …Okay, you say, but "incentives matter": if you give people stuff, they will just slack off: "welfare destroys families." …But wait a minute. If we have insisted that people must work to feel self-worth, yet capitalism puts people out of work until there are no jobs available, and there are no business opportunities to provide ever-cheaper lunches, isn't welfare the least of our problems, isn't welfare a problem that gets solved when we solve the real problem?

    But what is the real problem? Is the real problem that we don't know how to interact with strangers without the use of money, and so we think that money is a real thing? Is the real problem your certain feeling that we need to work for our self-worth? Is the real problem that capitalism is putting itself out of business, and showing that these so-called principles are just a bunch of bad excuses? Is the real problem that we are all caught in a huge emotional loop of bad thinking, now becoming an evident disaster?

    bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 9:26 pm
    And also of course, people looking at Trump and his followers (or their enemies and opponents in the Democratic Party) and seeing "tribalism" are simply modernists engaging in nostalgia and reactionary analysis.

    Trump_vs_deep_state is not fascism, and a Trump Rally is not Nuremberg. Much closer to Carnival

    Wiki: "Interpretations of Carnival present it as a social institution that degrades or "uncrowns" the higher functions of thought, speech, and the soul by translating them into the grotesque body, which serves to renew society and the world,[37] as a release for impulses that threaten the social order that ultimately reinforces social norms ,[38] as a social transformation[39] or as a tool for different groups to focus attention on conflicts and incongruities by embodying them in "senseless" acts."

    …or riot.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.30.16 at 10:50 pm
    I agree with bob mcm that Trump_vs_deep_state isn't fascism. It's not a serious analysis to say that it is.

    "Tribalism" was coined as a kind of shorthand for what Michael Berube used to refer to "I used to consider myself a Democrat, but thanks to 9/11, I'm outraged by Chappaquiddick." It's the wholesale adoption of what at first looks like a value or belief system but is actually a social signaling system that one belongs to a group. People on the left refer to this signaling package as "tribal" primarily out of envy (I write somewhat jokingly) because the left no longer has a similarly strong package on its side.

    Greg McKenzie 08.30.16 at 11:47 pm
    "Tribalism" feeds into the factionalism of parties. The left has a strong faction both inside the ALP and the Liberal Party. The Right faction, in the NLP, is currently in ascendancy but this will not last. Just as the Right faction (in the ALP) was sidelined by clever ALP faction battles, the current members of the NLP's Right faction are on borrowed time. But all politicians are "mugs" as Henry Lawson pointed out over a hundred years ago. Politicians can be talked into anything, if it gives them an illusion of power. So "tribalism" is more powerful than "factionalism" simply because it has more staying power. Left faction and Right faction merely obey the demands of their tribal masters.
    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 1:47 am
    . . . the left no longer has a similarly strong package on its side

    honestly, I do not think "tribalism" is a "strong package" on Right or Left. Part of the point of tribalism in politics is just how superficial and media driven it is. The "signaling package" is put together and distributed like cigarette or perfume samples: everybody gets their talking points.

    Pretending to care dominates actually caring. On the right - as Rich points out with the reference to "rolling coal", some people on the Right who have donned their tribal sweatshirts get their kicks out of supposing that somebody on the Left actually cares and they can tweak those foolishly caring Lefties.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 1:57 am
    I take note of the Florida primary results, just in: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz did just fine, as did her hand-picked Democratic Senate candidate, the horrible Patrick Murphy.

    Oh, and Rubio is back. Notice of the death of neoliberalism might be premature.

    Martin 08.31.16 at 2:11 am
    @ Bob Zannelli 10: To describe something as "hard wired" is to give up: what course of action could we take? But, then, why isn't everyone a member of the tribalist party? Has everyone, always, been of the tribalist party? (I know someone could argue, 'everyone is racist' or 'all these white liberals are just as racist really', but even if that is somehow true, most are members of the socialist party or the neoliberal party).

    Rather than deciding it is all too hard, we can at least find out who supports tribalism, why it makes sense to them, whether it benefits them, how it benefits them, if it does, and why they support it anyway, if it does not benefit them.

    I suppose (I am guessing here), some tribalists are benefiting from differential government support, such as immigration policies that keep out rival potential employees, or tariff policies that keep out competitors; or at least, that they used to benefit like that. But Crooked Timber should have readers who can answer this kind of question from their expertise.

    Collect the evidence, then understand, then act.

    Howard Frant 08.31.16 at 6:39 am
    I suppose it's too late to try to convince people here that the term "neoliberalism" is a virus that devastates the analytic functions of the brain, but I'll try. The term is based on a European use of the word "liberal" that has never had any currency in the US. It's a wholly pejorative term based on a misunderstanding of Hayek (who did *not* believe in laissez-faire), but may be a reasonable approximation of the beliefs of , say, Thatcher. Then that term was confounded with a totally unconnected term invented by Peters, who was using the word "liberal" in the American sense. And presto, we have a seamless worlwide philosophy with "hard" and "soft" variants.

    As far as, say, H. Clinton is concerned, I can see no respect in which it would be wrong to describe her as just a "liberal" in the American sense. American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also been pro-union– so we can just say that's *soft* neoliberalism and preserve our sense that we are part of a world-wide struggle. Or not.

    Bernie Sanders was celebrated by the left for supporting a tax on carbon (without mentioning, of course, what price of gasoline he was contemplating), but this is an excellent illustration of what Peters would have considered a neoliberal policy. The term now just seems to mean anything I don't like.

    As for Benedict Arnold, I mean Judas Iscariot, I mean Bill Clinton, you can make a case that he did his best to salvage something from the wreckage. To repeat what I've said here before, when he was elected the Democrats had lost five of the last six elections, most by landslides. The one exception was the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, who was despised by the left. The American people had decisively rejected what the Democrats were selling. False consciousness, no doubt.

    So rather than spending a lot of time celebrating victory over this hegemonic ideology, perhaps people should be talking about liberalism and whatever we're calling the left alternative to it.

    Peter T 08.31.16 at 10:54 am
    "Tribalism" is unhelpful here, because it obscures the contribution "tribalism" has made and can make to effective social democracy. It was on the basis of class and national tribalisms (solidarities is a better word) that social democracy was built, and its those solidarities that give it what strength it still has. That others preferred, and still prefer, other forms of solidarity – built around region or religion or language – should neither come as a surprise nor be seen as basis for opposition. It's the content, not the form, that matters.

    Self-interest is too vague and shifting, international links too weak, to make an effective politics. Our single most pressing problem – climate change – can clearly only be dealt with internationally. Yet the environmental and social problems that loom almost as large are clearly ones that can best be dealt with on national or sub-national scales. As this becomes clearer I expect the pressure to downsize and de-link from the global economy will intensify (there are already signs in this direction). The social democrat challenge is then to guide local solidarities towards democracy, not decry them.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.31.16 at 10:56 am
    If we're really looking for a general word that works across national boundaries, it's a well-used one: conservatism. People sometimes object that conservatives in one country are not the same as conservatives in another country, but really the differences are not much greater than in liberalism across countries, socialism, etc. Conservatism includes the characteristics of authoritarianism and nationalism. U.S. "tribalism" is its local manifestation: the use of "tribalism" to denote a global style of conservatism denotes a particular, contemporary type of conservatism, just as neoliberalism is a type of liberalism. You could divide JQ's three groups into left, liberal, conservative but since you're using neoliberal as the middle one (e.g. a contemporary mode) then "tribalism" or something like it seems appropriate for the last.

    Note that there is no word for a contemporary mode of leftism, because there isn't one. The closest is the acephalous or consensus style of many recent movements and groups, but that mode hasn't won elections or taken power.

    Peter T 08.31.16 at 11:43 am
    The post focuses essentially on the challenge from above – the plutocracy – but the challenge from below is also relevant:
    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/06/15/the-twin-insurgency/
    reason 08.31.16 at 12:48 pm
    John Quiggin,
    What I see as the missing point here, and perhaps we disagree upon it's significance, is resource limitations. We can't avoid the violent reversion to zero sum games unless we address the problem (exactly when it has or will reach crisis point is perhaps a point of disagreement) of expanding population meets finite resources (or even meets already fully owned resources).

    I don't buy the argument that there a technological solution, or the argument that population will stabilize before it gets too bad (I don't see what will drive it – because Malthus was partly right).

    If people are unable to survive where they are, they will try to move, and people already living where they are moving to won't like it. Perhaps we are already seeing some of this, perhaps not. But it will drive tribalism (joining together to keep the "invaders" out) and won't drive the left. I have a feeling that the "left" should be replaced by a "green" view of the world, but for one thing, that will need a new economics – perhaps on the lines sketched out by Herman Daly. Maybe the term "left" is too associated with a Marxist view of the world to be useful any more.

    Will G-R 08.31.16 at 2:00 pm
    Apart from the obvious advantages "fascism" brings to the table - the sense of describing "Trump_vs_deep_state" in terms of what it seeks to develop into and not in terms of its current and clearly underdeveloped form, as well as the sense of tying our current state of poorly grasped ideological confusion back to WWII as the last clear three-way "battlefield of ideologies" pitting liberalism against fascism against socialism - the term is broadly symbolically appropriate for the same reasons it was originally adopted by Mussolini. The sense of national solidarity and "strength through unity" (i.e. the socialist element of National Socialism) is exactly what John Quiggin is characterizing as "the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism", and the direct invocation of the Roman fasces as a symbol of pure authority is exactly what Z is getting at with the term "archism". Sure our latter-day manifestation of fascism hasn't (yet) led to an honest-to-God fascist regime in any Western country, but to kid ourselves that this isn't what it seeks or that it couldn't potentially get there would be, well, a bit too uncomfortably Weimar-ish of us.

    Besides which, I get that pooh-poohing about Godwin's Law and "everybody I don't like is Hitler" and so on is a nearly irresistible tic in today's liberal discourse, but c'mon people… we're all comfortable using the term "neoliberalism", which means we're all willing to risk having the same Poli Sci 101 conversations over and over again in the mainstream ("yes, Virginia, Hillary Clinton and Paul Ryan are both liberals!") for the sake of our own theoretical clarity. At the very least "fascism" would have fewer problematic discursive connotations than "tribalism", which I absolutely refuse to use in this conversation without putting it in sneer quotes.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:17 pm
    The problem with neoliberalism is that it isn't really compatible with a modern free market economy. Simply because that system isn't well enough understood to allow experts, let alone informed amateurs, to reach a consensus on what a particular change will actually do. . . . It is the inability of the neoliberal communication style to credibly promise control that lost it.

    You seem to be dancing around the elite corruption that is motivating the rationales provided by neoliberalism. We are going to improve efficiency by privatizing education, health care, pensions, prisons, transport. Innovation is the goal of deregulating finance, electricity. That is what they say.

    The obscurity and complexity of, say, Obamacare or the Greek bailout is a cover story for the looting.

    The problem is not that the experts do not understand consequences. The problem is that a broken system pays the top better, so the system has to be broken, but not so broken that the top falls off in collapse.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:35 pm
    Will G-R @ 55

    So you know what Trump_vs_deep_state wants to become, so we should call it that, rather than describe what it is, because the ideological conflicts of 80 years ago were so much clearer.

    We live in the age of inverted totalitarianism. Trump isn't Mussolini, he's an American version of Berlusconi, a farcical rhyme in echo of a dead past. We probably are on the verge of an unprecedented authoritarian surveillance state, but Hillary Clinton doesn't need an army of blackshirts. The historical fascism demanded everything in the state. Our time wants everything in an iPhone app.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:54 pm
    reason @ 54

    Very well said. Resource limits shadow the falling apart of the global order that the American Interest link Peter T points to. If the billionaires are looting from the top and the response is a criminal scramble at the bottom, the unnecessariat will be spit out uncomprehending into the void between.

    It is hard to see optimism as a growth stock. But, an effective left would need something to reintroduce mass action into politics against an elite that is groping toward a solution that entails replacing the masses with robots.

    Will G-R 08.31.16 at 3:38 pm
    "Trump_vs_deep_state" may be the term du jour in the US, but let's try to kick our stiflingly banal American habit of framing everything around our little quadrennial electoral freak shows. After all, the US and our rigid two-party system have always been an outlier in the vigor with which real political currents have been forced to conform to the narrow partisan vocabulary of either a left-liberal or a right-liberal major party. If hewing religiously to a patriotic sense of US institutionalism is supposed to ultimately save the liberal political sphere from the underlying political-economic forces that threaten it, we might as well take a page from the Tea Party and start marching around in powdered wigs and tricorn hats for all the good it'll do us.

    In the rest of the Western world, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, the "fascist" parties (Golden Dawn in Greece, Jobbik in Hungary, Ataka in Bulgaria, etc.) are generally less euphemistic about their role as fascist parties, and what forced sense of euphemism does exist seems to provide little more than a rhetorical opportunity for mockingly transparent coyness . To be fair, the predominant far-right parties in richer Western European countries (the FN, AfD, UKIP, etc.) are a bit more earnestly vague about their ambitions, so maybe a good compromise would be to call them (along with Trump) "soft fascists" in contrast to the "hard fascists" of Golden Dawn or Ataka. But fascism still makes much more sense than any other existing "-ism" I've seen, unless we want to just make one up.

    Marc 08.31.16 at 3:48 pm
    Analogies can obscure more than they illuminate.
    RichardM 08.31.16 at 4:11 pm
    > You seem to be dancing around the elite corruption that is motivating the rationales provided by neoliberalism.

    Fair point. On the other hand, if neoliberalism rule, then neoliberals will be the rulers. And if not, not. Whatever the nature of the rulers, they rarely starve. Worldwide, average corruption is almost certainly lower in mostly-neoliberal countries than in less-neoliberal places like China, Zimbabwe, North Korea, …

    The key thing is, take two neoliberal politicians, only one of whom is (unusually) corrupt. One entirely intends to deliver what you ask for, admittedly while ensuring they personally have a nice life being well-fed, warm and listened-to. The other plans to take it all and deliver nothing.

    Given that nobody trustworthy knows anything, at least in a form they can explain, you can't get useful information as to which is which. 300 hours of reading reports of their rhetoric in newspapers, blogs, etc. leaves you none the wiser. And by the time you have a professional-level of knowledge of what's going on, you are part of the problem.

    Might as well just stick to looking at who has which label next to their name, or who has good hair.

    Will G-R 08.31.16 at 4:16 pm
    Marc, the discourse of Godwin's Law has done a wonderful job solidifying the delusion that what '20s-through-'40s-era fascists once represented is categorically dead and buried, which is why it seems like the word can't be used as anything other than an obtuse historical analogy. But it's not an analogy - it's a direct insinuation that what these people currently represent is a clear descendant of what those people once represented, however mystified by its conditioned aversion to the word "fascism" itself. On the contrary, if we surrender to the Godwin's Law discourse and accept that fascism can never mean anything in contemporary discourse except as an all-purpose "everything I don't like is Hitler" analogy or whatever, it means we've forgotten what it means to actually be anti-fascist.

    BTW, the link from the last comment isn't working for whatever reason, so here's Take 2 .

    Bob Zannelli 08.31.16 at 5:27 pm
    So much concern about the term tribalism. Well what is fascism? The use of tribalism to grasp political power and establish a totalitarian political order. Sound reasonable? Pick any fascism you like, the Nazis ( master race) the theocratic fascists in the US ( Christian rule ) Catholic Fascism ( Franco's Spain) , you name it. It walks and talks like tribalism. Trump-ism is the not so new face of American fascism. It's race based, it xenophobic, it's embraces violence, has a disdain for civil liberties and human rights, and it features the great leader. Doesn't seem to difficult to make the connection.
    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 6:14 pm
    RichardM: Whatever the nature of the rulers, they rarely starve.

    Still not getting it. The operative question is whether the rulers feast because the society works or because the society fails.

    Neoliberalism is the politics of controlled dismantling of the institutions of a society that formerly worked for a larger portion of its participants. Like a landlord realizing increased cash flow from a decision to forego maintenance and hire gangsters to handle rent collection, neoliberalism seeks to divert the dividends from disinvestment to the top

    The cadre managing this technically and politically difficult task - it is not easy to take things apart without critical failures exemplified by system collapse prompting insurrection or revolution - are rewarded as are society's owners, the 1/10th of 1%. Everybody else is screwed - either directly, or by the consequences of the social disintegration used to feed a parasitic elite.

    The key thing is, take two neoliberal politicians, only one of whom is (unusually) corrupt. One entirely intends to deliver what you ask for, admittedly while ensuring they personally have a nice life being well-fed, warm and listened-to. The other plans to take it all and deliver nothing.

    Again, you are not getting it. This isn't about lesser evil. "Lesser evil" is a story told to herd the masses. If there are two neoliberal politicians, both are corrupt. Neither intends to deliver anything to you on net; they are competing to deliver you.

    Any apparent choice offered to you is just part of the b.s. The "300 hours of reading" is available if you need a hobby or the equivalent of a frontal lobotomy.

    I am not enthusiastic about this proposed distinction between "hard" and "soft" neoliberalism. Ideologically, conservative libertarians have been locked in a dialectic with the Clintonite / Blairite neoliberals - that's an old story, maybe an obsolete story, but apparently not one those insist on seeing neoliberalism as a monolithic lump fixed in time can quite grasp, but never mind.

    Good cop, bad cop. Only, the electorate is carefully divided so that one side's good cop is the other side's bad cop, and vice versa.

    Hillary Clinton is running the Democratic Party in such a way that she wins the Presidency, but the Party continues to be excluded from power in Congress and in most of the States. This is by design. This is the neoliberal design. She cannot deliver on her corrupt promises to the Big Donors if she cannot play the game Obama has played so superbly of being hapless in the face of Republican intransigence.

    In the meantime, those aspiring to be part of the credentialed managerial classes that conduct this controlled demolition while elaborating the surveillance state that is expected to hold things together in the neo-feudal future are instructed in claiming and nurturing their individual political identity against the day of transformation of consciousness, when feminism will triumph even in a world where we never got around to regulating banks.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 6:33 pm
    Will G-R, Bob Zannelli

    Actual, historical fascism required the would-be fascists to get busy, en masse . Trump (and Clinton) will be streamed on demand so you can stay home and check Facebook. Hitler giving a two-hour 15000 word speech and Trump, Master of the Twitterverse, belong to completely different political categories, if not universes.

    There are so many differences and those differences are so deep and pervasive that the conversation hardly seems worth having.

    stevenjohnson 08.31.16 at 7:54 pm
    Historical fascism included not just Hitler's Germany, but Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar/Caetano's Portugal, Ionescu's Romania, the Ustase in Croatia, Tiso's Slovakia, Petliura's movement in Ukraine, and, arguably, Dollfuss' Austria, Horthy's Hungary, Imperial Japan, Peronist Argentina, the Poland of the post Pilsudski junta (read Beck on the diplomatics of a Jewish state in Uganda, which is I think symptomatic wishful thinking.)

    There is a strong correlation between the nations whose rulers accepted fascists into the government and losing WWI. The rest were new, insecure states that could profit their masters by expansion. At the time, the so-called Allies, except for the USSR, were essentially the official "winners" of WWI and therefore united against the would be revisionists like Germany. Therefore it was desirable to propagandize against the Axis as uniquely fascist.

    In fact, there was a powerful fascist movement in many Allied states as well. Vichy France had deep, strong domestic roots in particular, but the South African Broederbond and Jim Crow USA with its lynchings show how fascism and democracy (as understood by anti-Communists) are not separate things, but conjunctural developments of the capitalist states, which are not organized as business firms.

    Democracy is associated even with genocide, enslavement of peoples and mass population transfers to colonists. It began with democracy itself, with the Spartans turning Messenians into Helots and Athenians expropriating Euboeans and massacring Melians. Russian Cossacks on the Caucasian steppes or Paxton Boys in the US continued the process. When democracy came to the Ottoman empire, making Turkey required the horrific expulsion of the Armenians. (Their Trail of Tears was better publicized than the Cherokee's.) But the structural need to unify a nation by excluding Others led to the bloody expulsion of Greeks as well. The confirmation of national identity by a mix of ethnic, religious and racial markers required mass violence and war, as seen in the emergence of the international system of mercantilist capitalist states.

    The wide variations in historical fascism conclusively demonstrate every notion of fascism is somehow something essentially, metaphysically, antithetical is wrong. Fascism and democracy are not an antinomy. Particular doctrines that assert this, like the non-concept of "totalitarianism," serve as a kind of skeleton for political movements and parties. Since the triumph of what we in the US call McCarthyism all mainstream and all acceptable alternative politics share this same skeleton. It is unsurprising that such a beast is somehow not organically equipped to be an effective left. It's SYRIZA in Greece defining itself by the rejection of the KKE. There is no such thing as repudiation of revolution that doesn't imply accepting counter-revolution.

    Evan Neely 08.31.16 at 8:03 pm
    The problem I have with attempts to appeal to the supposedly "positive" aspects of tribalism, solidarity and the affection for longstanding institutions, is that it's presuming these aren't just our abstractions of something that's felt at a much more primal level. Tribalists don't love solidarity for the sake of the principle of solidarity: they feel solidarity because they love the specific people like them that they love and hate others.

    One set of tribalists doesn't look at another and say "hey, we respect the same principles." It says "they're not our tribe!!!" Point being, you're never going to get them on your side with appeals to abstractions. You're almost certainly never going to get them on your side no matter what you do.

    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 9:07 pm
    There is no vast neoliberal conspiracy . . .

    There obviously is a vast political movement, coordinated in ideology and the social processes of partisan politics and propaganda. Creating a strawperson "conspiracy" does not erase actual Clinton fundraising practices and campaign tactics, which exist independent of whatever narrative I weave them into.

    There are no corrupt promises from Clinton to big donors . . .

    !!! And, you are accusing me of being delusional.

    Rich Puchalsky 08.31.16 at 9:11 pm
    Calling our present-day GOP as led by Trump "fascism" is calling it a break with the past GOP. Corey Robin has been over this quite a bit here, but in many important respects there is no break. GWB, for instance, sometimes required attendees at his rallies to take a personal loyalty oath. And GWB is hailed by some people here as being the good conservative because he said that not all Muslims were bad, while, of course, killing a million Muslims. The contemporary GOP is an outgrowth of GOP tradition, and while some leftists may find calling all conservatism fascism convincing, I think that it's only convincing for the tiny number of people who adhere to their ideology.

    But conservatism and fascism are both right-wing and people can argue indefinitely about where the boundary is. So rather than talk about ideal types, let's look at how the rhetoric of calling it fascism works. Calling Trump_vs_deep_state fascism is primarily the rhetoric of HRC supporters, because functionally, what everyone pretty much agrees on is that when fascists appear, people on the left through moderate right are supposed to drop everything and unite in a Popular Front to oppose them.

    I don't think that people should drop everything. I think that HRC is going to win and that forming the mental habit of supporting the Democratic Party is easy to do and hard to break, and I think that the people who become Democratic Party supporters because of the threat of Trump / "fascism" are going to spend the next four years working directly against actual left interests.

    Will G-R 08.31.16 at 10:06 pm
    Rich, I think it would be a mistake to consider this as a question of "our present-day GOP as led by Trump". First because Trump isn't "leading" the GOP in any meaningful sense; as Jay Rosen's recent Tweet-storm encapsulates nicely , the GOP's institutional leadership is still liberal through and through, even if its ideological organs pander in some ideally implicit sense to what might otherwise be a fascist constituency. And second because Trump isn't really "leading" his own constituents either; if he were to make a high-profile about-face on the issues his voters care about, they'd likely be just as eager to dump him as Bernie Sanders' most passionate leftist supporters were to ignore his pro-Clinton appeals at the DNC.

    What's interesting about Trump isn't really anything to do with Trump per se, so much as what Trump's constituency would do if the normal functioning of the liberal institutions constraining it were to be disrupted in a serious way. Europe in the 1910s through 1940s was full of such disruptions, and should such an era return, the ideological currents we're now viewing through a heavily tinted institutional window would become much clearer.

    Ragweed 08.31.16 at 10:23 pm
    Val etc.

    I think that John's use of the word "tribalist" here means a world-view that explicitly values members of an in-group more than members not of the in-group. It is different from racism because it may be over other factors than race – religion, citizenship, nationalism, or even region. And the key word is explicitly. The big difference between tribalist and both neoliberal and left positions is that the other two are generally universalist.

    Neoliberals profess that everyone will be better off with deregulation, free markets, and technocratic solutions, and often explicitly reject the idea of something benefitting one racial, religious, or national group over another (though not the educated or wealthy, because these are allegedly meritocratic outcomes of the neoliberal order).

    The left likewise generally argues for an increase in equality and equal distribution of resources for all, whether that be class-based or based on some sort of gender, race, or sexual equality.

    So on an issue like a free trade deal, a neoliberal argument would support it, because gains of trade and various other reasons why it would make everyone better off; a leftist argument would oppose it on the grounds that it would make everyone worse off; and a tribalist argument would oppose it on the grounds that it took jobs away from American citizens, but wouldn't worry too much about the other guys.

    Of course, the lines are not always clear and distinct, they often overlap, mix, and borrow arguments from each other, and there are often hypocrisies' and inconsistencies (and John's point anyway is that the neoliberals tend to draw on coalitions with the other two factions), but I think it is a good general description of the distinction.

    And it is different from the more sociological use of tribal to mean any in-group/out-group distinction and social solidarity formation. Everyone is tribal in the sociological sense, but the tribalist that John is referring explicitly approves of that tribalism. A left intellectual may look down on "ignorant, racist, blue-collar Trump supporters", with as much bias as any tribalist, but would generally want them to have better education and a guarantee income so they were no longer ignorant and racist, whereas the tribalist generally thinks the other guy is less deserving.

    Sam Bradford 09.01.16 at 9:20 am

    What I wonder/worry about is whether tribalism, nationalism, call it what you will, is a necessity.

    It's very difficult for me to imagine an internationalist order that provides the kind of benefits to citizens that I'd want a state to provide. It's much easier to imagine nation states operating as enclaves of solidarity and mutual aid in an amorphous, anarchic and ruthless globalised environment. Yet the creation of a nation requires the creation of an in-group and an out-group, citizens and non-citizens.

    To put it more concretely: in my own country, New Zealand, the traditional Maori form of social organisation – a kind of communitarianism – currently appeals to me as offering more social solidarity and opportunity for human flourishing than our limp lesser-of-three-evils democracy. It is a society in which there is genuine solidarity and common purpose. Yet it is, literally, tribal; it admits no more than a few thousand people to each circle of mutual aid. I am sometimes tempted to believe that it is the correct way for human beings to live, despite my general dislike for biological determinism. I think I would rather abandon my obligations to the greater mass of humanity (not act against them, of course, just accept an inability to influence events) and be a member of a small society than be a helpless and hopeless atom in a sea of similar, utterly disenfranchised atoms.

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 4:32 pm

    Bob Zannelli: Gee what a concept, an obligation to vote in a democracy. As flawed as the US political process is, voting still matters and can affect change. It's not easy , but then it's never easy to reform anything.

    Just to give voice to the contrary perspective , voter turnout appears to play at least some role in the ideological process by which the US electoral system claims legitimacy: even though in purely procedural terms an election could work just fine if the total number of ballots was an infinitesimal fraction of the number of eligible voters ("Bill Clinton casts ballot, Hillary defeats Trump by 2 votes to 1!") low voter turnout is nonetheless depicted as a crisis not just for any particular candidate or party but for the entire electoral process. Accordingly, if I decide not to vote and thereby to decrease voter turnout by a small-but-nonzero amount, I'm adding a small-but-nonzero contribution to the public argument that the electoral process as presently institutionalized is illegitimate, so unless we propose to add a "none of the above" option to every single race and question on the ballot, to argue that citizens have an obligation to vote is to argue that they are obliged not to "vote" for the illegitimacy of the system as such. And plenty of ethical and political stances could be consistent with such a "vote", not the least of which is a certain historical stance whose proponents argued that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…"

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:05 pm

    I mean that just as people who believe the US government is legitimate should have the right to express their political preference at the ballot box, people who believe the US government is illegitimate should have the right to express their political preference at (the abstention from) the ballot box, and that it's at least possible for this to be a consistent political and ethical stance. Do you disagree? Is the legitimacy of your government a first premise for you? If so, Thomas Jefferson would like a word.

    (Not to imply that I hold any particular fealty to the US nationalist mythology of the "Founding Fathers" and so on, but hey, they articulated a certain liberal political philosophy whose present-day adherents should at least be consistent about it.)

    Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 5:14 pm
    I mean that just as people who believe the US government is legitimate should have the right to express their political preference at the ballot box, people who believe the US government is illegitimate should have the right to express their political preference at (the abstention from) the ballot box, and that it's at least possible for this to be a consistent political and ethical stance. Do you disagree? Is the legitimacy of your government a first premise for you? If so, Thomas Jefferson would like a word.

    (Not to imply that I hold any particular fealty to the US nationalist mythology of the "Founding Fathers" and so on, but hey, they articulated a certain liberal political philosophy whose present-day adherents should at least be consistent about it.) {}

    Jefferson has never impressed me very much ( except for his church state separation advocacy) His ideal of a democratic agrarian slave society I find not too appealing. He talked about the blood of tyrants but he spent his time drinking fine wines and being waiting on by his slaves during the revolutionary war. You're entitled to any views you want, but you're not entitled to be respected if you're views are nonsensical. Good luck on the revolution, I hope that works out for you.

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:15 pm

    Also, not to get personal, but the smarm here is so thick you could cut it with a knife…

    "Did I get you right? Is your response to an argument you find uncomfortable to simply intone 'holy shit'? Holy shit…"

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:20 pm

    So wait, did you not recognize the quote from the Declaration of Independence, or what? Your argument invoked "an obligation to vote in a democracy" . My counterargument is that if government is supposed to be premised on the consent of the governed, there can never be "an obligation to vote in a democracy", because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent. As Žižek might put it, your ideal appears to be a democratic system that orders you to consent .
    Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 5:37 pm

    So wait, did you not recognize the quote from the Declaration of Independence, or what? Your argument invoked "an obligation to vote in a democracy". My counterargument is that if government is supposed to be premised on the consent of the governed, there can never be "an obligation to vote in a democracy", because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent. As Žižek might put it, your ideal appears to be a democratic system that orders you to consent.{}

    I think anyone who expects to move the country away from Neo Liberalism to a more progressive direction without voting is a fool. What's the alternative , over throwing the government? If this is the plan we better not discuss it on social media. Of course it's all nonsense, if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right as almost happened under FDR during the hey day of fascism around the world. I think too many here are still living in a Marxist fantasy world , no one here is going to establish the dictatorship of the proletarians. Let's get real.

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 6:09 pm

    if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right

    So let's get this straight… the only choice we have is between the center and the far right, yet it's far leftists' fault for not being centrists that the politics of centrism itself keeps drifting farther and farther to the right. Screw eating from the trashcan, it's like you're mainlining pure grade-A Colombian ideology.

    stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 6:24 pm

    Will G-R@86 "… because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent." Incorrect. Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent. Not voting is meaningless, and will be interpreted as suited.

    Bob Zannelli@87 "Let's get real."

    Okay. What's real is, the game is rigged but you insist on making everyone ante up and play by the rules anyhow. What's real, is you have nothing to do with the left, except by defining the Democratic Party as the left. What's real is that the parties could just as well be labeled the "Ins" and the "Outs," and that would have just as much to do with the left, which is to repeat, nothing.

    bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 6:59 pm
    Bob Zannelli: What's the alternative?

    There is no alternative.

    Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 7:01 pm
    So let's get this straight… the only choice we have is between the center and the far right, yet it's far leftists' fault for not being centrists that the politics of centrism itself keeps drifting farther and farther to the right. Screw eating from the trashcan, it's like you're mainlining pure grade-A Colombian ideology{}

    Right because the left is too busy plotting the revolution to engage in politics.

    bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 7:09 pm
    Hillary Clinton is engaging in politics and she's teh most librul librul evah! Why isn't that enough? It is not her fault, surely, that the devil makes her do unlibrul things - you have to be practical and practically, there is no alternative. We have to clap louder. That's the ticket!
    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 7:25 pm

    stevenjohnson: Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent.

    So why then is low voter turnout interpreted as a problem for democracy? Why wouldn't it be a cause for celebration if a large majority of the population was so happy with the system that they'd be happy with whoever won? On the contrary, a helpless person's tacit refusal to respond to a provocation can be the exact opposite of consent if whoever has them at their mercy actually needs a reaction: think of a torture victim who sits in silence instead of pleading for mercy or giving up the information the torturer is after. Whether or not it truly does need it, the ideology of liberal democracy at least acts as if it needs the legitimating idea that its leaders are freely and actively chosen by those they govern, and refusing to participate in this choice can be interpreted as an effort to deprive this ideology of its legitimating idea.

    bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 7:45 pm

    Will G-R @ 94

    Low voter turnout is interpreted as a problem by some people on some occasions. Why generalize to official "ideology" from their idiosyncratic and opportunistic pieties?

    Why are the concerns of, say, North Carolina's legislature that only the right people vote not official ideology? Or, the election officials in my own Los Angeles County, where we regularly have nearly secret elections with hard-to-find-polling-places - we got down to 8.6% in one election in 2015.

    Obama's DHS wants to designate the state election apparatus, critical infrastructure. Won't that be great? I guess Putin may not be able to vote, after all!

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 8:12 pm
    Bob, my impression is that CT is supposed to be a philosophy-oriented discussion space (or it wouldn't be named after a line from Kant for chrissake) and in philosophy one is supposed to subject one's premises to ruthless and unsparing criticism, or at least be able to fathom the possibility of doing so - including in this case premises like the legitimacy of the US government or the desirability of capitalism. Especially in today's neoliberal society there are precious few spaces where a truly philosophical outlook is supposed to be the norm, and honestly I'm offended that you seem to want to turn CT into yet another space where it isn't.
    stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 8:27 pm
    Bob Zannelli@95 Don't worry, your left credentials are quite in order. I'm not a regular, I post here occasionally for the same reason I occasionally post at BHL, sheer amazement at the insanity of it all. My views are quite beyond the pale.

    Nonetheless your views, even though they pass for left at CT, are nonsense. Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics. His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save failure.

    As for your dismissal of Marxist fantasies, I take it you do not believe economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries, unlike this country where everybody is middle class.

    Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change. That's happening. Nixon failed, Trump might fail, but the long slow march of the owners through the institutions of power, gentrifying as they go, continues.

    Will G-R 09.01.16 at 8:46 pm
    Bruce @ 95, correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that state and (especially) local governments in the US typically are viewed as highly prone to borderline-illegitimizing levels of corruption - imagine how we'd characterize the legitimacy of a City-State of Ferguson, or a Republic of Illinois under President Blagojevich - and part of what maintains the impression of legitimacy is the possibility of federal intervention on the people's behalf if things at the lower levels get out of hand. Where the federal government hasn't done so, notably in the case of African-American communities before the mid to late 20th century, is precisely where arguments for the illegitimacy of the entire system have gained serious traction. So IMO there could actually be quite a bit of subversive potential if the population at large were to openly reject the elected officials in Washington, DC as no more inherently legitimate than those in Raleigh, NC or Los Angeles County. (I briefly tried to look up the location within LA of its county seat and found that Wikipedia's article "Politics of Los Angeles County" was entirely about its citizens' voting record in federal politics, which itself illustrates the point.)

    [Sep 02, 2016] Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government

    Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered. ..."
    "... I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
    "... The fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every American, even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe a sigh of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at local government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are asserting their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts. ..."
    "... Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt. ..."
    "... Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics. His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save failure. ..."
    "... I take it you do not believe economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries, unlike this country where everybody is middle class. ..."
    "... Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change. ..."
    crookedtimber.org
    Peter K. 09.02.16 at 8:38 pm
    @46

    " American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also been pro-union…"

    Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.

    I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered.

    That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing.

    The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left.

    The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed. This is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow get the upperhand.

    I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations. I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed.

    Will G-R 09.02.16 at 4:19 pm

    Bruce @ 104, I'm not clued into the SoCal-specific issues (so I don't know exactly how much a Chinatown-esque narrative should be raised in contrast to your description of LA water infrastructure as "the best of civic boosterism") but I'm thinking more of local governments like the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago.

    The fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every American, even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe a sigh of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at local government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are asserting their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts.

    So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc. through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people and institutions that will get rid of these officials if they overstep the bounds of what we as a nation consider acceptable. (This also extends to more informal institutions like the media: the local paper might not be shining the light on local corruption, but the media as such can fulfill its function and redeem its institutional legitimacy if something too egregious falls into the national spotlight.)

    Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt.

    stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 8:27 pm


    Bob Zannelli@95 Don't worry, your left credentials are quite in order. I'm not a regular, I post here occasionally for the same reason I occasionally post at BHL, sheer amazement at the insanity of it all. My views are quite beyond the pale.

    Nonetheless your views, even though they pass for left at CT, are nonsense. Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics. His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save failure.

    As for your dismissal of Marxist fantasies, I take it you do not believe economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries, unlike this country where everybody is middle class.

    Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change. That's happening. Nixon failed, Trump might fail, but the long slow march of the owners through the institutions of power, gentrifying as they go, continues.

    [Sep 02, 2016] Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasnt delivered

    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. ..."
    "... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Peter K. 09.02.16 at 8:38 pm

    @46

    " American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also been pro-union…"

    Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.

    I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered.

    That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing. The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed. This is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations.

    I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed.

    [Sep 02, 2016] Donald Trumps Latest Hire Shows Hes No Different Than His Old Republican Foes

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump once denounced his Republican primary opponents as being "totally in cahoots" with the unlimited-money super PACs supporting their campaigns. But that was then, and this is now. This week, Trump announced he hired the man whose activism literally led to the creation of super PACs , and whose most recent gig was leading a pro-Trump super PAC. ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | www.huffingtonpost.com
    Donald Trump once denounced his Republican primary opponents as being "totally in cahoots" with the unlimited-money super PACs supporting their campaigns. But that was then, and this is now. This week, Trump announced he hired the man whose activism literally led to the creation of super PACs , and whose most recent gig was leading a pro-Trump super PAC.

    That man is David Bossie. The longtime head of the conservative nonprofit Citizens United is now Trump's deputy campaign manager. Yes, that Citizens United.

    The conservative nonprofit group filed a lawsuit in 2007 against the Federal Election Commission. The case eventually snowballed into a 2010 Supreme Court decision that legalized unlimited corporate and union spending in elections, so long as it remained independent from candidates and political parties. A subsequent lower court decision based entirely on the Citizens United ruling opened the door to unlimited giving by wealthy individuals and, in turn, the FEC created super PACs to allow for this money to flow.

    Trump was once the candidate who denounced big money and declared his independence from donor influence through his self-financing. Now, he's schmoozing with big donors and asking for their advice as he prods them for money, while employing supporters of further campaign finance deregulation.

    "It does paint Donald Trump's campaign as not being friendly to campaign finance reform," said Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for the pro-campaign finance reform group Public Citizen.

    That may be of little surprise, considering the Republican Party platform calls for the elimination of all campaign contribution limits

    [Sep 02, 2016] Debbie Wasserman Schultz Hangs Onto Her Seat In Florida Primary

    Another slap in the face for Sanders: She defeated progressive law professor Tim Canova.
    www.huffingtonpost.com

    Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) won her primary Tuesday, a positive development for the congresswoman after a tumultuous past few months.

    Wasserman Schultz beat progressive law professor Tim Canova, who drew on the same anti-corporate momentum that fueled the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), earning him national attention and significant contributions from Sanders supporters. The political novice was even raising more money than Wasserman Schultz during the campaign.

    With 98 percent of the votes counted, Wasserman Schultz had 57 percent, to Canova's 43 percent, according to The Associated Press.

    Not that long ago, even talking about a possible Wasserman Schultz defeat would have been outlandish. She ran the Democratic National Committee, held a safe blue seat and had never had a competitive primary.

    But furor at Wasserman Schultz grew during the presidential primary as many progressives criticized her for seeming to tip the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton, and lingering frustrations over her management of the party spilled into the open. Canova campaigned against her as the "quintessential corporate machine politician." In March, President Barack Obama endorsed Wasserman Schultz, an early indication that the congresswoman needed some help in retaining her seat.

    Wasserman Schultz resigned as DNC chair on the eve of the convention last month as Sanders supporters gathered in Philadelphia took to the streets and protested her. The catalyst was a leak of DNC staffers' emails that seemed to show the party working to help get Clinton elected ― even though it was supposed to be neutral in the primary. The congresswoman wanted to keep her speaking spot at the convention, but ultimately, she was forced to give that up as well.

    Wasserman Schultz also faced outrage from progressives for co-sponsoring legislation to gut new rules put forward by the Obama administration intended to rein in predatory payday lending. The activist group Allied Progressive released an ad in Florida, hitting the DNC chair for teaming up with Republicans to defeat the policy.

    For Sanders supporters, the race became a fight against corporate interests and a way to eke out a victory after the senator's loss in the Democratic presidential primary.

    Yet despite this dissatisfaction, Canova's candidacy lagged. Sanders sent out fundraising emails on his behalf, but he never went to Florida and campaigned in person.

    "There are a lot of people who feel disappointed," Canova told The Atlantic. "There are a lot of people in South Florida who wanted Bernie Sanders to come down."

    Clinton, meanwhile, paid a surprise visit to a Wasserman Schultz field office and praised the congresswoman when she was in Miami last month. She also won the district against Sanders by a landslide.

    Being tied to Sanders could also have been a double-edged sword, as Canova told NBC News.

    "Bernie ran a lousy campaign in Florida," he said. "Bernie had his problems with certain constituencies that I don't have problems with."

    The 23rd district is heavily Democratic, and Wasserman Schultz is expected to win in November.

    [Sep 01, 2016] Crisis and Opportunity

    Notable quotes:
    "... For much of the last century the illusion of social progress sold through the New Deal, the Great Society and more recently through capitalist enterprise 'freed' from the bind of social accountability, ..."
    "... The Clinton's special gift to the people -- citizens, workers; the human condition as conceived through a filter of manufactured wants to serve the interests of an intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt 'leadership' class, lies in the social truths revealed by their actions. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, poses the greater-evilism of an ossified political class against the facts of its own creation now in dire need of resolution- wars to end wars, environmental crisis to end environmental crises, economic predation to end economic predation and manufactured social misery to end social misery. Hillary Clinton's roster of donors is the neoliberal innovation on Richard Nixon's enemies list- government as a shakedown racket where friend or foe and policies promoted or buried, are determined by 'donation' status rather than personal animus. ..."
    "... That is most ways conservative Republican Richard Nixon's actual policies were far Left of those of contemporary Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, is testament to the ideological mobility of political pragmatism freed from principle. ..."
    "... That Hillary Clinton is the candidate of officialdom links her service to Wall Street to America's wars of choice to dedicated environmental irresolution as the candidate who 'gets things done.' ..."
    "... As historical analog, the West has seen recurrent episodes of economic imperialism backed by state power; in the parlance, neoliberal globalization, over the last several centuries. ..."
    "... Left unstated in the competitive lesser-evilism of Party politics is the incapacity for political resolution in any relevant dimension. Donald Trump is 'dangerous' only by overlooking how dangerous the American political leadership has been for the last one and one-half centuries. So the question becomes: dangerous to whom? Without the most murderous military in the world, public institutions like the IMF dedicated to economic subjugation and predatory corporations that wield the 'free-choices' of mandated consumption, how dangerous would any politicians really be? And with them, how not-dangerous have liberal Democrats actually been? Candidates for political office are but manifestations of class interests put forward as systemic intent. ..."
    "... The liberals and progressives in the managerial class who support the status quo and are acting as enforcers to elect Hillary Clinton are but one recession away from being tossed overboard by those they serve within the existing economic order. ..."
    Aug 26, 2016 | store.counterpunch.org
    into political power. The structure of economic distribution seen through Foundation 'contributors;' oil and gas magnates, pharmaceutical and technology entrepreneurs of public largesse, the murder-for-hire industry (military) and various and sundry managers of social decline, makes evident the dissociation of social production from those that produced it.

    For much of the last century the illusion of social progress sold through the New Deal, the Great Society and more recently through capitalist enterprise 'freed' from the bind of social accountability, if not exactly from the need for regular and robust public support, served to hold at bay the perpetual tomorrow of lives lived for the theorized greater good of accumulated self-interest. The Clinton's special gift to the people -- citizens, workers; the human condition as conceived through a filter of manufactured wants to serve the interests of an intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt 'leadership' class, lies in the social truths revealed by their actions.

    Being three or more decades in the making, the current political season was never about the candidates except inasmuch as they embody the grotesquely disfigured and depraved condition of the body politic. The 'consumer choice' politics of Democrat versus Republican, Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, poses the greater-evilism of an ossified political class against the facts of its own creation now in dire need of resolution- wars to end wars, environmental crisis to end environmental crises, economic predation to end economic predation and manufactured social misery to end social misery. Hillary Clinton's roster of donors is the neoliberal innovation on Richard Nixon's enemies list- government as a shakedown racket where friend or foe and policies promoted or buried, are determined by 'donation' status rather than personal animus.

    That is most ways conservative Republican Richard Nixon's actual policies were far Left of those of contemporary Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, is testament to the ideological mobility of political pragmatism freed from principle. The absurd misdirection that we, the people, are driving this migration is belied by the economic power that correlates 1:1 with the policies put forward and enacted by 'the people's representatives', by the answers that actual human beings give to pollsters when asked and by the ever more conspicuous hold that economic power has over political considerations as evidenced by the roster of pleaders and opportunists granted official sees by the political class in Washington.

    To state the obvious, dysfunctional ideology- principles that don't 'work' in the sense of promoting broadly conceived public wellbeing, should be dispensable. But this very formulation takes at face value the implausible conceits of unfettered intentions mediated through functional political representation that are so well disproved by entities like the Clinton Foundation. Political 'pragmatism' as it is put forward by national Democrats quite closely resembles the principled opposition of Conservative Republicans through unified service to the economic powers-that-be. That Hillary Clinton is the candidate of officialdom links her service to Wall Street to America's wars of choice to dedicated environmental irresolution as the candidate who 'gets things done.'

    As historical analog, the West has seen recurrent episodes of economic imperialism backed by state power; in the parlance, neoliberal globalization, over the last several centuries. The result, in addition to making connected insiders rich as they wield social power over less existentially alienated peoples, has been the not-so-great wars, devastations, impositions and crimes-against-humanity that were the regular occurrences of the twentieth century. The 'innovation' of corporatized militarization to this proud tradition is as old as Western imperialism in its conception and as new as nuclear and robotic weapons, mass surveillance and apparently unstoppable environmental devastation in its facts.

    Left unstated in the competitive lesser-evilism of Party politics is the incapacity for political resolution in any relevant dimension. Donald Trump is 'dangerous' only by overlooking how dangerous the American political leadership has been for the last one and one-half centuries. So the question becomes: dangerous to whom? Without the most murderous military in the world, public institutions like the IMF dedicated to economic subjugation and predatory corporations that wield the 'free-choices' of mandated consumption, how dangerous would any politicians really be? And with them, how not-dangerous have liberal Democrats actually been? Candidates for political office are but manifestations of class interests put forward as systemic intent.

    The complaint that the Greens- Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka, don't have an effective political program approximates the claim that existing political and economic arrangements are open to challenge through the electoral process when the process exists to assure that effective challenges don't arise. The Democrats could have precluded the likelihood of a revolutionary movement, Left or Right, for the next half-century by electing Bernie Sanders and then undermining him to 'prove' that challenges to prevailing political economy don't work. The lack of imagination in running 'dirty Hillary' is testament to how large- and fragile, the perceived stakes are. But as how unviable Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are as political leaders becomes apparent- think George W. Bush had he run for office after the economic collapse of 2009 and without the cover of '9/11,' the political possibilities begin to open up.

    The liberals and progressives in the managerial class who support the status quo and are acting as enforcers to elect Hillary Clinton are but one recession away from being tossed overboard by those they serve within the existing economic order. The premise that the ruling class will always need dedicated servants grants coherent logic and aggregated self-interest that history has disproven time and again. A crude metaphor would be the unintended consequences of capitalist production now aggregating to environmental crisis.

    Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both such conspicuously corrupt tools of an intellectually and spiritually bankrupt social order that granting tactical brilliance to their ascendance, or even pragmatism given the point in history and available choices, seems wildly generous. For those looking for a political moment, one is on the way.

    Click here to listen to Chris Hedges' interview with Rob Urie on his new book, Zen Economics, now out in paperback (and digital format ) from CounterPunch Books.

    [Sep 01, 2016] Tim Canova telling it like it is: I will concede Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a corporate stooge.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I will concede Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a corporate stooge." ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Roger Smith , August 31, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    Also, Tim Canova telling it like it is :

    "I will concede Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a corporate stooge."

    Clive , August 31, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    No shit, Sherlock.

    diptherio , August 31, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    Keep digging, Watson!

    jsn , August 31, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    Revelation in a blinding flash of coprolite

    Jim Haygood , August 31, 2016 at 4:34 pm

    Rain tight, priced right
    Sheath your home in Coprolite™

    ewmayer , August 31, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    Ha – now *that's* a concession speech. At the risk of running the Wrath of Lambert, would that Bernie had been similarly brass-balled.

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 8:47 pm

    Heh, maybe some of us figure the wrath beats the alternative to sitting through another presidential cycle of sternly worded letters and petitions from the left.

    *sigh*

    It would be so much easier if I could get an HMO approved frontal lobotomy than I could either join the GOp lynch mob who thinks everything is some liberal plot or be hunky dory with representation that tells you to your face that they've rigged the system to thwart you ever actually having an individual that you actually want representing you.

    [Sep 01, 2016] Sanders media consultants to work for Wasserman Schultz challenger

    They lost... Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was re-elected.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Tad Devine, Mark Longabaugh, and Julian Mulvey, who helped lead Sanders' campaign and drove his highly acclaimed media presence, will help Democrat Tim Canova's campaign in the closing days of his race against Wasserman Schultz in South Florida, where congressional primaries will be held Aug. 30. ..."
    "... While Wasserman Schultz is still the favorite in her race, people aligned with Sanders have seized on Canova's candidacy as a proxy for their disapproval of Wasserman Schultz's stewardship of the DNC, pouring money into his effort. The addition of DML signals an increasing professionalization of the anti-Wasserman Schultz effort. ..."
    Aug 01, 2016 | POLITICO
    The consulting firm that made Bernie Sanders' ads in the 2016 presidential race is going to work for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's primary challenger.

    Tad Devine, Mark Longabaugh, and Julian Mulvey, who helped lead Sanders' campaign and drove his highly acclaimed media presence, will help Democrat Tim Canova's campaign in the closing days of his race against Wasserman Schultz in South Florida, where congressional primaries will be held Aug. 30.

    It's the latest move from Sanders supporters to go after Wasserman Schultz, after their outrage stemming from leaked emails drove her to resign as chairman of the Democratic National Committee this week.

    The move is a concrete step forward in Sanders' attempt to spread his "political revolution" after the end of his presidential campaign and another boost to Canova, a previously little-known law professor who has raised millions of dollars for his run against Wasserman Schultz. It's also the first tangible sign of heavier involvement from his political circles in down-ballot races between now and November. Sanders had previously endorsed Canova and raised money online for him and a selection of other congressional candidates.

    While Wasserman Schultz is still the favorite in her race, people aligned with Sanders have seized on Canova's candidacy as a proxy for their disapproval of Wasserman Schultz's stewardship of the DNC, pouring money into his effort. The addition of DML signals an increasing professionalization of the anti-Wasserman Schultz effort.

    The consultants' firm, Devine Mulvey Longabaugh, was behind spots like the famous "America" ad that helped define Sanders' campaign as he rose to prominence against Hillary Clinton, and it has worked for a wide range of down-ballot campaigns this cycle. Canova's campaign was already working with Revolution Messaging, Sanders' digital firm, as well.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Its remarkable how rarely the immigration debate is prefaced with an explicit prior that we should give absolute priority to what is best for the receiving county and their citizens.

    Notable quotes:
    "... As you note, its not clear that we in the US need ANY immigration; it's hard to claim that 300 million people is not enough. If we choose to allow immigration, it should be few and strongly selective, i.e. the cream of the crop and selected to benefit the US. ..."
    "... But it benefits the Mandarin class, so opposition or even debate been defined by them as heresy. It appears that the non-Mandarin class, who has to live with the downsides, is staring to reject this orthodoxy. ..."
    "... We import, legally, 50,000 people (plus families IIRC) via a random visa lottery. This verges on insanity. ..."
    "... H1-B applicants require a BA or equivalent, but are then selected by lottery. Hardly selected specifically for the needs of the country. In 2015, 6 of the top 10 firms by number of applications approved were Indian IT firms (i.e. outsourcing. I'm sure you are aware of the long term and recent complaints concerning direct replacement of US citizens by these workers. ..."
    "... I find the system you describe which relies, by design, on perpetually importing new waves of a helot underclass to be both immoral and unsustainable. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Observer -> ken melvin... Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 09:04 AM

    It's remarkable how rarely the immigration debate is prefaced with an explicit prior that we should give absolute priority to what is best for the receiving county and their citizens.

    As you note, its not clear that we in the US need ANY immigration; it's hard to claim that 300 million people is not enough. If we choose to allow immigration, it should be few and strongly selective, i.e. the cream of the crop and selected to benefit the US.

    Its not credible to complain about low employment/population ratios, limited wage pressures, high poverty rates, overburdened social safety nets, limited prospects for those on the left side of the bell curve, and inequality, and simultaneously support more immigration of the poor, unskilled, or difficult to assimilate.

    But it benefits the Mandarin class, so opposition or even debate been defined by them as heresy. It appears that the non-Mandarin class, who has to live with the downsides, is staring to reject this orthodoxy.

    Observer -> DeDude... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:46 AM
    We import, legally, 50,000 people (plus families IIRC) via a random visa lottery. This verges on insanity.

    H1-B applicants require a BA or equivalent, but are then selected by lottery. Hardly selected specifically for the needs of the country. In 2015, 6 of the top 10 firms by number of applications approved were Indian IT firms (i.e. outsourcing. I'm sure you are aware of the long term and recent complaints concerning direct replacement of US citizens by these workers.

    I'm in favor of significant penalties for employing illegal workers.

    DeDude -> Observer... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 10:34 AM
    Yes lets debate who is going to take care of washing and changing adult diapers on 80 million baby boomers as they deteriorate towards their final resting place, and who is going to dig the holes if we have deported all those who know which end of a shovel is the business end.
    Observer -> DeDude... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:24 AM
    I find the system you describe which relies, by design, on perpetually importing new waves of a helot underclass to be both immoral and unsustainable.

    But I can see the short term attraction for the Mandarins.

    The fact that a helot class makes many of our citizens effectively unemployable is just, I suppose, collateral damage?

    People can learn which end of shovel works.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Alt-right is the burgeoning neolib dog whistle alt-right , a shorthand for those who thinks Clinton should go to jail for her misconduct

    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberals use the term "alt-right" as shorthand for those who don't drink the Clinton neocon Kool-Aid. ..."
    "... The bigotry of warmongering neoliberals against anyone who disagrees. ..."
    "... The alt.* hierarchy is a major class of newsgroups in Usenet, containing all newsgroups whose name begins with "alt.", organized hierarchically. The alt.* hierarchy is not confined to newsgroups of any specific subject or type, although in practice more formally organized groups tend not to occur in alt.*. ... (Wikipedia) ..."
    "... It basically was like snorting a line of Cocaine. We keep on going back and it is getting less and less pleasurable. ..."
    "... The final stage will probably be the stripping of all national function with the economy. Much like the free market intellectuals want. This will finally expose it. White's will know. The government they were taught to hate, liquidated, instead a new market state replaced. Their democracy decayed and Capitalists running international slave states instead pushing less product for their indentured servitude. Then we are right back to Bismark and Wells. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> EMichael... Friday, August 26, 2016 at 06:26 PM
    The burgeoning neolib dog whistle "alt-right" is short for "a$$hole who thinks Clinton should go to jail for 1000 times the misconduct that would get that a$$hole 10 years hard time".

    Neoliberals use the term "alt-right" as shorthand for those who don't drink the Clinton neocon Kool-Aid.

    The bigotry of warmongering neoliberals against anyone who disagrees.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne...
    (So-called 'alt groups' have been around
    since the earliest days of the internet.)

    The alt.* hierarchy is a major class of newsgroups in Usenet, containing all newsgroups whose name begins with "alt.", organized hierarchically. The alt.* hierarchy is not confined to newsgroups of any specific subject or type, although in practice more formally organized groups tend not to occur in alt.*. ... (Wikipedia)

    Ben Groves :
    There are a lot of Jews in the "Alt-Right"(aka, a Spencer invented term, that they need to at least admit). Most have ties to neo-conservatism in their past outside the desperate paleo types hanging on. To me, they are "racist", but lets face it, the gentile left can just be as racist and historically, more dangerous. Trying to be reactionary is just not a neo-liberal thing. Fabians were quite racist as HG Wells outright said he was. Their vision of globalism was a Eurocentric world of socialism and those 3rd world "brownies" were setting socialism back and needed it to be enforced on them. The Nazi's took Fabian economics and that dream to the nadir.

    The problem is, the 'Alt-Right' is so upfront about it with a typical neo-liberal economic plan. Even their "nationalism" has a * by it. Economic Nationalism isn't just about trade deals, but a organic, cohesive flow to the nation. Being in business isn't about stuffing your pockets, it is about serving your country and indeed, stuff like the Epi-pen price hikes would be considered treason. You would lower your prices or off with your head. This, is a area where the "Alt-Right" doesn't want to do. They are not true connies in the Bismark-ian sense. They want a nominal judeo-christianity inside a classically liberal mindset of market expansion where white's pull the strings. That is simply dialectical conflict. Who invented capitalism? It was Sephardic Jews(say, unlike Communism which attracted Ashkenazi much to Herr Weitling chagrin). Modern materialism is all things like Trump really care about. So do his handlers like Spencer. Without the Jews, there is no capitalism period. They financed it through several different methods since the 1600's. Even the American Revolution was financed by them and the founders absolutely knew where the bread was buttered. The Great Depression was really the death rattle of the House of Rothschild and its British Empire(with the Federal Reserve pushing on the string to completely destroy them, but that is another post for another time). Capitalism as a system does not work and never has worked.

    It basically was like snorting a line of Cocaine. We keep on going back and it is getting less and less pleasurable.

    The final stage will probably be the stripping of all national function with the economy. Much like the free market intellectuals want. This will finally expose it. White's will know. The government they were taught to hate, liquidated, instead a new market state replaced. Their democracy decayed and Capitalists running international slave states instead pushing less product for their indentured servitude. Then we are right back to Bismark and Wells.

    ilsm -> Ben Groves, -1
    "gentile left" bigotry is founded against po' white folk who are not as educated in the logical fallacies the limo libruls use to continue plundering them.

    Everyone is so busy calling out Trumpistas they do not see their own "inclusive frailty".

    [Aug 29, 2016] The im migration issue is the democrats effort to distract Donald Trumps outreach to the black community

    Aug 29, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com

    ToddElliottKoger

    , 2016-08-29 01:18:06
    The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's outreach to the black community . . .

    Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop" issue is minor at this point.

    What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black community that he needs their help.

    He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades of influence over the black community.

    He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities (and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump" campaign is he actually represents "racial unity."

    Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding president's popularity. He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on "winning" the support of "poor blacks."

    He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must make the black community understand "the opportunity presented."

    Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment political brokers) and make things "clear" that a "VOTE" for Trump is the black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.

    Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand the importance of "moving past" those things that have separated us. Mr. Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.

    THIS IS THE ONLY WAY MR. TRUMP CAN WIN . . . .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVEnw82HEvc

    Aldythe ToddElliottKoger , 2016-08-29 02:05:35
    The immigration issue is how he won the primaries and it is the issue that has made him popular with his fans. It is typically the focus of his speeches. How can you suggest that the democrats are attempting to distract anyone on immigration? Trump is the one who talks about it constantly.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Trump and immigration

    Notable quotes:
    "... Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration and anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the debate. ..."
    "... You are so silly. How many times has Hillary changed her mind on immigration? In fact, I am sure all of you recall a time when she suggested a fence and deportation. ..."
    "... Here's Hillary in favor of a wall and deportations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DckY2dRFtxc ..."
    "... Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time Hillarys plan for improving Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more ..."
    "... One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of thousands of farm owners and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    ToddElliottKoger , 2016-08-28 23:56:33
    The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's outreach to the black community . . .

    Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop" issue is minor at this point.

    What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black community that he needs their help.

    He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades of influence over the black community.

    He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities (and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump" campaign is he actually represents "racial unity."

    Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding president's popularity. He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on "winning" the support of "poor blacks."

    He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must make the black community understand "the opportunity presented."

    Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment political brokers) and make things "clear" that a "VOTE" for Trump is the black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.

    Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand the importance of "moving past" those things that have separated us. Mr. Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.

    THIS IS THE ONLY WAY MR. TRUMP CAN WIN . . . .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVEnw82HEvc

    Menger , 2016-08-28 22:58:13
    Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration and anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the debate.
    bcarey , 2016-08-28 22:42:59
    You are so silly. How many times has Hillary changed her mind on immigration? In fact, I am sure all of you recall a time when she suggested a fence and deportation.
    bcarey -> bcarey , 2016-08-28 22:50:54
    Here's Hillary in favor of a wall and deportations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DckY2dRFtxc
    SysConfig , 2016-08-28 21:11:38
    Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time Hillarys plan for improving Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more . If they are so good why doesn't Europe take them for us..
    PaulDMorton , 2016-08-28 21:01:34
    What gets lost in all of this how the USA allowed Mexico to spiral into the corrupt, poor country they currently are. It's time for the US to get firm with Mexico and help them get on their feet - which their corrupt leaders will hate, but tough shit. There is no excuse to border the United States of America and have such poor living standards for their people.

    Although not ideal, a wall is a very direct message to Mexico's govt that the US will not tolerate their corrupt government and drug cartels.

    PaulDMorton , 2016-08-28 20:52:12
    What's wrong with Trump changing his stance? He listened to his supporters (most of whom think some type of amnesty is appropriate) and tweaked his immigration plan.. *gasp* It seems like a mature, reasonable move from an intelligent strong leader - which Trump is. He will be an excellent President.
    NickedTurpin , 2016-08-28 20:52:10
    One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of thousands of farm owners and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations.

    The trouble with both candidates is the Believability Factor. No mater what they may say, it's doubtful they will do what they say. There needs to be election laws that make ignoring campaign 'promises' once in office impeachable.

    pfox33 , 2016-08-28 19:14:41
    Trump's original platform of deporting 11 million illegals isn't doable. That would involve round-ups and incarcerations last seen in Nazi Germany. I don't think the American people at large would stand for that.

    So the spiel has been morphing into something more palatable to Joe Average. He keeps trying to placate his base by having his surrogates assure them that nothing has changed but it obviously has.

    [Aug 28, 2016] The Childish Villain-ification Of Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization ..."
    "... Recall that the Obomber passed the legislation that legalized propaganda (lying to the public) and permits no remedy other than the ability to protest in fenced in free speech zones until the cops show up as head knockers or agents provocateurs. ..."
    "... You say that Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him. Anyone's economic policies will be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for Trump. That's baked into the political and economic structure of things. It is part of the natural order. ..."
    "... The difference with Trump is that after the economic catastrophe that will happen--is now happening , it may be possible under a Trump administration to pick things up and rebuild. Under any other likely regime, the aftermath of economic catastrophe will be limitless debt peonage and unlimited oligarchy. ..."
    "... The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, "the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air raids over the Golan Heights." ..."
    Aug 26, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    MadMax2 | Aug 27, 2016 5:04:48 PM | 103
    @okie farmer 80, hoarsewhisperer 85

    Some real beauties in there alright. Kerry giving himself yet another uppercut.

    "...U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President Bashar Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, ..."

    Not Assad must go. Not close. Yet, still blissfully ignorant of the fact their more extreme moderates are getting their jollies out of hacking sick 12 year old kids heads off with fishing knive. I wonder at what point does 'moderate' become a dirty word...?

    @Noirette Pt1

    Big crowds scare Hillary these days. Best not to shake her up too much. I wonder though, how she expects to compete with Trumps fervour... must be pretty happy that they can do a nice back door job on election day. When opening act Rudy G is getting pummelled with calls of 'does Rudy have Alzheimer's...?' you know you're doing something right - really, just...awesome political theatre.

    smarterthanyou | Aug 27, 2016 5:25:22 PM | 104
    vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization
    fast freddy | Aug 27, 2016 5:54:37 PM | 105
    The ZioMedia is in the tank for Hillary. Impossible for a candidate who cannot draw a crowd to be "ahead in the polls". And a candidate who packs 10K ppl into any given space at will to be "behind in the polls". Humiliatingly low turnout for the HBomb is stage-crafted by all ziomedia outlets to hide this embarrassing fact.

    Recall that Billy Blowjob ushered in Media Consolidation which gave 5 ziomedia corporations carte blanche to bullshit the public.

    Recall that the Obomber passed the legislation that legalized propaganda (lying to the public) and permits no remedy other than the ability to protest in fenced in free speech zones until the cops show up as head knockers or agents provocateurs.

    Curtis | Aug 27, 2016 6:27:05 PM | 106
    I was reading articles on the Turkish attack into Syria and there is no mention of the Syrian government nor whether/when/if Turkey will engage the Syrian Army. But then I found this chart from CNN:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/25/middleeast/syria-isis-whos-fighting-who-trnd/index.html

    For one thing, they pretend ISIS has no support. We all know differently. Also, it looks like every one is fighting ISIS except ..... Free Syrian Army and Saudi Arabia and Gulf Allies.

    Macon Richardson | Aug 27, 2016 7:57:39 PM | 108
    You say that Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him. Anyone's economic policies will be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for Trump. That's baked into the political and economic structure of things. It is part of the natural order.

    The difference with Trump is that after the economic catastrophe that will happen--is now happening , it may be possible under a Trump administration to pick things up and rebuild. Under any other likely regime, the aftermath of economic catastrophe will be limitless debt peonage and unlimited oligarchy.

    ALberto | Aug 27, 2016 7:58:07 PM | 109
    The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, "the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air raids over the Golan Heights."

    It was struck. An SA-9 from the Iftiraas Air Defense Base and an SA-2 near the Khalkhaala AB were fired. But, the technical wizardry was most on display when an S-300 (SA-10 "Grumble) super-air-defense missile was fired from the Republican Guard base near the Mazza AB at the foot of Qaasiyoon Mountain west of Damascus. This was done so that the F-16's electronic countermeasures would first fix on the SA-2 and SA-9 while the S-300 plowed forward to exterminate the vermin inside the Israeli aircraft. The S-300 vaporized the Israeli bomber. No evidence was seen of the pilot ejecting. Instead, eyewitness accounts described a ball of fire over the Golan and the remains scattering into the air over the Huleh Valley in Palestine.

    Also, the Israelis lost 2 helicopters while flying missions over the Golan Heights in an effort to bolster the sagging morale of the Takfiri rats of Nusra/Alqaeda and Al-Ittihaad Al-Islaami li-Ajnaad Al-Shaam. The 2 helicopters went down over the area near Qunaytra City and were reportedly shot down by shoulder fired, heat-seeking missiles deployed throughout the Syrian Army.

    source - http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-shoots-down-israeli-warplane-f-16-bomber-and-helicopters/5471009

    [Aug 27, 2016] Democrats attempt to take the high road on immigration ignores that our current Democratic President has deported more illegal immigrants than any previous President before him.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous President before him. ..."
    "... With all their concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit centers. ..."
    "... The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves noble for empowering foreign nationals. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous President before him.

    In 2014 he deported nine times more people than had been deported twenty years earlier. Some years it was nearly double the numbers under George W. Bush. And yes, I know it was not strict fillibuster proof majority in the Senate for his first two years, but damn close and the only thing we got was a half assed stimulus made up largely of tax stimulus AND that gift to for profit medicine and insurance, the ACA.

    With all their concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit centers.

    Trump says mean things, but the Democrats, well once again actions should speak louder than words but it isn't happening.

    Starveling , August 26, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves noble for empowering foreign nationals.

    I guess this is one way for a supposedly pro-labor party to liquidate its working class elements.

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:38 pm

    "hear, here" -- …1 googleplex %

    [Aug 27, 2016] DNC is doubling down on the Victory Fund scam

    Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "When the Democratic National Committee announced its $32 million fundraising haul last month, it touted the result as evidence of 'energy and excitement' for Hillary Clinton's nomination for the White House and other races down the ballot. The influx of money, however, also owes in part to an unprecedented workaround of political spending limits that lets the party tap into millions of dollars more from Clinton's wealthiest donors" [ Bloomberg ]. "At least $7.3 million of the DNC's July total originated with payments from hundreds of major donors who had already contributed the maximum $33,400 to the national committee, a review of Federal Election Commission filings shows. The contributions, many of which were made months earlier, were first bundled by the Hillary Victory Fund and then transferred to the state Democratic parties, which effectively stripped the donors' names and sent the money to the DNC as a lump sum. Of the transfers that state parties made to the DNC for which donor information was available, an overwhelming proportion came from contributions from maxed-out donors."

    Lovely. Doubling down on the Victory Fund scam. Word of the day: Effrontery.

    PlutoniumKun , August 26, 2016 at 3:22 pm

    Re: Clintons campaign possible strategy of making a vote for Clinton 'a vote for a winner'.

    I know its conventional opinion that when in doubt, people prefer to vote for who they perceive to be a 'winner', but I wonder if this really applies with two such disliked candidates. I've a theory that one reason Brexit won is that the polls beforehand saying it would be a narrow 'no', gave 'permission' for people to vote with their conscience rather than their pragmatism. In other words, presented with a 'pragmatic, but dirty' vote for X, but a 'fun, but risky' vote for Y', people will vote X if its very close or it looks like Y will win, but may be tempted to vote Y if they are pretty sure X will win.

    Part of me thinks the Clinton campaign would have tested the theory to the limit before going for a strategy like this, but the evidence from the nomination campaign is that they are all tactics, no strategy. It seems to me to be a very risky game to play, not least because promoting Clinton as a sure winner may make wavering progressives simply opt to stay at home.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    I don't even think you have to be a progressive for that to be a concern if you are the Clinton campaign.
    They know the public is not enthusiastic about voting for her for the most part, and yet they are setting up a meme where she is unbeatable. It isn't necessarily going to just keep Trump voters home. But how many people who don't want Clinton but really don't want Trump will be able to convince themselves that there is no need to go hold their nose and vote for her. Republicans who think she is too far left, but he is crazy for instance will be just as likely to stay home as the lefties who know she is lying Neoliberal War Criminal, but not fascist like Trump. (And I know the real fascism signs are all with Clinton, but some may have missed it).

    jsn , August 26, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    On fascism I had the exact same thought after reading Adolph Reeds "Vote For the Lying, NeoLiberal War-Monger, It's Important" link last week.

    Reed's critique was that communist leader Thallman failed to anticipate Hitler's liquidation of all opposition, but frankly with Hillary's and Donald's respective histories its hard for me to see how Trump is more dangerous on this: Hillary has a deep and proven lethal track record and wherever she could justify violent action in the past she has, she keeps an enemies list, holds grudges and acts on them, all thoroughly documented.

    I certainly won't speculate that Trump couldn't do the same or worse, given the state of our propaganda and lawlessness amongst the elite, but like all the other negatives in this campaign its hard to ascertain who really will be worse. Lambert's bet on gridlock in a Trump administration has the further advantage of re-activating the simulation of "anti-war, anti-violence" amongst Dem nomenklatura.

    pretzelattack , August 26, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    exactly, i'm not saying reed is a typical democrat apologist, but i'm not buying that trump is more dangerous than clinton.

    clarky90 , August 26, 2016 at 6:55 pm

    We have collectively known Donald Trump and much of his family for the last 30 or 40 years. Over the years, he has evoked different emotions in me. (Usually being appalled by his big-city, realestate tycoon posturing etc). However, I have never been frightened by him. To me, he is more like a bombastic, well loved, show-off uncle.

    Today I see Trump as a modern day prophet (spiritual teacher). A bringer of light (clarity) to the masses. We live in a rigged system that gives Nobel Peace Prizes to mass murderers; that charges a poor child $600 for a $1 lifesaving Epipen. Trump is waking up The People. Finalllyyyyyy!!

    clarky90 , August 26, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    In my experience, people usually do not change for the better as they age. However, it does happen!; peasant girl (Joan of Arc), patent inspector (Einstein)

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Maybe Trump is the Claudius of our time…..

    …now, as to whom are the Pretorians…..??

    Elizabeth Burton , August 26, 2016 at 7:51 pm

    It's not about what Trump will or won't do. It's about not handing all three branches of government over to the GOP, which has the Libertarian agenda of eliminating said government altogether. I find it interesting that so many people scornful of identity politics nevertheless seem to be as addicted as anyone to making this a horse race between two candidates that has no real far-reaching consequences beyond with each will or won't do in the Oval Office.

    Brindle , August 26, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    So true: "My view is that triumphalism from the Clinton campaign - which now includes most of the political class, including the press and both party establishments, and ignores event risk - is engineered to get early voters to "go with the winner."–Lambert
    I have noticed on Google News several "Clinton weighing cabinet choices" articles, to me there is whistling past the graveyard quality to all this. They want the election over now-the votes are just a formality.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    They really really do not have any short term memory do they? I mean it took sticking both thumbs on the scale and some handy dandy shenanigans with voters to get her past the Primary finish line. And her opponent there was much nicer about pointing out her flaws than her current opponent. It is true they won't have any obvious elections that disprove their position out there, but when you are spending millions and your opponent nothing and he is still within the margin of error with you in the states that people are watching the closest…

    Although that isn't considering the fears of what other shoes have to drop both in the world and in the news that could derail her victory parade, they may have more to fear from that.

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    It's possible they know.

    One of the problems Democrats have and the 50 state strategy addressed is voting in very Democratic precincts. Without constant pressure, many proud Democrats won't vote because they don't know any Republicans. It's in the bag. College kids are the worst voters alive. They will forget come election day or not be registered because they moved. Dean squeezed these districts. These districts are where Democrats , out in 2010 and 2014 and even a little in 2012. Mittens is a robber baron.

    If Democratic turnout is low and Hillary wins with crossover votes, what happens? It's very likely those Republicans vote for down ticket Republicans. Even for the people who have to vote against Trump, if they believe he is a special kind of super fascist will they bother to vote for the allies of a crook such as Hillary? It's possible Hillary wins and drops a seat in the Senate depending on turnout.

    I think it's clear Hillary isn't going to bring out any kind of voter activism. Judging from photos in Virginia where one would hope a commanding Hillary victory could jump start the Democrats for next year's governors and legislative races, the Democratic Party is dead or very close to it.

    What if Hillary wins but does the unthinkable and delivers a Republican pickup in the Senate? She needs to keep Republicans from coming out because she isn't going to drive Democratic turnout to a spot where that can win on its own.

    Hillary needs to win to keep the never Trump crowd in the GOP from voting because she knows the Democratic side which relies on very Democratic districts and transient voters will not impress. An emboldened GOP congress will be a tough environment for Hillary, and GOP voters won't tolerate bipartisanship especially for anyone suspected of not helping the party 100%. Those House Republicans have to face 2018 and the smaller but arguably more motivated electorate. They will come down hard on Hillary if she can't win the Senate which a literal donkey could do.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    Hell I don't want Clinton to win by any margin. But if anyone thinks that the bipartisan nature of her possible victory will mean anything but Republicans hunting her scalp, and dare I say getting it, they are not paying attention. As much as both the Benghazi and the email thing has them all flummoxed because the real crimes involved with both are crimes they either agree with or want to use. The Foundation on the other hand, not so much, they will make the case that this is a global slush fund because it is. And the McDonnell decision is not going to save her Presidency, much as it would if she were indicted in a Court.

    I should add, that is with or without winning the Senate. Much of the loyalty any Dems there have towards her will disappear when it is obvious that she keeps most of the money AND has no coattails. Oh, they might not vote to impeach her, but that is about it.

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    Hillary's only defense is to win the Senate and to be able to stifle investigations through the appearance of a mandate. 2018 is the 2012 cycle, and that is 2006 which should be a good year for the Republicans (a credit to Howard Dean). It's a tough map for Team Blue. If they don't win the Senate in November, they won't win it in 2018.

    With 2018 on its way, a weak Democratic situation will make the Democrats very jumpy as Hillary is clearly not delivering the coattails they imagined.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    She isn't going to have a mandate. Oh, the electoral college count might look good. But regardless of who wins this sucker, I'm betting this is going to be one of the lowest, if not the lowest, voter turnout for any Presidential election in the last century. I would not be surpised if more people stay home than vote. And that is not a mandate.

    The Senate isn't going to stifle investigations. She doesn't even have to help the Dems get a majority for that problem of conviction if impeached to rear its ugly head. No way is there going to be 2/3 of the Senate in one party or the other. That still won't stop the House. Just as it didn't for her husband.

    Pat , August 26, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous President before him. In 2014 he deported nine times more people than had been deported twenty years earlier. Some years it was nearly double the numbers under George W. Bush. And yes, I know it was not strict fillibuster proof majority in the Senate for his first two years, but damn close and the only thing we got was a half assed stimulus made up largely of tax stimulus AND that gift to for profit medicine and insurance, the ACA. With all their concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit centers.

    Trump says mean things, but the Democrats, well once again actions should speak louder than words but it isn't happening.

    Starveling , August 26, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves noble for empowering foreign nationals.

    I guess this is one way for a supposedly pro-labor party to liquidate its working class elements.

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:38 pm

    "hear, here" -- …1 googleplex %

    [Aug 26, 2016] Bernie Sanders and the Clintonite Neoliberal Consensus

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Clinton approach from hereon in is one of masquerade: appropriate the Bernie Sanders aura, give the impression that the party has somehow miraculously moved leftward, and snap up a stash of votes come November. ..."
    "... clinging to the fiction that the Clintons are somehow progressive. This ignores the fundamental fact that Bill Clinton, during his presidential tenure through the 1990s, made parts of the GOP strategy plan relatively progressive by way of comparison. Stunned by this embrace of hard right ideas, the Republicans would be kept out of the White House till 2000. ..."
    www.globalresearch.ca
    The reality is that millions were readying themselves to vote for him come November precisely because he was Sanders, meshed with the ideas of basic social democracy. He betrayed them.

    The Clinton approach from hereon in is one of masquerade: appropriate the Bernie Sanders aura, give the impression that the party has somehow miraculously moved leftward, and snap up a stash of votes come November.

    The approach of the Republicans will be self-defeating, clinging to the fiction that the Clintons are somehow progressive. This ignores the fundamental fact that Bill Clinton, during his presidential tenure through the 1990s, made parts of the GOP strategy plan relatively progressive by way of comparison. Stunned by this embrace of hard right ideas, the Republicans would be kept out of the White House till 2000.

    Be wary of any language of change that is merely the language of promise. Keep in mind that US politics remains a "binary" choice, an effective non-choice bankrolled by financial power.

    [Aug 26, 2016] Bernie Sanders' Dubious "Our Revolution" Initiative. Fake Leftist "Big Money Politics" by Stephen Lendman" href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/stephen-lendman">Stephen Lendman

    Notable quotes:
    "... He's no more a progressive revolutionary than any other member of Congress, nor Washington's bipartisan criminal class, bureaucrats included – Sanders a card-carrying member throughout his deplorable political career. ..."
    "... A major concern is the group's tax status as a 501(c)(4) organization able to get large donations from anonymous sources – meaning the usual ones buying influence, letting Sanders pretend to be progressive and revolutionary while operating otherwise. ..."
    "... Claire Sandberg was the initiative's organizing director. "I left and others left because we were alarmed that Jeff (Weaver) would mismanage this organization as he mismanaged the campaign," she explained. ..."
    "... She fears Weaver will "betray its core purpose by accepting money from billionaires and not remaining grassroots funded and plowing that billionaire cash into TV instead of investing it in building a genuine movement." ..."
    "... Vermont GOP vice chairman Brady Toensing blasted Sanders for "preach(ing) transparency and then tr(ying) to set up the most shadowy of shadowy fund-raising organization to support" what he claims to endorse. ..."
    "... Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
    "... His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." ..."
    "... http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html ..."
    "... Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com . ..."
    "... Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. ..."
    Aug 26, 2016 | Global Research -

    He's no more a progressive revolutionary than any other member of Congress, nor Washington's bipartisan criminal class, bureaucrats included – Sanders a card-carrying member throughout his deplorable political career.

    Endorsing Hillary Clinton after rhetorically campaigning against what she represents exposed his duplicity – a progressive in name only. An opportunist for his own self-interest, he wants his extended 15 minutes of fame made more long-lasting.

    Claiming his new initiative "will fight to transform America and advance the progressive agenda (he) believe(s) in" belies his deplorable House and Senate voting records, on the wrong side of most major issues, especially supporting most US wars of aggression.

    A separate Sanders Institute intends operating like his Our Revolution initiative. Maybe his real aim is cashing in on his high-profile persona – including a new book due out in mid-November titled "Our Revolution: A Future To Believe In."

    Save your money. Its contents are clear without reading it – the same mumbo jumbo he used while campaigning.

    It excludes his deplorable history of promising one thing, doing another, going along with Washington scoundrels like Hillary to get along, betraying his loyal supporters – the real Sanders he wants concealed.

    On August 24, The New York Times said his Our Revolution initiative "has been met with criticism and controversy over its financing and management."

    It's "draw(ing) from the same pool of 'dark money' (he) condemned" while campaigning. After his former campaign manager Jeff Weaver was hired to lead the group, "the majority of its staff resigned," said The Times – described as "eight core staff members…"

    "The group's entire organizing department quit this week, along with people working in digital and data positions." They refused to reconsider after Sanders urged them to stay on.

    A major concern is the group's tax status as a 501(c)(4) organization able to get large donations from anonymous sources – meaning the usual ones buying influence, letting Sanders pretend to be progressive and revolutionary while operating otherwise.

    Claire Sandberg was the initiative's organizing director. "I left and others left because we were alarmed that Jeff (Weaver) would mismanage this organization as he mismanaged the campaign," she explained.

    She fears Weaver will "betray its core purpose by accepting money from billionaires and not remaining grassroots funded and plowing that billionaire cash into TV instead of investing it in building a genuine movement."

    Vermont GOP vice chairman Brady Toensing blasted Sanders for "preach(ing) transparency and then tr(ying) to set up the most shadowy of shadowy fund-raising organization to support" what he claims to endorse.

    "What I'm seeing here is a senator who is against big money in politics, but only when" it applies to others, not himself, Toensing added.

    Campaign Legal Center's Paul S. Ryan said "(t)here are definitely some red flags with respect to the formation of this group…We're in a murky area."

    Is Sanders' real aim self-promotion and enrichment? Is his Our Revolution more a scheme than an honest initiative?

    Is it sort of like the Clinton Foundation, Sanders wanting to grab all he can – only much less able to match the kind of super-wealth Bill and Hillary amassed?

    Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

    His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

    http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

    Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

    Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

    [Aug 25, 2016] Bernie Sanders' new 'revolution' rocked by revolt of its own as top staff head for the exits US elections

    independent.co.uk
    Already, however, the whole enterprise is in turmoil, thanks to the resignations of several of its top staff members even before it was off the ground, who were angered by the decision of Senator Sanders and his wife, Jane Sanders, to appoint his former campaign manager, John Weaver, as its top officer over their very clearly expressed objections.

    Among those heading to the exits was Claire Sandberg, who was the digital organising director of the campaign and the organising director of Our Revolution. Her entire department of four people quit, in fact.

    She and the others who joined the revolt, including Kenneth Pennington, who was to be the digital director of Our Revolution, were opposed to Mr Weaver's involvement both for reasons of personality clashes and because they felt he mismanaged the Senator's campaign in part by spending too much money on television advertising and failing to harness grassroots support.

    They also contended that Mr Weaver would only exacerbate an additional concern they had with the new entity namely that it has been set up as a so-called 501(c)(4) organisation, which, because of its charitable status, is in theory not allowed to work directly with the election of political candidates and is able to receive large sums from anonymous donors.

    A large part of the premise of Mr Sanders's campaign for president had been precisely to wean political campaigns from the flood of dark money that flows into them. That the Our Revolution entity has been set up precisely to take such money looked to them like a betrayal.

    According to several reports a majority of the staff appointed to run the new outfit resigned as soon as the appointment of Mr Weaver was confirmed on Monday

    [Aug 25, 2016] I wonder if the infomation about Jane Sanders tenure as the president of Burlington college was the dirt that the Clinton campaign was planning to use against Bernie before he endorsed you-know-who on July 12

    Notable quotes:
    "... And, pardon me for being a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist, I wonder if this was the dirt that the Clinton campaign was planning to use against Bernie before he endorsed you-know-who on July 12. ..."
    "... President Sanders was not to last long at BC and she left for still unknown circumstances soon after the purchase of the property. ..."
    "... The next Presidents, Cjristine Plunkett, Mike Smith and Carol Moore then sold off large portions of the property to real estate developers and then, when the ship finally sank under increasingly hopeless and clueless leadership, all of whom could not increase enrollment or or raise any funds (in fact we were eventually told that the school had given up fund raising), Burlington College went into a relentless downward spiral which tragically and painfully closed its doors in May, 20016. ..."
    "... It may ultimately have been the straw that broke the camel's back, and it looks terrible that Jane Sanders was at the helm and instrumental in making the decision, but it also sounds like it was a bold effort – that the Board of Directors signed off on – to change the school's fortunes, and one that unfortunately could not overcome years of struggle and financial instability. ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Arizona Slim , August 24, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    http://vtdigger.org/2016/08/23/state-taxpayers-pick-tab-burlington-college-student-records/

    My comments on this link: Jane Sanders used to be president of Burlington College.

    And, pardon me for being a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist, I wonder if this was the dirt that the Clinton campaign was planning to use against Bernie before he endorsed you-know-who on July 12.

    Katharine , August 24, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    But if she left five years ago, it is difficult to see how she could be blamed for this specific problem. Whatever her role in the financial problems may have been (and I admit I don't understand that well), her successors were responsible for what was done subsequently, and if they knew they might have to close down should have taken steps to protect student records and ensure their future accessibility.

    Anne , August 24, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    This was a comment left on that article by someone named Sandy Baird:

    Thank you for this reporting. The demise of Burlington College was not caused by Jane Sanders. The Board of trustees and the then President Jane Sanders bought the property from the Catholic diocese. President Sanders was an ambitious President and sought to increase the enrollment by creating substantial, innovative and effective programs, which included the Burlington College/Cuba Semester abroad and by increasing the profile of the school in the community and state. Jane's plan always was to create a thriving campus for a growing student body and for a unique college which had as its mission the "building of sustainable, just, humane and beautiful communities." However, President Sanders was not to last long at BC and she left for still unknown circumstances soon after the purchase of the property.

    The next Presidents, Cjristine Plunkett, Mike Smith and Carol Moore then sold off large portions of the property to real estate developers and then, when the ship finally sank under increasingly hopeless and clueless leadership, all of whom could not increase enrollment or or raise any funds (in fact we were eventually told that the school had given up fund raising), Burlington College went into a relentless downward spiral which tragically and painfully closed its doors in May, 20016.

    The school, the property and the beach will now be picked up by the developer, Eric Farrell and the beach goes to the City. In a final irony, Eric Farrell was awarded an honorary doctorate degree at the final graduation of the school in May when its founder, Stu Lacase gave the graduation address.

    For what it's worth, here's another article from The Atlantic .

    Burlington College was always a fragile concern. Its website notes that in the early days, it "had no financial backing, paid its bills when they came due, and paid its President when it could." Jane Sanders's plan to place a big bet on expansion in order to put the school on a more solid long-term footing was similar to decisions made by other college presidents, and sometimes those bets simply don't work out.

    Lambert Strether Post author , August 24, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    On the last quote, that's how I read it. Owning real estate on the Lake Champlain waterfront is not, ipso facto , a crazy thing to do. It sounds like the college just couldn't outrun trouble. I still don't think it's a good look, though.

    Anne , August 24, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    It may ultimately have been the straw that broke the camel's back, and it looks terrible that Jane Sanders was at the helm and instrumental in making the decision, but it also sounds like it was a bold effort – that the Board of Directors signed off on – to change the school's fortunes, and one that unfortunately could not overcome years of struggle and financial instability.

    The college should have provided the transcripts before it locked the doors, but it looks to me like they wouldn't have been able to do it even then without the state's financial assistance.

    If Jane had only known, she could have gotten the Board to approve a donation to the Clinton Foundation, right?

    Katharine , August 24, 2016 at 4:52 pm

    Looks terrible? Seriously? I'm sorry, but I can't raise my pulse at all because someone took a rational chance her successors were unable to carry through successfully.

    As for providing the transcripts before locking the doors, that would have been problematic, as so many places want original transcripts from the institution and won't accept something that has come through the hands of the student. Those alumni are going to be dogged by that as long as they need transcripts unless the state or somebody funds permanent access.

    afisher , August 24, 2016 at 6:56 pm

    Amen, did anyone hear the screaming about this same scenario when small college had Ben Sasse as President of College? He left, others followed and undid some of his actions and eventually the small college suffered.

    Apparently it is fine for some people to have these behaviors overlooked and not so for others. I believe there is a word for that – hmmm, I'm sure it will come to me eventually.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Good jobs disaappered and middle class had shruk dramatically in the USA

    Notable quotes:
    "... That said, what I believe is needed in the USA is a doubling down on Corporate Boards of Directors and CEOs to create a crisis, an American intervention, if you will, that demands companies bring back the idea that Profits alone are not all that matters. Serving the Nation you are born in, raised in, educated in, and then making a profitable income from certainly needs to be focused in on. ..."
    "... An additional factor in the financial woes of the falling middle class is the changing demographics here in the US - the growing numbers of single mothers, who are far more likely to struggle financially than a two income household. I make no judgment regarding how people form their family units, but life is especially hard for single mothers. ..."
    "... Its even more difficult for journalists in Guardian. They have to destroy chances of only candidate addressing inequality and climate change (Bernie), completely surrender their integrity to corporations, lament over those issues post factum, and yet be paid miserably only in hundreds of thousands for such colossal betrayal of humanity. Its worth at billions to actively participate in destroying future of your kids. Or is it? ..."
    "... We need a new Federal Minimum Wage, and the wealthiest need to start paying up. Trump claims that business in the US pay the highest tax rate. That's just not true. I'm not talking about putting the burden on small business, but the multi-nationals and Wall Street. ..."
    "... And we can blame Billary and Hussein for it. Their "free-trade" decisions, along with their shameful endorsement of open-borders, have lowered wages for everyone, except for financiers. Interestingly, it was those who've suffered the brunt of the elites' decisions who voted for Britain to leave the EU. Ironically, those who professed to stand for the middle and lower classes, revealed their hypocrisy when they joined the Mandarins in opposing for Britain to leave the totalitarian EU. ..."
    "... Like the Trojans fearing present-giving presents, so should the working man loath the elites who promised to have their best interests at heart. That is the same promise communism gave the workers, only to turn on and enslave them. Today the workers don't stand a chance: the Marxists and bankers are on the same side sneering at the working classes who are demeaned as being racist, jingoistic xenophobes. ..."
    "... An article in Forbes that explains why Obamacare is a scam. ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders ..."
    "... I agree with you that he never did. Obama is a corporatist and globalist. If you think Obamacare is bad wait until his trade deals are past. He sold Americans out for the profits of multinational corporations. Hillary will continue his work. I understand the true meaning of his words now. ..."
    "... The US middle class has been disintegrating for decades as inequity grows ..."
    "... Clinton is in hiding. I can't find her in the Guardian today. She is a habitual liar and the whole world has all the evidence it needs. All of her promises are bullshit. Bernie has been right the whole time and he is smart not to endorse. Bernie has always known what she is and Bernie's supporters have no reason to support her. ..."
    "... It means she is corrupt, dishonest, and unqualified to be anything but an inmate. ..."
    "... the middle class has been decimated.. This financial category is only about 35% of was it was in the early 70's.. additionally the definition of middle class has changed drastically as well.. believe it or not your middle class if your earn more than 50k a year!.. this is part of the reason we are as a nation borrowing a trillion dollars a year.. when will the silenced majority wake up and start voting and stop spending on products that are vastly over priced. ..."
    "... My kid had a persistent tummy ache. Doc said intestinal blockage; take him to the ER immediately. Seven hours and one inconclusive CAT scan later, he's home again with symptoms unchanged. Two days later the pain went away. Cost: $12,000 with about $10,000 covered by union health insurance. So that's at least $2,000 out of pocket to me for seven hours in hospital, zero diagnosis and zero relief from symptoms. Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what? Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law? ..."
    "... I sympathize. I also agree with you. The US medical system is criminal. It is cruel, discriminatory, ruthless, often ineffective, and often incompetent. The only reason the administrators ("health" maintenance corporations) aren't in jail is because they use some of their obscene profits to buy Congress -- which passes laws like Obama's ACA or Bush's big Pharma swindle. I have no idea what to do about it though -- maybe if everyone refused to pay their premiums and medical bills, the money managers would notice. A sort of strike. ..."
    "... SIngle-payer is the answer. Of course, the insurance companies and big pharma use scare tactics to stop that from happening. They talk about government waste, completely ignoring their own waste. They ignore the billions of dollars that they skim off of the top each year before applying any money for actual medical care. Wake up, people. Medical care should be run by the government or non-profit organizations, not by for-profit corporations. ..."
    "... Despite the financial situation in middle-and lower income families that has been steadily declining under the past 8 years of the Obama administration, most in that group will support Hillary and propagate the Same problems for 4 more years. They stand no hope unless they break from the knee-jerk support of the "Democratic" Party. ..."
    "... So they should support Donald Trump and the conservative party? Last time I checked raising taxes on the middle class while lowering taxes on the rich didn't really help anyone but the rich. The Republican party never gave two shits about middle and lower class, and there's no point believing they will start now. ..."
    "... Isn't choosing to have three children very selfish if you cannot support them financially. People always find someone else to blame. ..."
    "... "Race" card!!?? Where the hell did I mention anything about race or are you really as dumb as your reply suggests. Plus, you don't require a test to decide if you can afford children or not. It basic family planning. It's people like you in society that has the place in a mess with your "blame anyone but meself attitude" If I'm considered horrible, at least I'm not totally dumb and irrisponsible like you. ..."
    "... Bill Maher recently (July 1, 2016; Overtime) editorialized about the state "laboratories" where new ideas are tested and evaluated. Maher compared the divergent fates of California and Kansas plus Louisiana. ..."
    "... It's interesting. According to my household income I'm in the "upper" tier for the DC-metro region. But it really doesn't feel that way. Even those of us who make a good income are more and more stretched. In comparison to most of the country, I am well off. I own a car, just bought a house, I can afford to go out to eat a couple times a week. But, I even get to the end of the month with only $100 in the bank. That's because other downward pressures on pay aren't taken into account, such as student debt. My expensive undergraduate and graduate education didn't come cheap, and while that education affords people higher pay, if you end up taking less of it home. It kinda equals out. ..."
    "... Sometimes my husband and I think about having kids, and then we realise that even with our good paying jobs, we can't afford day care in our area. I get paid the most, so I can't quit my job but if my husband quit to care for a child, we would really be strapped. Can I really be considered an upper tier household if I can't afford to have kids? If I can't afford to go on vacation once a year? If I haven't bought new clothes in two years? If I have no savings and a freak medical bill might just tip me over the edge? ..."
    "... Suggest you give Andrew Tobias' book a read to think outside the box a good education often constructs for us: https://www.amazon.com/Only-Investment-Guide-Youll-Ever/dp/0544781937?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc ..."
    "... You can cut student debt in the U.S. by attending a good community college for two years and then transferring to a state university. Most kids are unwilling to do this--no frats or prestige in community colleges! ..."
    "... Beginning in the 1970s, a majority of the middle class began to resent the taxation needed to continue support for these liberal policies, and they began to vote for conservative politicians who promised to remove them as they "only helped the undeserving poor." White racism played a role in this as the lower class was invariably portrayed in political speeches and advertising as group of lazy black people. ..."
    "... No, it was created in response to the Bolshevik revolution, in particular, to that genius who said "Let's just shoot the royal family and be done with this." ..."
    "... All of these things have come under attack since the USSR fell apart, probably on that exact day. And who overthrew the USSR? Overeducated middle class, not the poor or the rich. Who was Occupy Wall Street, Arab Spring... the recent protests against the French labor law tightenings, ALL the middle class. ..."
    "... The greatest threat to governments has, and always will be, from within. And this threat is from the middle class, almost exclusively. Therefore, we are to be crushed and controlled tightly ..."
    "... funny how this media outlet didn't publish these types of reports while the primary was hot. It was all "Hilary is inevitable and supporting Bernie is supporting Trump" type garbage. ..."
    "... Probably he means to say Americans habitually ask new acquaintances, "What do you do for a living?" That's absolutely a query about income and personal worth, though slightly disguised, and it's a question I have never widely encountered anywhere else in the world, nor while living overseas the last ten years. ..."
    "... This article is extremely dishonest. First, it claims that she has 'three other jobs'. Second, she has children, for whom she presumably gets child support. So what's her *real* income? ..."
    "... When those in poverty or on the verge of it are single mothers, you tend to wonder if there are some other issues as well. I don't recall a time in American history where a single mother of several children could take care of herself when completely on her own. ..."
    "... I teach in inner city schools. There are so many problems, money is one of them but all the money won't solve the problem of poor learning attitudes, disaffection, poor discipline and nonexistent work ethic . ..."
    "... A lot of the students get no discipline at home and their parents don't expect them to learn anything. They are resistant to the whole process of focus on new knowledge , absorb, drill, recall , deploy newly learned thing. ..."
    "... I don't know what solution there is to this. My nieces and nephews did well in school, studied hard, and went on to university. They didn't do drugs, rape or be raped, and stayed away from unsavory kids. BUT--they went home to two parents every night, a father and mother, which I think would have made them successful at school no matter what their income. ..."
    "... The US economy isn't competitive anymore. It started with the labor cost being too high, so factories moved out. Then the entire supply chain moved out. Now the main consumer market is also moving out. Once that is gone, we will have no more leverage. ..."
    "... The US education is good, but students are lazy, undisciplined, and incurious. In silicon valley, more than 75% of highly paid technical personnel are foreign born. Corporations making money with foreign workers here and abroad, on foreign markets. Taking these away and you will see the economy crash. ..."
    "... Labor costs were too high. Have some more kool-aid. The elite didn't want labor to have any bargaining power whatsoever . They wanted to dictate the terms to labor believing that they were the only ones who should have any say in matters. The elite wanted to maximize their profits at the expense of their own citizens. They wanted slave labor . They wanted powerless people to dance to their tune. How could an advanced nation's labor possibly compete with slave labor . ..."
    "... Sadly ..... thee isn't any hope for these people in the foreseeable future . Their economic decline has been happening for quite some time now and shows no sign of abating whatsoever . The economic foundations of their lives have been steadily pulled out from under them by the financial elite and their subservient political cultures , the Republican and Democratic Parties . The Republicans have never really given a damn about them and the Democrats have long abandoned them . These poor people of North Carolina are adrift on a sinking raft on easy ocean of indifference by the political cultures of America . To those in power , they don't exist . They don't count . They don't matter . ..."
    "... The trend in the U.S, along with almost every other major nation in the world over the past 35 years has been to exclusively serve the interests of the financial elite and only their needs . All sense of fairness , justice and decency have been totally discarded . ..."
    "... Tax breaks after tax breaks , tax shelters , free movement of capital , etc., etc. would sum up the experience of the financial elite over the past 35 years . They have become incredibly wealthy now and are still not satisfied . They want more . They want it all . They want what little you have and their political servants which help them get . ..."
    "... Political discourse pertaining to the plight of those like these folks in North Carolina is all window dressing . In the end , you can be certain that it will amount to nothing . Just like it has for decades now . The financial elite are in control and they are not going to give any of that control up . As a matter of fact , they are going to tighten their grip . They will invent crisis to have their agendas imposed upon an increasingly powerless and bewildered public . They will take advantage of every naturally occurring crisis to advance their agenda . ..."
    "... The problem is the job exporting American elite class. NAFTA was an economics, political, and social experiment with all the downside on the former, mostly lower middle class. Non-aligned examination of the available data shows how disastrous NAFTA has been to America's bubbas. Thanks to Bush 41 and Bill Clinton. WTO was all Bill. Of the mistakes Obama has made TPP would be the worst. The question is, really, do we favor global fairness (an even playing field for all earth's peoples) and a climate-killing consumerist world, or our own disadvantaged (courtesy of our financial and political elite) citizens. Not an easy choice. Death by poison or hanging. No treaty can benegotiated fairly in secret. ..."
    "... The tragic irony is that the anger against rule by the 1% manifests in things like support for Trump, a typical example of the greed and excess of the 1%. Americans need to question outside their desperately constrained paradigms more. It will help focus their anger more strategically, and possibly lead to solutions. Don't hold your breath, the inequality gap is accelerating the wrong way. ..."
    "... I think the US is heDing for trouble. It is the middle class that maintains civil society and gives a sense of hope. This is an interesting open letter by a zillionaire to his peers warning them what happens without a string middle class. A thought provoking read. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014 ..."
    "... The elite of the USA have done exactly what the Romans did and what the Pre-Revolutionary French did.... drain the lower classes while enriching themselves. "Taxes are for little people" is not just a pithy quote, it has become the reality as the elite rig the system so they benefit and the lower classes pay. They need to wake up or they will get exactly what the Romans Got (collapsed empire) or the French got (Violent Revolution). Wake up America! It is time to choose your side in the class war the elite continue to execute while telling us there is no "Class War" - you can't pull yourself up by your boot straps while they are pulling the rug out from under you! ..."
    "... My wife used to employ recent graduates from Georgetown University with poli. sci., psychology, sociology degrees, to stack books for $10/hr. It took them on average 2-3 years, before finding work in their field. ..."
    "... Education is NOT about finding a job! It's about learning ways to seek wisdom and rationality, and to assimilate (not deny) new knowledge throughout your life--and that's exactly what's lacking in the US! Our schools are factories to turn out standard robots to be used by the owners of this country, whether they practice law or flip burgers. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    HopeWFaith, 9 Jul 2016 16:04

    I was stumped by the very idea that someone has the $money, the time, the energy to go out and study for 3 bachelor degrees. This woman doesn't look old enough to have had time to get 3 degrees.

    That said, what I believe is needed in the USA is a doubling down on Corporate Boards of Directors and CEOs to create a crisis, an American intervention, if you will, that demands companies bring back the idea that Profits alone are not all that matters. Serving the Nation you are born in, raised in, educated in, and then making a profitable income from certainly needs to be focused in on.

    Why on earth isn't Main Stream Media doing this, along with all of CONGRESS and the President? What is their excuse? Even if you brought back all the robotic jobs to US soil, you would also end up bringing a large number of administrative jobs back here, too, just to keep up with the business at hand. It is critical that we rebuild our infrastructure, yet we see NO immediate or Long-term plans to do so. How can we, without the support of the Business Class to support the whole nation through Paying their Taxes to the US Tax System? There is no excuse that will do, in my book. Profits to the top tier need to be STOPPED so long as businesses are going outside of the United States Borders. Period.

    SluethforTruth , 2016-07-07 12:39:08

    Typical of what's happening around the world. The trillions of dollars lurking in tax havens is the reason why economies are stagnating. Money makes the world go round, however detouring to the Cayman Islands, the flow stops and the poverty begins. Spend locally and reject multi national corporations. Give your local communities a chance to prosper,
    Snaggletooth718 , 2016-07-07 12:40:07
    An additional factor in the financial woes of the falling middle class is the changing demographics here in the US - the growing numbers of single mothers, who are far more likely to struggle financially than a two income household. I make no judgment regarding how people form their family units, but life is especially hard for single mothers.
    saladbowl , 2016-07-07 12:46:52
    "The 2016 presidential race has superficially been dominated by talk of this declining middle. First from Bernie Sanders, then Hillary Clinton and even Donald Trump's promise to Make America Great Again"

    "And even"??? What a laugh. Even if you hate Trump its clear The Guardian has written every article possible to prevent his rise and they have failed miserably. Hillary amd Sanders are dominating conversatiin. Trump is by far.

    One thing us for sure. 15 million illegals and thousands more every month is not making the middle class more secure.

    They are shrinking, and you expect them to tolerate "Make America Mexico Again"? In these times?

    Donor money is ruining the country. They hate Trump because he doesnt need these arrogant donors who have never heard "no" their whole lives.

    peonyrose , 2016-07-07 12:47:08
    If ordinary people have to work three jobs to make ends meet, then you need to say that wages in the US are too low.
    Slavenko Sucur -> peonyrose , 2016-07-07 14:29:52
    Its even more difficult for journalists in Guardian. They have to destroy chances of only candidate addressing inequality and climate change (Bernie), completely surrender their integrity to corporations, lament over those issues post factum, and yet be paid miserably only in hundreds of thousands for such colossal betrayal of humanity. Its worth at billions to actively participate in destroying future of your kids. Or is it?
    SusanPrice58 , 2016-07-07 12:53:59
    It isn't immigration that costing jobs - it's employers who know they can pay these people less for their work. We need a new Federal Minimum Wage, and the wealthiest need to start paying up. Trump claims that business in the US pay the highest tax rate. That's just not true. I'm not talking about putting the burden on small business, but the multi-nationals and Wall Street.
    RaceOfStalwarts -> SusanPrice58 , 2016-07-07 14:06:02
    You can see in western Europe at the moment that a minimum wage desn't work without a whole host of other protective legislation. A minimum wage doesn't reach to the self employed, and it doesn't prevent the use of flexible or non-guaranteed hours contracts making use of a larger than is required labour pool. Not to mention the black market / cash in hand trade.
    BritainFirst2016 , 2016-07-07 12:55:21
    And we can blame Billary and Hussein for it. Their "free-trade" decisions, along with their shameful endorsement of open-borders, have lowered wages for everyone, except for financiers. Interestingly, it was those who've suffered the brunt of the elites' decisions who voted for Britain to leave the EU. Ironically, those who professed to stand for the middle and lower classes, revealed their hypocrisy when they joined the Mandarins in opposing for Britain to leave the totalitarian EU.

    Like the Trojans fearing present-giving presents, so should the working man loath the elites who promised to have their best interests at heart. That is the same promise communism gave the workers, only to turn on and enslave them. Today the workers don't stand a chance: the Marxists and bankers are on the same side sneering at the working classes who are demeaned as being racist, jingoistic xenophobes.

    pawildcat -> BritainFirst2016 , 2016-07-07 13:51:28
    You realize most of the votes in favor of NAFTA were Republican and most against were Democratic, right? You know that "free trade" has been an item in the Republican platform (and increasingly the Democratic one) for years before Clinton and Obama were ever in office, right? Know some elementary facts about U.S, politics before posting nonsense.
    daWOID -> Ed Thurmann , 2016-07-07 13:47:41
    Ed Thurmann: it's not teacher-bashing, it's just the old recycled "black family values" spiel that was introduced into the poverty debate in the '60s by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Moynihan, not so BTW, is Hillary Clinton's intellectual hero. So you can expect a hell of a lot more of these cliches after January of next year.
    Juillette , 2016-07-07 13:26:03
    An article in Forbes that explains why Obamacare is a scam. ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders

    Robert Lenzner , CONTRIBUTOR
    I'm trying to wise up 300 million people about money & finance

    So far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. Thats more than double the gains made in the broad stock market index, the S & P 500. The shares of CIGNA are up 63%, Wellpoint 47% and United Healthcare 28%. And if you go back to the early 2010 passage of ObamaCare, you will find that Obama's sellout of the public interest has allowed the public companies the ability to raise their premiums, especially on small business, dramatically multiply their profits and send the value of their common stocks up by 200%-300%. This is bloody scandalous and should be a cause for concern even as the Republican opponents of the bill threaten the close-down of the government.

    We warned you back on December4, 2009 in my blog " The Horrendous Truth About Health Care Reform" that the Obama White House was handing a " free ride for the health insurance industry" that would allow premium hikes of 8%-10% a year by CIGNA, Humana HUM +1.56%, Aetna AET +0.45%, UnitedHealth Group UNH +0.58% and Wellpoint, and as well a $500 billion taxpayer subsidy, a half trillion dollars without any requirement that the health insurers had to spend the subsidy on medical care. Several US Senators including Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia spoke to me openly of the outrageous sellout being foisted on the nation's uninsured citizens.

    At the time I wrote, Goldman Sachs research operation estimated that the 5 giants would increase profits by 10% a year from 2010 to 2019, sending their shares up an average of 59%. In truth, the shares of CIGNA and some others are up a multiple of several times since the contest was resolved by a very tight vote in early 2010. One startling reason for this amazing performance was that Obama took off the table "proposals to significantly reduce health care costs" as the giveaway in getting the bill through, according to Ron Susskind's best-selling book ,"Confidence Men," which I wrote about in a blog on September 24, 2011. ( "Obama's Incoherent Policy-Making") Some 3 years later, UnitedHealthCare Group(UNH) was rewarded by being added to the elite list of the Dow 30 industrials.

    I understood belatedly that there would have been no Affordable Care Act of 2010 if the White House had not given into demands from the giant profit-making health insurance companies. Had he not done so, I am being assured that there would have been no bill passed, a priority goal that Obama promised in his 2008 Presidential campaign. How the profits have risen so impressively requires further investigation as the bill is meant to limit the profits earned to 20% of the revenues.

    One of the other downsides to the supposed reform bill was the surprisingly unfair treatment of small business owners who faced even larger potential premiums for their employees. It has been the fear of these higher health costs that has resulted in the overwhelming trend toward hiring part-time employees whom the employers need not offer healthcare insurance.

    So much for the reforms embedded in the mis-labeled Affordable Care Act of 2010. It may not die a bloody demise this month, but it is certain to be reformed itself, let's hope for the benefit of the 300 million, not just the millions of lucky shareholders who may have understood the ramification of ObamaCare, which was to multiply the profits of five giant insurance companies, just as the major bank oligopoly was rewarded by the federal bailouts and Fed monetary policy.

    Juillette -> Andrew Kac , 2016-07-07 14:16:34
    I agree with you that he never did. Obama is a corporatist and globalist. If you think Obamacare is bad wait until his trade deals are past. He sold Americans out for the profits of multinational corporations. Hillary will continue his work. I understand the true meaning of his words now.

    "We are a nation of immigrants" meaning he prefers cheap illegal labor when 46 million Americans live in poverty. Soon cheap foriegn will be unlimited and legal in the US with worker mobility. Even for professional jobs. Can you imagine competing with foreigners in the US who make 30 cents an hour? It's depressing really. Here are some of the highlights of the TPP that will throw Americans further into poverty.

    http://www.citizen.org/TPP

    Also research Tisa.

    barbkay , 2016-07-07 13:49:42
    My heart goes out to these beleaguered families. In the late 1970s/80s I held down a full-time job in DC and freelanced feverishly to make ends meet. I lived below the official poverty line in an expensive, yet thoroughly crappy, flat. That recession-riddled era of energy chaos, leading into Reagan's 'voodoo' economics regime (the risible idea of 'trickle-down', the US becoming the world's largest debtor), was another hot mess.

    The US middle class has been disintegrating for decades as inequity grows, thanks in large part to the poor governance of Republican presidents (Nixon's stagflation, the disastrous shifts under GW Bush).

    FugitiveColors , 2016-07-07 13:53:22
    Clinton is in hiding. I can't find her in the Guardian today. She is a habitual liar and the whole world has all the evidence it needs. All of her promises are bullshit. Bernie has been right the whole time and he is smart not to endorse. Bernie has always known what she is and Bernie's supporters have no reason to support her.

    Her disapproval ratings will top Trump now. The voters are now going to show her what the meaning of is, really is.

    It means she is corrupt, dishonest, and unqualified to be anything but an inmate.

    MasonInNY -> FugitiveColors , 2016-07-07 16:08:57
    Her disapproval ratings are high, but not up with Trump's and they never will be. You can vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, in November. Or Gary Johnson, the Libertarian. But Bernie will not be a candidate, and he will eventually endorse Clinton -- after he is sure he's won certain concessions in the Democratic platform. That's your reality in July 2016, not in February.
    brianBT , 2016-07-07 14:16:48
    the middle class has been decimated.. This financial category is only about 35% of was it was in the early 70's.. additionally the definition of middle class has changed drastically as well.. believe it or not your middle class if your earn more than 50k a year!.. this is part of the reason we are as a nation borrowing a trillion dollars a year.. when will the silenced majority wake up and start voting and stop spending on products that are vastly over priced..Turn off your phone, stop buying all but essentials.. we need to force prices down until we complain and start voting with our dollars little will change
    MtnClimber -> ojeemabalzitch , 2016-07-07 15:37:37
    What about the millions of married couples with kids..when the parents lose their jobs? That happens very frequently. Should we take the kids away? Are you suggesting that poor people not be allowed to have children?

    Then we have the religious nutcases that are against contraception and abortion, yet demonize poor women for having children.

    NYbill13 , 2016-07-07 14:34:59
    My kid had a persistent tummy ache. Doc said intestinal blockage; take him to the ER immediately. Seven hours and one inconclusive CAT scan later, he's home again with symptoms unchanged. Two days later the pain went away. Cost: $12,000 with about $10,000 covered by union health insurance. So that's at least $2,000 out of pocket to me for seven hours in hospital, zero diagnosis and zero relief from symptoms. Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what? Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law?

    Hahahahahahahaha.

    ojeemabalzitch -> NYbill13 , 2016-07-07 14:58:00
    So? If your car breaks down it will cost a fortune to repair. Same if you have to replace the roof on your house. Life ain't fair, is it?
    MiltonWiltmellow -> NYbill13 , 2016-07-07 15:14:26

    Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what? Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law?

    I sympathize. I also agree with you. The US medical system is criminal. It is cruel, discriminatory, ruthless, often ineffective, and often incompetent. The only reason the administrators ("health" maintenance corporations) aren't in jail is because they use some of their obscene profits to buy Congress -- which passes laws like Obama's ACA or Bush's big Pharma swindle. I have no idea what to do about it though -- maybe if everyone refused to pay their premiums and medical bills, the money managers would notice. A sort of strike.

    MtnClimber -> MiltonWiltmellow , 2016-07-07 15:35:28
    SIngle-payer is the answer. Of course, the insurance companies and big pharma use scare tactics to stop that from happening. They talk about government waste, completely ignoring their own waste. They ignore the billions of dollars that they skim off of the top each year before applying any money for actual medical care. Wake up, people. Medical care should be run by the government or non-profit organizations, not by for-profit corporations.

    Corporations have only one goal...to make as much money as possible for themselves. Health care is just a necessary nuisance.

    Ykuos1 , 2016-07-07 14:37:56
    Despite the financial situation in middle-and lower income families that has been steadily declining under the past 8 years of the Obama administration, most in that group will support Hillary and propagate the Same problems for 4 more years. They stand no hope unless they break from the knee-jerk support of the "Democratic" Party.
    Sam Ahmed -> Ykuos1 , 2016-07-07 14:45:51
    So they should support Donald Trump and the conservative party? Last time I checked raising taxes on the middle class while lowering taxes on the rich didn't really help anyone but the rich. The Republican party never gave two shits about middle and lower class, and there's no point believing they will start now.
    KMdude , 2016-07-07 14:43:46
    This article mentions Latonia Best and her three children. Is there a Mr Best around? It has always been tough to raise a family on the salary of a single parent.

    The breakdown of the American family is a probably the biggest reason for the supposed struggles of the middle class. People have to take responsibility for their lives.

    Elephantmoth -> KMdude , 2016-07-07 14:56:57
    Sure, because every misfortune can be blamed on the individual. You have no idea why Mr Best isn't around so please spare us your moralising.
    rebeccazg -> KMdude , 2016-07-07 14:57:51
    traditionally, the middle class had the guy going out to work, and his wife staying at home to look after the kids. Once children are in school and childcare is reduced, I don't see how a woman working and raising her kids alone, is any more expensive than a man supporting himself, his wife and their kids.

    It used to be possible. It used to be doable. wealth disparity ind income inequality mean that is no longer the case, at least certainly not for the average middle class. In the UK anyway, it's now a sign of wealth. This has nothing top do with the family and everything to do with income disparity.

    Liverpooljack1 , 2016-07-07 15:02:53
    Isn't choosing to have three children very selfish if you cannot support them financially. People always find someone else to blame.
    MtnClimber -> Liverpooljack1 , 2016-07-07 15:27:08
    Ah. I was waiting for some "bubba" to pull the race card. Congratulations. Maybe we should make everyone take a test to prove that they can afford children. No children for poor people. Nice.

    You are a horrible person.

    Liverpooljack1 -> MtnClimber , 2016-07-07 16:05:10
    "Race" card!!?? Where the hell did I mention anything about race or are you really as dumb as your reply suggests.
    Plus, you don't require a test to decide if you can afford children or not. It basic family planning. It's people like you in society that has the place in a mess with your "blame anyone but meself attitude" If I'm considered horrible, at least I'm not totally dumb and irrisponsible like you.
    Quesera -> Donald Inks , 2016-07-07 16:00:32
    $3,333.33 is actually not a lot of money to raise a family of four on. Let's do some math, shall we?!

    Taxes: $800 (rough estimate)
    Health Insurance: I'm going to estimate $300 because she probably has dependents on her coverage and that's what I paid one dependent a while back.
    Car: I'm going to estimate $150. My car payment is $300, but let's say she got a cheaper, used car.
    Rent: Let's say $1,000/month (I did a quick search and found that this seemed like a good price for a two bedroom)
    Bills: Let's round up to $150/month for gas, electricity, water, sewage
    Food: Let's say she spends $80/week, so roughly $320 a month (you know, she's a thrifty shopper)

    All of that leaves about $313 left for gas, phone, college tuition, maybe internet and cable at home. I don't know how she does it.

    MiltonWiltmellow , 2016-07-07 15:04:56

    Worst of all was the town of Goldsboro – one of three metropolitan areas in North Carolina at the bottom of the national league table.

    North Carolina, Michigan, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma ... more ...

    Sad stories in states run by Republicans. Toxic rivers, shootings, poisoned tap water, bankruptcy, daily earthquakes ...

    Bill Maher recently (July 1, 2016; Overtime) editorialized about the state "laboratories" where new ideas are tested and evaluated. Maher compared the divergent fates of California and Kansas plus Louisiana.

    Kansas is going bankrupt under the Republican governor and legislature, the Louisiana economy is a basket case thanks to Republican Bobby Jindal while just a few years ago, under Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, California was billions in debt.

    In California they threw out the Republicans, put Democrats in charge, raised taxes on the rich and voila -- now with a surplus, California is ranked as the sixth largest economy in the world:

    Only five countries produced more last year than California: the U.S., China, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom.

    So -- North Carolina with fouled rivers, a collapsing middle class, discriminatory laws -- or a thriving California?

    Goldsboro remains far from the sort of economic catastrophe seen in parts of the rust belt, but these are signs of financial stress that are hard to ignore. The strain on the middle class across much of the country may not have gone unnoticed by politicians, but locals here fear there is little talk of the investment in skills, high-paying jobs and civic infrastructure needed to arrest the slide.

    Republican shills will have to admit -- finally that Republican policies ruin lives, ruin the economy and ruin the environment. Truth appears more powerful than slogans and slanders. Who knows? They might even acknowledge climate change.

    Profhambone -> MiltonWiltmellow , 2016-07-07 15:47:30
    I believe it is the wars and needs of the military-industrial-banking complex that sap far too much from the economy. Both parties are guilty of supporting them.
    ehmaybe -> MiltonWiltmellow , 2016-07-07 15:52:52
    North Carolina with fouled rivers, a collapsing middle class, discriminatory laws -- or a thriving California?

    Since 2013, North Carolina has the fastest GDP growth of any state. The NC economy is not in bad shape. This lady lives in one of the poorest areas in the state, she should move 45 minutes north to thriving Raleigh or Durham - the population in that area is booming, they need teachers.

    The dumping of coal ash into the Dan river was a corporate crime, not a policy decision. Neither party is responsible for criminal actions by individuals or corporations, that's just silly. (The republicans have been too lax in holding Duke Energy to account but the damage done is not a political issue)

    HB2 is a disgrace but the legislature is in the process of correcting it and the Governor is likely to lose the election in the fall which bodes well for anti-HB2 people. Don't forget that California voters voted to ban gay marriage not even 10 years ago. It's not a paradise of wealth and enlightenment, no place is.

    Voltaire21 , 2016-07-07 15:16:57
    Why should we feel sorry for the American middle class they have elected for all the misery that has befallen them!

    If America was a fascist state I could sympathise but it's not. Americans have let their social rights being eroded by a mendacious and cunning establishment.

    One good example of how Americans don't give a shit is the very expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which have cost gazillions to the US taxpayer and not a whimper from the US population.

    If one can compare that to the Vietnam war which created its own critical cinema genre, protest songs, large demonstrations etc...you know that todays average Americans responsibility for the mess they find themselves in is non existent. They just bend over and take it and have little whine about it from time to time.

    Quesera -> Voltaire21 , 2016-07-07 15:48:37
    What about the people that didn't vote for the "misery" as you call it?

    What about the fact that whichever way you vote in the US you're screwed?

    And I don't know about you, but you must not know many Americans. The number of my friends who have been tear gassed during marches against the Iraq war flies in the face of your argument. Have you, yourself, even uttered a whimper against it?

    Bardolphe , 2016-07-07 15:20:20
    I will support proper child-support and healthcare and everything that can be done to make this woman's life easier and secure her kids' futures BUT

    Three kids is a LOT for two people to handle, let alone one.

    To paraphrase Lady Bracknell, to raise one child alone may be regarded as a misfortune; to attempt to raise three looks like carelessness. To try to raise three alone in the United States is MADNESS.

    I live in the USA. I'm in a stable long-term relationship. I don't make much money. I can't afford kids.

    2 + 2 = 4

    Poor me. I don't say I have a right to kids because I need them or I have so much love to give or blah, blah, blah. I just can't. Not here. This is a cruelly individualistic country. It is built to serve those who serve themselves. Namely, the young, healthy, smart, motivated and single. There is no political foundation or tradition of altruism here. Maybe back in Ireland where there's a system to support me and some healthcare and family. Not here. Madness.

    Happyduckling -> Bardolphe , 2016-07-07 15:36:41
    But she's got the kids now. What is she supposed to do? Hand them back to someone? If she and the childrens' father had them when life was looking more stable and she didn't have to work 4 jobs to make ends meet, she can hardly be blamed now for their existence.

    You are living in the now and choose not to have children because you feel you can't afford them. However, in the future, you may find that you can afford them, and therefore choose to conceive. If your circumstances change after that and you are no longer able to afford to care for them without working excessive hours and living in poverty, there's not a lot you can do other than get on with it. No point blaming her for something that is irreversible.

    Bardolphe -> OinkImSammy , 2016-07-07 15:41:05
    That is not my point and you absolutely know it is not my point.

    Stop pretending that birth control doesn't exist. It exists.

    Quesera , 2016-07-07 15:42:11
    It's interesting. According to my household income I'm in the "upper" tier for the DC-metro region. But it really doesn't feel that way. Even those of us who make a good income are more and more stretched. In comparison to most of the country, I am well off. I own a car, just bought a house, I can afford to go out to eat a couple times a week. But, I even get to the end of the month with only $100 in the bank. That's because other downward pressures on pay aren't taken into account, such as student debt. My expensive undergraduate and graduate education didn't come cheap, and while that education affords people higher pay, if you end up taking less of it home. It kinda equals out.

    Sometimes my husband and I think about having kids, and then we realise that even with our good paying jobs, we can't afford day care in our area. I get paid the most, so I can't quit my job but if my husband quit to care for a child, we would really be strapped. Can I really be considered an upper tier household if I can't afford to have kids? If I can't afford to go on vacation once a year? If I haven't bought new clothes in two years? If I have no savings and a freak medical bill might just tip me over the edge?

    There's something very, very wrong. How rich do you need to be before you don't feel like you're struggling?

    Scott Plantier -> Quesera , 2016-07-07 15:55:19
    Thanks for the great post, but whatever will be, will be, unless you get in front of it and plan.

    Suggest you give Andrew Tobias' book a read to think outside the box a good education often constructs for us: https://www.amazon.com/Only-Investment-Guide-Youll-Ever/dp/0544781937?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc

    Spunky325 -> Quesera , 2016-07-07 20:31:21
    You can cut student debt in the U.S. by attending a good community college for two years and then transferring to a state university. Most kids are unwilling to do this--no frats or prestige in community colleges!
    Nash25 , 2016-07-07 15:48:56
    The huge middle class in the USA was created by the liberal economic polices of the 1930s, which were designed to help the lower class.

    Beginning in the 1970s, a majority of the middle class began to resent the taxation needed to continue support for these liberal policies, and they began to vote for conservative politicians who promised to remove them as they "only helped the undeserving poor." White racism played a role in this as the lower class was invariably portrayed in political speeches and advertising as group of lazy black people.

    What the middle class did not understand was that their continued existence depended on these liberal programs, as most of the benefits went to the middle class, not the lower class as they assumed. As the liberal programs began to disappear, so did the economic security of the middle class.

    One would think they would have figured all of this out by now, but they have not, and they continue to vote for conservatives.

    pbalrick -> DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-07 17:21:27
    No, it was created in response to the Bolshevik revolution, in particular, to that genius who said "Let's just shoot the royal family and be done with this." When that happened, the ruling class got scared, and said "OK, minimum wage, vacation, sick pay, 40 hr work week, no child labor, great schooling, etc"

    All of these things have come under attack since the USSR fell apart, probably on that exact day. And who overthrew the USSR? Overeducated middle class, not the poor or the rich. Who was Occupy Wall Street, Arab Spring... the recent protests against the French labor law tightenings, ALL the middle class.

    The greatest threat to governments has, and always will be, from within. And this threat is from the middle class, almost exclusively. Therefore, we are to be crushed and controlled tightly.

    Scott Plantier , 2016-07-07 15:49:55
    " squeezed middle class tell tales of struggle " Too bad they voted for the big squeeze herself -- Bernie could have set them free from the path of exploitation she has planned for them immediately after her election by imposing the TPP upon the very fools who will elect her. Stop watching the Kartrashians and read about actual policy implications for your family and especially your children, if you had, none of you would have supported Clinton.
    pbalrick -> Scott Plantier , 2016-07-07 17:15:29
    funny how this media outlet didn't publish these types of reports while the primary was hot. It was all "Hilary is inevitable and supporting Bernie is supporting Trump" type garbage.
    biglio , 2016-07-07 15:58:38
    Education in the US...oh boy....

    I lived in Pittsburgh for 8 years, being European I sent them to public school...well, after a year in which my six years old son was suspended twice for running around at lunchtime when he shouldn't (six years old tend to do that), numerous recesses where they were put in front of a TV (we cannot send them outside, insurance doesn't cover if they get hurt and we got sued before), and notes from teachers full of spelling mistakes......I had to send them to private school perpetuating a cycle of poor people in public system and rich people (or middle class as i was at the time) to private schools....

    i don't know what needs to be done to fix the issue but it's the whole society that is really divided along money lines and race lines and inequality is getting worse. But money trumps everything, the US is the only place int he world where it's not considered unpolite to ask people :"what's your worth?" meaning how much you make, what are your assets, etc.....instilling in people a mentality of self worth based on money and consequentially a cutthroat environment where the more you have the more you are worth, so at the top they squeeze the lower end, to make more money but also because they think they are really not that worthy....its a perverse cycle that history taught us doesn't bring any good because at a certain point the poor reach a critical mass that will just revolt......I'm waiting for that, good luck...

    biglio -> ehmaybe , 2016-07-07 16:24:09
    I'm afraid my friend we disagree on that, excellent public schools are exceptions, there are some but they are a minority (International statistics on education quality validate that), I don't live in the US anymore but travel a lot there for business (at least 20 times a year). As for the worth question I had it asked to me quite a few times and kind of everywhere, maybe it's unpolite, I believe it's unpolite, but it happens regularly and only in the US (let me rephrase, in the rest of the world it wouldn't be considered unpolite, that's too mild of a term, it would be considered inconceivable). Said that I hope the US makes it and the "American Values" that you talk about prevail, but i am afraid those values have changed and being substituted by less noble ones...
    jsaralan -> ehmaybe , 2016-07-07 16:33:16
    Probably he means to say Americans habitually ask new acquaintances, "What do you do for a living?" That's absolutely a query about income and personal worth, though slightly disguised, and it's a question I have never widely encountered anywhere else in the world, nor while living overseas the last ten years. The question is so ingrained, though, that Americans who ask it don't think of it as a query about net worth. They do, however, react with overflowing respect toward those who answer in certain ways, and something akin to sympathy to those who answer in other ways. All my foreign friends have noticed it, and all think it's weird.
    DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-07 16:45:46
    This article is extremely dishonest. First, it claims that she has 'three other jobs'. Second, she has children, for whom she presumably gets child support. So what's her *real* income?
    Michael Williams , 2016-07-07 17:50:39
    I do not know how things stand today, but I went to school in the UK and in the US in the 70s and 80s.

    The schools in the UK were so superior to the US that I thought I had been placed in a remedial class when I returned to the States.

    At the time, I would have bet that the average 16 year old in the UK was better educated than most American college graduates.

    I would like to hear what you all think.

    biglio -> Michael Williams , 2016-07-07 18:22:25
    Agree, I did my last year of high school in the US, in North Carolina of all places, in a top private school, i was a middling student in Europe with flashes of brilliance in some subjects but definitely far from the top of the class. When I arrived (it was in the 80s) I didn't speak English. Well, I graduated with high honors int he top 5% and got my high school diploma, honestly without having to study that much, school was not totally comparable but definitely way less challenging.
    eastbayradical -> biglio , 2016-07-07 18:33:35
    Contrary to conventional wisdom, a lot of private schools in the United States are severely lacking in the rigor department. This is even true for many--not all--private schools that cater to well-to-do families.
    LelouchVIBrittania , 2016-07-07 18:13:10
    When those in poverty or on the verge of it are single mothers, you tend to wonder if there are some other issues as well. I don't recall a time in American history where a single mother of several children could take care of herself when completely on her own.

    I know of single mothers who are doing fine, but they employed and are also being helped by siblings and parents who already have some wealth and free time to take care of the child. Maybe the issue is the fact that these people are having kids at the wrong time or without enough thought. Divorce rates are incredibly high in the US, and the percentage of children who have non-birth parents is very high as well. What this all means is that the USA isn't teaching its citizens about having kids and the responsibility.

    The USA is also not teaching men and women about birth control, or about being holding potential partners to higher standards (and I don't mean looks). A lot of people in the USA are too shallow and focus too much on aesthetics over reliability and now we have single mothers with fathers who refuse to pay child support at all costs. There are too many problems with the USA, but I feel that personal hygiene and responsibility with sexual partners should be on the top.

    PlatosNave , 2016-07-07 18:35:03
    I teach in inner city schools. There are so many problems, money is one of them but all the money won't solve the problem of poor learning attitudes, disaffection, poor discipline and nonexistent work ethic .

    A lot of the students get no discipline at home and their parents don't expect them to learn anything. They are resistant to the whole process of focus on new knowledge , absorb, drill, recall , deploy newly learned thing.

    Americans have a religious reverence for individualism and learning new things is a humbling experience and many people don't like it. Sure the adults bang on about education but they aren't serious about it. They think all you need is to spend more money , not do any actual work.

    Spunky325 -> PlatosNave , 2016-07-07 20:18:08
    The problems in the inner city are so intransigent that I doubt anything can fix it. I have three friends, all dedicated teachers, who taught in inner city schools in New Jersey and the stories they have told me make my mind reel: a mother who punched a teacher (and gave her a concussion) who "disrespected" her kid (by failing him, deservedly, in algebra), 15-year-olds who had pagers so their pimps could call them, children who had five brothers and sisters--all with different fathers. You couldn't make this stuff up.

    I don't know what solution there is to this. My nieces and nephews did well in school, studied hard, and went on to university. They didn't do drugs, rape or be raped, and stayed away from unsavory kids. BUT--they went home to two parents every night, a father and mother, which I think would have made them successful at school no matter what their income.

    thomasmccabe , 2016-07-07 18:49:47
    The Pew survey you cited noted that "...the share living in middle-income households fell from 55% in 2000 to 51% in 2014. Reflecting the accumulation of changes at the metropolitan level, the nationwide share of adults in lower-income households increased from 28% to 29% and the share in upper-income households rose from 17% to 20% during the period." In other words, most of the decline in the middle class was due to their moving into the upper class.

    The article was mostly about a declining rural area. The Guardian grinding its usual axes and reaching the conclusion it intended to reach?

    NoSerf , 2016-07-07 19:24:28
    Middle class job death inflicted by cronie capitalism entertained by the political establishment (examples): Private equity is not scrutinized by anti-trust legislation, buys any company and sends jobs overseas. Cronie supporters of politicians get help in that some industry gets indicted (e.g. more or less entire coal industry) or regulated into oblivion, for fake reasons, so that cronie (solar panel) company gets subsidies. Of course, the latter goes under, no company on IV survives without IV. Banks get bailed out, others not. GM gets bailed out, to maintain jobs, then outsources.

    The old members of middle class are not tolerated by our government and the cronies. Who is tolerated as middle class is any kind of civil servant, and new immigrants. Revenge from 2 sides. Or call it cultural revolution Mao style: Take their habitat.

    Curtis Gomez , 2016-07-07 19:49:24
    Growing up in the SF Bay Area during the 70's there was a large disparity in academics between schools even in the same district. At 11 years old the school district was rezoned and the new school that I attended had much lower standards. So much so, that I came home the very first day and complained to my mother that I had been assigned to a class for slow learners. Being so bored, my grades started to drop. At 13 years, I tested out of mathematics and eventually tested out of high school altogether and joined the military.

    There my intelligence was appreciated (believe it or not). The military provided a valuable work ethic and training in technology that have provided a decent career and lifestyle since. It's too bad that America can't seem to provide adequate learning to the vast majority.

    jacknbox , 2016-07-07 19:54:54
    The US economy isn't competitive anymore. It started with the labor cost being too high, so factories moved out. Then the entire supply chain moved out. Now the main consumer market is also moving out. Once that is gone, we will have no more leverage.

    The US education is good, but students are lazy, undisciplined, and incurious. In silicon valley, more than 75% of highly paid technical personnel are foreign born. Corporations making money with foreign workers here and abroad, on foreign markets. Taking these away and you will see the economy crash.

    Then you have Hillary wanting to sub divide a rapidly diminishing pie, and Trump wanting to return to 1946. Good luck to them both.

    enodesign -> jacknbox , 2016-07-08 01:25:43
    Get real .

    Labor costs were too high. Have some more kool-aid. The elite didn't want labor to have any bargaining power whatsoever . They wanted to dictate the terms to labor believing that they were the only ones who should have any say in matters. The elite wanted to maximize their profits at the expense of their own citizens. They wanted slave labor . They wanted powerless people to dance to their tune. How could an advanced nation's labor possibly compete with slave labor .

    This is the same argument that slave owning , southern plantation owners used to fight against the freeing of slaves . They to said that they would not longer be competitive and the overall economy would suffer .

    Are you telling us that an economy needs slave labor to exist ?

    enodesign , 2016-07-07 20:02:24
    Sadly ..... thee isn't any hope for these people in the foreseeable future . Their economic decline has been happening for quite some time now and shows no sign of abating whatsoever . The economic foundations of their lives have been steadily pulled out from under them by the financial elite and their subservient political cultures , the Republican and Democratic Parties . The Republicans have never really given a damn about them and the Democrats have long abandoned them . These poor people of North Carolina are adrift on a sinking raft on easy ocean of indifference by the political cultures of America . To those in power , they don't exist . They don't count . They don't matter .

    The trend in the U.S, along with almost every other major nation in the world over the past 35 years has been to exclusively serve the interests of the financial elite and only their needs . All sense of fairness , justice and decency have been totally discarded .

    Tax breaks after tax breaks , tax shelters , free movement of capital , etc., etc. would sum up the experience of the financial elite over the past 35 years . They have become incredibly wealthy now and are still not satisfied . They want more . They want it all . They want what little you have and their political servants which help them get .

    Political discourse pertaining to the plight of those like these folks in North Carolina is all window dressing . In the end , you can be certain that it will amount to nothing . Just like it has for decades now . The financial elite are in control and they are not going to give any of that control up . As a matter of fact , they are going to tighten their grip . They will invent crisis to have their agendas imposed upon an increasingly powerless and bewildered public . They will take advantage of every naturally occurring crisis to advance their agenda .

    There will be an end to their abuse , greed and domination until one day when everything changes . The day when people have had enough . When people can't take it any more . History has demonstrated this fact so often before . The mighty do fall . They always fall ..... but their fall is nowhere to be seen at this time .

    There is going to a great deal more pain for average folk before things get better .

    A Presidential election featuring Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is clear evidence of this fact.

    Hopefully , these two bottom feeding , utter human failures represent the bottom of the barrel but I doubt if they do .

    Good luck to the good folks of North Carolina and countless others like them .... they / we / myself are going to need it .

    enodesign -> DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-08 01:18:46
    On the contrary .... it's money that the elite have not paid out in wages .

    It's money that the elite have illegally hidden from the taxman . It's money the the elite need to pay for the infrastructure that makes it possible to do business in the first place . It's money that has been made from insider trading and backroom deals . It's money from the wealth that labour has basically created in the first place .

    It's money that contributes to the social maintenance on a safe , civil society . It's money that the wealthy do not need .... they have all they could ever need now .

    It is money that when distributed fairly keeps money in motion creating it's transfer into additional hands which further circulates that money creating even more spending by people and the consumption of goods and services which result in the creation of even more wealth .

    Static capital kills economies .

    I know that the elite like to think that they are the exclusive ones to create wealth but wealth creation is the marriage between capital and labour . You can have all of the capital in the world but without labour transforming it into greater wealth it can not possibly grow .

    If anyone is guilty of stealing money it is the elite who steal from the economy causing the economy's ill health .

    The last 35 years are more than testimony to this fact .

    Economies are dying wherever the elite have gotten their way .

    The elite are the real killers of wealth and economies . Just look at any economy in the world throughout history where the elite had all of the wealth to themselves . Their economies are highly dysfunctional and their societies are full of social problems and crime .

    This is an indisputable fact .

    Greed kills wealth development .

    Wealth development is directly tied to the well being of labour which allows for mass consumption of goods and services .

    You would have to be a complete idiot not to see this fact .

    So my good doctor .... the money in any given economy really belongs to everyone , not just the greedy elite .

    You need to get a real perspective instead of constantly eyeing you own pile of wealth .

    Matt C , 2016-07-07 20:32:07
    so the woman chose to have 3 daughters, is now choosing to foot the bill for their college education, and wants me to feel sorry because she has to work her ass off to do all these things? how about this.... don't have children you can't afford. a little personal responsibility in one's life goes a long, long way.
    Bajanova -> Matt C , 2016-07-07 21:03:04
    She is taking personal responsibility! She is working!
    DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-07 20:35:37
    Everybody here is debating the life of a person who probably doesn't even exist.
    JudeUSA -> DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-07 23:20:41
    Go to the website of the school she works for. Her picture is on the website and the NC pay for a 3 year teacher is about 40K. I think she exists.
    jecoz , 2016-07-07 20:59:28
    We need to redefine middle class. I grew up middle class. We had one TV. Not a lot of clothes. Took short, cheap vacations. Had no credit cards. Our lives were perfectly enjoyable. Many people here in the US live way beyond their means.
    Turrialba -> jecoz , 2016-07-07 21:36:59
    We piled into the station wagon and headed out on short trips in the region. We visited historic sites and were enriched by the experience. None of this $1000s on the trip to Disneyland. We didn't feel deprived or entitled.
    jacknbox -> jecoz , 2016-07-07 23:26:14
    The key is not money but optimism. America is still richer, cleaner, and better run than most other places. But the gap is rapidly closing. Scaling back the spending would not help here. It would only further reduce the drive.
    skwawshbug , 2016-07-07 22:08:36
    As a North Carolinian, there are two major issues. One, the right to bear arms and also, teacher tenure and working conditions. Republicans have already taken away tenure from my younger colleagues, but as an older teacher, I still have mine. Secondly, democrats want to take away gun rights on the federal level, but state dems are usually more pro-gun in the conservative state.

    SO for me, I will vote for a democratic state government and a republican federal government. I will be proudly putting a Roy Cooper bumper sticker on my car. But due to the peaceful liberals, I would be afraid to put a TRUMP sticker on my car because of recent violence against Trump supporters.

    DrSallyWinterton -> skwawshbug , 2016-07-07 22:30:35
    Teachers who can't be thrown out, no matter how incompetent they are, are a major reason why the US educational system is in such a mess.
    Shillingfarmer , 2016-07-07 22:15:18
    The problem is the job exporting American elite class. NAFTA was an economics, political, and social experiment with all the downside on the former, mostly lower middle class. Non-aligned examination of the available data shows how disastrous NAFTA has been to America's bubbas. Thanks to Bush 41 and Bill Clinton. WTO was all Bill. Of the mistakes Obama has made TPP would be the worst. The question is, really, do we favor global fairness (an even playing field for all earth's peoples) and a climate-killing consumerist world, or our own disadvantaged (courtesy of our financial and political elite) citizens. Not an easy choice. Death by poison or hanging. No treaty can benegotiated fairly in secret.
    SocratesP , 2016-07-07 22:30:13
    The tragic irony is that the anger against rule by the 1% manifests in things like support for Trump, a typical example of the greed and excess of the 1%. Americans need to question outside their desperately constrained paradigms more. It will help focus their anger more strategically, and possibly lead to solutions. Don't hold your breath, the inequality gap is accelerating the wrong way.
    DrSallyWinterton , 2016-07-07 22:40:20
    Fake, fake fake. A woman with $40k and three children would *not* be paying 1/3 of her income in tax. This woman does *not* live on $40k net or gross - she has three other jobs. And her name looks *very* made up.
    Bronwyn Holmberg , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    I think the US is heDing for trouble. It is the middle class that maintains civil society and gives a sense of hope. This is an interesting open letter by a zillionaire to his peers warning them what happens without a string middle class. A thought provoking read. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014
    Chris Westcott , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    The elite of the USA have done exactly what the Romans did and what the Pre-Revolutionary French did.... drain the lower classes while enriching themselves. "Taxes are for little people" is not just a pithy quote, it has become the reality as the elite rig the system so they benefit and the lower classes pay. They need to wake up or they will get exactly what the Romans Got (collapsed empire) or the French got (Violent Revolution). Wake up America! It is time to choose your side in the class war the elite continue to execute while telling us there is no "Class War" - you can't pull yourself up by your boot straps while they are pulling the rug out from under you!
    veloboldie , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    My wife used to employ recent graduates from Georgetown University with poli. sci., psychology, sociology degrees, to stack books for $10/hr. It took them on average 2-3 years, before finding work in their field. I keep telling my kids you need to earn a degree that has a skill for life and will always be in demand, i.e. doctor, dentist, vet, engineer, scientist. Additionally, include work oversees in your career.
    Ardnas1936 -> veloboldie , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    Education is NOT about finding a job! It's about learning ways to seek wisdom and rationality, and to assimilate (not deny) new knowledge throughout your life--and that's exactly what's lacking in the US! Our schools are factories to turn out standard robots to be used by the owners of this country, whether they practice law or flip burgers.

    I was lucky that my parents were born and raised before that happened. They went to what used to be called "country schools"--my dad to a 1-room schoolhouse. Some of the so-called "knowledge" was patriotic trash, serving only the rich elites, but they learned to be sturdy and to think for themselves, so I was lucky and learned a lot at home. Without parents who practice the empathetic, rational morality needed in a democracy, all the jobs in the world--especially if most are for flipping burgers--won't save this dreary country.

    nataliesutler -> veloboldie , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    You make an excellent point. Thinking about your life rather than just going for a crip major in college would be an excellent way NOT to wind up stacking books for $10 an hour with a degree. I can't count the number of my kids friends who select communications majors, or sociology or women's studies and then are completely surprised when there are no jobs demanding their educational background. What is it that they think they will be qualified to do after college?
    mikegood , 2016-07-07 22:41:01
    From the article.... "Some lucky families saw themselves promoted to the upper income bracket." Here in a nutshell we see the author's underlying worldview. Getting to the upper income bracket has nothing to do with effort. Rather it's the result of luck. It's something that is done to you by an outside force.

    [Aug 23, 2016] The Populist Uprising Isn't Over-It's Only Just Begun Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community by Robert Borosage

    www.commondreams.org

    The likelihood is that the Clinton presidency will be tumultuous.

    1. No Honeymoon: On the left, there are fewer hopes about Clinton than about Barack Obama. The pressure will begin even before she takes office in what is likely to be a battle royal in the lame duck session of Congress as Obama tries to force through his TPP trade deal.
    2. New Energy: If the Sanders supporters stay engaged, there could be an organizational form – his OurRevolution and his institute – that can do what a political party should do: educate and mobilize around progressive issues; recruit and support truly progressive candidates. This insurgency may continue to grow.
    3. New Generation: It can't be forgotten how overwhelmingly Sanders won young voters. He not only won 3 of 4 millennial voters in the Democratic primaries, he won a majority of young people of color voting. Some of this was his message. Much of it was the integrity of someone consistent in his views spurning the big money corruptions of our politics. These young people are going to keep moving. They won't find answers in a Clinton administration. We're going to see more movements, more disruptions, and more mobilizations – around jobs, around student debt, about inequality, around criminal justice, immigration, globalization, and climate and more.
    4. New Coalitions: Sanders and Trump clearly have shaken the coalitions of their parties. Trump combined populism with bigotry and xenophobia to break up the Republican establishment's ability to use the latter to support their neoliberal economics. Sanders attracted support of the young across lines of race, challenging the Democratic establishment's ability to use liberal identity politics to fuse minorities and upper middle class professionals into a majority coalition. Clinton fended off the challenge, but the shakeup has only begun.
    5. New Ideas: The Davos era has failed. There is no way it can continue down the road without producing more and more opposition. This is now the second straight "recovery" in which most Americans will lose ground. Already the elite is embattled intellectually on key elements of the neo-liberal agenda: corporate globalization, privatization, austerity, "small government," even global policing. Joe Stiglitz suggests that the Davos era is over, but that is premature. What is clear is that it has failed and the struggle to replace it has just begun. And that waving the white flag because Trump is besmirching populism mistakes today's farce for history's drama.
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

    Robert Borosage is the founder and president of the Institute for America's Future and co-director of its sister organization, the Campaign for America's Future.

    [Aug 22, 2016] Bernie Sanders: The Ron Paul of the Left? Not Quite by Justin Raimondo

    May 29, 2015 | original.antiwar.com

    Yet his real foreign policy record is closer to Hillary's than he likes to admit. Yes, he opposed the Iraq war – and then proceeded to routinely vote to fund that war: ditto Afghanistan. In 2003, at the height of the Iraq war hysteria, then Congressman Sanders voted for a congressional resolution hailing Bush:

    "Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism."

    As the drumbeat for war with Iran got louder, Rep. Sanders voted for the Iran Freedom Support Act, which codified sanctions imposed since the fall of the Shah and handed out millions to "pro-freedom" groups seeking the overthrow of the Tehran regime. The Bush administration, you'll recall, was running a regime change operation at that point which gave covert support to Jundullah, a terrorist group responsible for murdering scores of Iranian civilians. Bush was also canoodling with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a weirdo cult group once designated as a terrorist organization (a label lifted by Hillary Clinton's State Department after a well-oiled public relations campaign).

    Sanders fulsomely supported the Kosovo war: when shocked antiwar activists visited his Senate office in Burlington, Vermont, he called the cops on them. At a Montpelier public meeting featuring a debate on the war, Bernie argued passionately in favor of Bill Clinton's "humanitarian" intervention, and pointedly told hecklers to leave if they didn't like what he had to say.

    As a Senator, his votes on civil liberties issues show a distinct pattern. While he voted against the Patriot Act, in 2006 he voted in favor of making fourteen provisions of the Act permanent, including those that codified the FBI's authority to seize business records and carry out roving wiretaps. Sanders voted no on the legislation establishing the Department of Homeland Security, but by the time he was in the Senate he was regularly voting for that agency's ever-expanding budget.

    The evolution of Bernie Sanders – from his days as a Liberty Unionist radical and Trotskyist fellow-traveler, to his first political success as Mayor of Burlington, his election to Congress and then on to the Senate – limns the course of the post-Sixties American left. Although birthed in the turmoil of the Vietnam war, the vaunted anti-interventionism of this crowd soon fell by the wayside as domestic political tradeoffs trumped ideology. Nothing exemplifies this process of incremental betrayal better than Sanders' support for the troubled F-35 fighter jet, the classic case of a military program that exists only to enrich the military-industrial complex. Although the plane has been plagued with technical difficulties, and has toted up hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns, Sanders has stubbornly defended and voted for it because Lockheed-Martin manufactures it in Vermont.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Gaius Publius: You Broke It, You Bought It – A Sanders Activist Challenges Clinton Supporters

    No progressives worth their name would vote for Hillary. Betrayal of Sanders made the choice more difficult, but still there no alternative. Clinton "No passaran!". Also "Clinton proved capable of coming to an agreement with Sanders. He received good money, bought a new house, published a book, and joined with Clinton, calling on his supporters to vote for her"...
    Crappy slogans like "hold her feet to the fire" are lies. Has there ever been serious detail about that? I've seen this line over and over. Hillary is dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal and will behave as such as soon as she get into office. You can view her iether as (more jingoistic) Obama II or (equally reckless) Bush III. If she wins, the next opportunity to check her neoliberal leaning will be only during the next Persidential election.
    Notable quotes:
    "... ...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any number of issues that touch core progressives values. ..."
    "... It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
    "... She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign  -  Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
    "... The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies. ..."
    "... It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in any sense that a normal person understands it. ..."
    "... TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions. ..."
    "... Regulatory arb, slice of corruption, and like shareholder value memes an equity burnishing tool… ..."
    "... One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS. Tariffs are necessary. ..."
    "... The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a sovereign nation any more. ..."
    "... You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh). ..."
    "... Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power. ..."
    "... merely infinite wealth and power for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? ..."
    "... Globalization and Technologization is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class. ..."
    "... The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants. ..."
    Aug 20, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com

    ...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any number of issues that touch core progressives values.

    ... ... ...

    Becky Bond on the Challenge to Clinton Supporters

    ...Bond looks at what the primary has wrought, and issues this challenge to activists who helped defeat Sanders: You broke it, you bought it. Will you now take charge in the fight to hold Clinton accountable? Or will you hang back (enjoying the fruits) and let others take the lead? ("Enjoying the fruits" is my addition. As one attendee noted, the Democratic Convention this year seemed very much like "a jobs fair.")

    Bond says this, writing in The Hill (my emphasis):

    Progressive Clinton supporters: You broke it, you bought it

    It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable.

    With Donald Trump tanking in the polls, there's room for progressives to simultaneously crush his bid for the presidency while holding Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on the TPP .

    And yet:

    She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign  -  Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable.

    ... ... ...

    Bond has more on Salazar and why both he and Tim Kaine are a "tell," a signal of things to come from Hillary Clinton: "The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies."

    ... ... ...

    Carla , August 20, 2016 at 5:40 am

    It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in any sense that a normal person understands it.

    This is the evil behind the lie of calling these "trade" agreements and putting the focus on "jobs." TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions.

    That's what's at stake; not jobs. The jobs will be lost to automation anyway; they are never coming back. The TPP et al legal straight jackets do not sell out jobs, that's already been done. No, what these phony trade agreements do is foreclose any hope of achieving functioning democracies. Please start saying so!

    sd , August 20, 2016 at 5:55 am

    Question – If automation killed jobs, then why did manufacturing move to low wage states and countries?

    Carla , August 20, 2016 at 6:25 am

    I miss-typed above. Of course I meant TPP and not ttp.

    Yes, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., certainly killed jobs. However, those jobs are not coming back to these shores. In the higher wage countries, "good" jobs - in manufacturing and in many "knowledge" and "service" sectors - as well as unskilled jobs, are being or have been replaced with automated means and methods.

    Just a few examples: automobile assemblers; retail cashiers; secretaries; steelworkers; highway toll collectors; gas station attendants. ETC. Here's what's happened so far just in terms of Great Lakes freighters:

    "The wheelman stood behind Captain Ross, clutching a surprisingly tiny, computerized steering wheel. He wore driving gloves and turned the Equinox every few seconds in whatever direction the captain told him to. The wheel, computer monitors and what looked like a server farm filling the wheelhouse are indicative of changes in the shipping industry. Twenty years ago, it took 35 crew members to run a laker. The Equinox operates with 16, only a handful of whom are on duty at once."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/travel/great-lakes-montreal-minnesota.html

    TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not trade, and only very incidentally, jobs. The rulers of the universe vastly prefer paying no wages to paying low wages, and whatever can be automated, will be, eventually in low-wage countries as well as here and in Europe. A great deal of this has already happened and it will continue. Only 5 sections of the TPP even deal with trade–that's out of 29. Don't take this on my authority; Public Citizen is the gold standard of analysis regarding these so-called "trade" agreements.

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 2:00 am

    It took the OverClass several decades to send all those jobs away from our shores. It would take several decades to bring those jobs back to our shores. But it could be done within a context of militant belligerent protectionism.

    Americans are smart enough to make spoons, knives and forks. We used to make them. We could make them again. The only obstacles are contrived and artificial political-economic and policy obstacles. Apply a different Market Forcefield to the American Market, and the actors within that market would act differently over the several decades to come.

    Andrew , August 20, 2016 at 6:34 am

    Automation hasn't eliminated those jobs yet. But it will. See Foxconns investment in automation to eliminate iPhone assemblers.

    Skippy , August 20, 2016 at 6:37 am

    Regulatory arb, slice of corruption, and like shareholder value memes an equity burnishing tool…

    EndOfTheWorld , August 20, 2016 at 6:46 am

    One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS. Tariffs are necessary. They protect your industries while at the same time bringing in a lot of revenue.

    The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a sovereign nation any more.

    casino implosion , August 20, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    Sovereign nations are racist.

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 2:02 am

    Really? Even multi-ethnic ones like Russia? Or America on a good day? Or Canada?

    You might want to be careful with Davos Man Free-Trade hasbara like that. You could end up giving racism a good name.

    Tom , August 20, 2016 at 6:50 am

    Off-shoring was just a stop-gap measure until human capital could be completely removed from the equation.

    Tom , August 20, 2016 at 7:55 am

    I meant to include a link to this particularly shocking example from a few months ago:
    Foxconn, Apple's Chinese supplier, is replacing 60,000 workers with AI robots.

    John , August 20, 2016 at 10:07 am

    Well then Apple can bring the all it's manufacturing back to the U.S. No need to be in China if they aren't using slave wage workers.

    Tom , August 20, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    Humans are just one line item on the list of expenses..

    dk , August 20, 2016 at 8:20 am

    ^That.

    Vastydeep , August 20, 2016 at 7:19 am

    The first round of industrial revolution automation substituted machines for human/horse mechanical exertion. We reached "peak horse" around 1900, and the move to low-wage/low-regulation states was just a step on the global race to the bottom. You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh).

    Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power.

    Will the rise of the machines lead to abundance for all, or merely infinite wealth and power for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? TPP and it's ilk may be the last chance for we the people to have any say in it.

    PhilU , August 20, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Manufacturing is in decline due to Reagan's tax cuts and low investment. Globalization and Technologization is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class.

    John Zelnicker , August 20, 2016 at 10:23 am

    @Squirrel – Labor costs, as you say, are a driving force; they are not the only one. Notice that the products you mentioned are all large heavy items. In these cases the transportation costs are high enough that the companies want their production to be close to their final market. The lower cost of labor elsewhere is not enough to compensate for the higher shipping costs from those locations. In addition, the wage gap between the US and other places has narrowed over the past 20 years, mostly due to the ongoing suppression of wage gains in the US. Your examples are exceptions that do not falsify the original premise that a huge amount of manufacturing has moved to lower wage locations. And those moves are still ongoing, e.g., Carrier moving to Mexico.

    The cost of manufactured goods has not fallen because the labor savings is going to profit and executive compensation, not reduced prices.

    TimmyB , August 20, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Sanders gets 45% of the vote and leads them down Hillarys cattle chute for slaughter – not cooption, not marginalization, but the bolt gun to the head

    Notable quotes:
    "... All these elections are equally fake. At some point you're going to have to stop pecking B.F. Skinner's levers, because the pellets have stopped coming out. But there's no point reasoning with you till your extinction burst finally subsides. ..."
    "... This is not a very good piece for several reasons, one being only in the nonsense universe of US mainstream discourse can Clinton be termed a 'centrist' or can someone be depicted as a bona fide 'progressive' and also be a supporter of Clinton. I wouldn't waste a moment trying to pressure 'Clinton progressives' on anything – there is no historical evidence she or Bill have ever had the slightest interest in the public interest. At best a 'Clinton progressive' might claim to be 'defending' some existing public good, but good luck there as well – as Trump is not the source of any real 'threat', that distinction belonging to the existing power elites (military, financial, corporate, legal, media etc.) Clinton serves. ..."
    "... The idea that Clinton ever was 'open' to progressives reminds me of why the putrid Rahm Emmanuel could dismiss the left as a 'bunch of retards'. Time to make them eat those words by taking ourselves and our values and our thinking seriously enough we stop fearing not being taken 'seriously' by so loathsome a crew as the Clintons. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Mooooo , August 20, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    Here in Temple Grandin's touchy-feely slaughterhouse, Sanders gets 45% of the vote and leads them down Hillary's cattle chute for slaughter – not cooption, not marginalization, but the bolt gun to the head, with lots of sadistic poleaxing straight out of an illegal PETA video. The surviving livestock are auctioned off for flensing through gleeful trading in influence. This we learn, is not beyond redemption. In some demented psycho-Quaker sense, perhaps. What the fuck WON'T you put up with?

    In this psychotic mindset, Kim Jong Un's 99.97% victory proves he's like twice as worthwhile as any Dem. Write him in. Nursultan Nazarbayev, too, his 98% success speaks for itself. Write him in. All these elections are equally fake. At some point you're going to have to stop pecking B.F. Skinner's levers, because the pellets have stopped coming out. But there's no point reasoning with you till your extinction burst finally subsides.

    Then we can talk about how you knock over moribund regimes.

    Fiver , August 20, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    This is not a very good piece for several reasons, one being only in the nonsense universe of US mainstream discourse can Clinton be termed a 'centrist' or can someone be depicted as a bona fide 'progressive' and also be a supporter of Clinton. I wouldn't waste a moment trying to pressure 'Clinton progressives' on anything – there is no historical evidence she or Bill have ever had the slightest interest in the public interest. At best a 'Clinton progressive' might claim to be 'defending' some existing public good, but good luck there as well – as Trump is not the source of any real 'threat', that distinction belonging to the existing power elites (military, financial, corporate, legal, media etc.) Clinton serves.

    There are 3 critical issues 'progressives', Greens, lefties, libertarians and others must come together en masse to resist: TPP immediately, US foreign policy of permanent wars of aggression now involving the entire Muslim world and fossil fuels. Don't waste any time hoping to influence Clinton (you won't) or fretting about Trump. First TPP, then anti-War/anti-fossil fuels.

    I am convinced TPP can be beaten – not with 'Clinton activists', but with a broad coalition of interests. And once it has been beaten, the supremely idiotic 'war on terror' is next up. Americans' votes and electoral desires have been ignored and suppressed. Other legitimate means therefore must be taken up and utilized to change critical policy failures directly.

    The idea that Clinton ever was 'open' to progressives reminds me of why the putrid Rahm Emmanuel could dismiss the left as a 'bunch of retards'. Time to make them eat those words by taking ourselves and our values and our thinking seriously enough we stop fearing not being taken 'seriously' by so loathsome a crew as the Clintons.

    [Aug 21, 2016] The Latest Trump says he'll restrict speaking fees

    The Washington Post

    Donald Trump says he'll implement tough new restrictions on administration officials and their spouses giving paid speeches if he's elected to the White House.

    The GOP nominee is telling a rally crowd in Wisconsin that he wants to ban the spouses of senior government officials from collecting speaking fees as they serve.

    He says he'll insist senior officials sign an agreement barring them from collecting speaking fees from corporations with a registered lobbyist or any entity tied to a foreign government for five years after leaving office.

    Trump has criticized rival Hillary Clinton for the speaking fees she collected after leaving her position as secretary of state and called on her to release the transcripts.

    [Aug 20, 2016] Trip Reports from Sanders Delegates at the Democrat National Convention

    Notable quotes:
    "... Perhaps the most surreal point of the night is when a military leader speaks to how much butt we're going to kick once Hillary is elected, the Sanders delegates start the chant, "Peace, Not War", and the rest of the arena drowns this out with chants of 'U.S.A ..."
    "... We discussed how it felt Orwellian, like the two minutes of hate in 1984. "Having chants of 'No More War' attempted to be drowned out by chants of 'USA' was baffling," Alan Doucette, Bernie delegate from Las Vegas, said. "To me, USA is a symbol of justice and equality and not warmongering and looking for excuses to go to war. That's what I want it to be and what it should be." ..."
    "... "The most dislocating experience was General Allen's speech, with so many military brass on display, and the 'fight' between No More War and USA. That was chilling. Note, No More War is not: War Criminal! Or similarly 'disrespectful' stuff; it's simply a demand not to make our present worse with more 'hawkish' 'interventionist' 'regime change' wars and war-actions." ..."
    "... The US 2016 election is different. You actually have a huge choice to make. Do you vote(or not vote) to support the Washington establishment, which is clearly pushing for war with Russia, or do you vote Trump who doesn't want such a war? Your choice. ..."
    "... why would you even contemplate gambling that we can survive 4 years of Clinton without a nuclear war? ..."
    naked capitalism
    Militarism

    Mark Lasser (CO): "Perhaps the most surreal point of the night is when a military leader speaks to how much butt we're going to kick once Hillary is elected, the Sanders delegates start the chant, "Peace, Not War", and the rest of the arena drowns this out with chants of 'U.S.A.'"

    Carole Levers (CA): " I was harassed by five Hillary delegates who got in my face while I was sitting in my seat. They told me that we needed to quit chanting, go home, and that we did not belong there. They added that by chanting "No More Wars" we were disrespecting the veterans. I replied that none of us were disrespecting the veterans. We were honoring them by NOT WANTING ANY MORE DEAD VETERANS, killed in illegal wars for the profits of the wealthy. I reiterated that we were exercising our first amendment rights to which one replied that WE (Bernie delegates) had no rights. I was later shoved by a Hillary delegate into the metal frame of the seats."

    Carol Cizauskas (NV): "We heard other Bernie delegates chanting "No more war" and then the "opposing team" of Hillary delegates thundering over those chants with "USA." It was darkly eerie. We discussed how it felt Orwellian, like the two minutes of hate in 1984. "Having chants of 'No More War' attempted to be drowned out by chants of 'USA' was baffling," Alan Doucette, Bernie delegate from Las Vegas, said. "To me, USA is a symbol of justice and equality and not warmongering and looking for excuses to go to war. That's what I want it to be and what it should be."

    #SlayTheSmaugs (NY): "The most dislocating experience was General Allen's speech, with so many military brass on display, and the 'fight' between No More War and USA. That was chilling. Note, No More War is not: War Criminal! Or similarly 'disrespectful' stuff; it's simply a demand not to make our present worse with more 'hawkish' 'interventionist' 'regime change' wars and war-actions."

    Lauren Steiner (CA): "[Clinton supporters] decided to chant with us when we chanted 'Black Lives Matter.' But for some reason, they found 'No More War' to be offensive and shouted "USA" right after. At first, I was puzzled by the fact that they were shouting exactly what Trump supporters shout at his rallies. Then, after all the bellicose speeches and the fact that they had so many Republicans endorsing Clinton, it hit me that perhaps it was because they were courting Republicans now. They didn't care about our support anymore."

    Ike, August 18, 2016 at 1:02 pm

    I am reading Primary Colors by Anonymous. It is entertaining as well as reaffirming a suspected baseline of conduct.

    Lambert Strether, August 18, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    Primary Colors (by Joke Line (Joe Klein)) is terrific. The movie is good too. I am so happy and amazed that I live in a world where John Travolta plays Bill Clinton in a movie.

    Jeremy Grimm, August 18, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    The harassment and dirty tricks pulled against the Sanders people - as described in these collected reports - leaves me wondering whether Sanders actually won the nomination. It would have been much more politic for the Hillary people to let the Sanders delegates blow off steam and wait until the nomination and end of the convention to circle the wagons in "unity". If Hillary clearly won the nomination then the stupidity and arrogance in team Hillary's treatment of the Sanders people speaks to a new level of disdain for the 99%. The business about the $700 hotels and the misinformation and lack of information provided from team Sanders raises other questions.

    trent, August 18, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    Wow, all those testimonials from the democrat convention are an eye opener, for some. Hillary's soft Nazism on full display for any of the still true believers. Yet the press calls trump the Nazi. Trump is crazy, but its almost an honest craziness compared to Hillary. She's nuts, but manipulates everything she can to hide it. I'll take out in the open crazy, easier to plan for.


    EoinW, August 19, 2016 at 8:51 am

    I haven't voted in years. In Canada, however, we've never been given a choice on anything. Doesn't matter if the election is federal, provincial or municipal, no issues just personalities.

    The US 2016 election is different. You actually have a huge choice to make. Do you vote(or not vote) to support the Washington establishment, which is clearly pushing for war with Russia, or do you vote Trump who doesn't want such a war? Your choice.

    But why would you even contemplate gambling that we can survive 4 years of Clinton without a nuclear war? Speculating on global warming or third party movements kind of lose their significance during a nuclear winter.

    Patricia

    This young woman turned it into a tale, "The Bullshittery of the DNC":

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHD_bj5fXO0

    [Aug 20, 2016] Trump Promises 'Inclusive' Republican Party at Virginia Rally

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I want our party to be the home of the African-American voter once again. I want a totally inclusive country and I want an inclusive party," he said in a speech at the Fredericksburg Expo and Conference Center. ..."
    sputniknews.com

    US presidential candidate Donald Trump promised on Saturday to make the Republican party inclusive and reach out to black voters, at a campaign rally in Fredericksburg, Virginia.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Opinion polls regularly give Trump less than 10 percent of the vote of the 40 million-strong African-American community. Speaking in the key battleground state, Trump said that the GOP "must do better and will do better."

    "I want our party to be the home of the African-American voter once again. I want a totally inclusive country and I want an inclusive party," he said in a speech at the Fredericksburg Expo and Conference Center.

    The real-estate mogul promised earlier that if elected, his policies would restore African-American fortunes so dramatically that they would overwhelmingly vote for his reelection in 2020.

    [Aug 20, 2016] It is a perplexing and sorry phenomenon that deserves the attention of a first rate pundit like Frank

    Amazon review of Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew... the word "conservative" was replaced by "neoliberal" as it more correctly reflect the concept behind this social process.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberal ideology is championed on behalf of corporate elites who have now secured total control, even ownership, of the federal government. ..."
    "... Elites need federal government revenue transferred to their realm via fat government contracts and juicy subsidies. They want government without regulation, and they want taxation imposed on the masses without real representation, but not on them. ..."
    "... Neoliberals drew up a long term strategy to sabotage and disrupt the liberal apparatus. There ensued a vast selling-off of government assets (and favors) to those willing to fund the neoliberal movement. The strategy was concocted as a long term plan - the master blueprint for a wholesale transfer of government responsibilities to private-sector contractors unaccountable to Congress or anyone else. An entire industry sprung up to support conservatism - the great god market (corporate globalism) replaced anti-communism as the new inspiration. (page 93) ..."
    "... But capitalism is not loyal to people or anything once having lost its usefulness, not even the nation state or the flag ..."
    "... According to Frank, what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of governments; it is the capture of government by business interests. ..."
    "... Neoliberals don't want efficient government, they want less competition and more profits - especially for defense contractors. Under Reagan, civil servants were out, loyalists were in. ..."
    "... Contractors are now a fourth branch of government with more people working under contracts than are directly employed by government - making it difficult to determine where government stops and the contractors start in a system of privatized government where private contractors are shielded from oversight or accountability ..."
    "... The first general rule of neoliberal administration: cronies in, experts out. ..."
    "... Under Reagan, a philosophy of government blossomed that regarded business as its only constituent. ..."
    "... Watergate poisoned attitudes toward government - helping sweep in Ronald Reagan with his anti-government cynicism. Lobbying and influence peddling proliferated in a privatized government. Lobbying is how money casts its vote. It is the signature activity of neoliberal governance - the mechanism that translates market forces into political action. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism speaks of not compromise but of removing adversaries from the field altogether. ..."
    "... One should never forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal that saved capitalism from itself. Also, one should not forget that capitalism came out of the classical liberal tradition. Capitalists had to wrest power away from the landowning nobility, the arch neoliberal tradition of its time. ..."
    www.amazon.com
    Russell Ferrell

    Format: Paperback

    Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew is another classic. This work, along with his more notable What's The Matter With Kansas?, is another ground breaking examination into a major phenomenon of American politics by one of America's foremost social analysts and critics. While What's The Matter With Kansas? looked more at cultural behavior in explaining why Red State Americans have embraced corporate elitist ideology and ballot casting that militates against their own economic self-interest, even their very survival, this title deals more with structural changes in the government, economy, and society that have come about as a result of a Republican right wing agenda. It is a perplexing and sorry phenomenon that deserves the attention of a first rate pundit like Frank.

    Neoliberal ideology is championed on behalf of corporate elites who have now secured total control, even ownership, of the federal government. The Wrecking Crew is about a Republican agenda to totally eliminate the last vestiges of the New Deal and Great Society, which have provided social safety nets for ordinary working class Americans through programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Corporate elites want to demolish only that part of government that doesn't benefit the corporation. Thus, a huge military budget and intrusive national security and police apparatus is revered, while education, health, welfare, infrastructure, etc. are of less utility for the corporate state. High taxes on the corporations and wealthy are abhorred, while the middle class is expected to shoulder a huge tax burden. Although Republicans rail against federal deficits, when in office they balloon the federal deficits in a plan for government-by-sabotage. (Page 261)

    Elites need federal government revenue transferred to their realm via fat government contracts and juicy subsidies. They want government without regulation, and they want taxation imposed on the masses without real representation, but not on them. The big government they rail at is the same government they own and benefit from. They certainly do not want the national security state (the largest part of government) or the national police system to go away, not even the IRS. How can they fight wars without a revenue collection system? The wellspring of conservatism in America today -- preserving connections between the present and past -- is a destroyer of tradition, not a preserver. (Page 267)

    Neoliberals drew up a long term strategy to sabotage and disrupt the liberal apparatus. There ensued a vast selling-off of government assets (and favors) to those willing to fund the neoliberal movement. The strategy was concocted as a long term plan - the master blueprint for a wholesale transfer of government responsibilities to private-sector contractors unaccountable to Congress or anyone else. An entire industry sprung up to support conservatism - the great god market (corporate globalism) replaced anti-communism as the new inspiration. (page 93)

    Market populism arose as business was supposed to empower the noble common people. But capitalism is not loyal to people or anything once having lost its usefulness, not even the nation state or the flag. (page 100) While the New Deal replaced rule by wealthy with its brain trust, conservatism, at war with intellectuals, fills the bureaucracy with cronies, hacks, partisans, and creationists. The democracy, or what existed of it, was to be gradually made over into a plutocracy - rule by the wealthy. (Page 252) Starting with Reagan and Thatcher, the program was to hack open the liberal state in order to reward business with the loot. (Page 258) The ultimate neoliberal goal is to marketize the nation's politics so that financial markets can be elevated over vague liberalisms like the common good and the public interest. (Page 260)

    According to Frank, what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of governments; it is the capture of government by business interests. The game of corporatism is to see how much public resources the private interest can seize for itself before public government can stop them. A proper slogan for this mentality would be: more business in government, less government in business. And, there are market based solutions to every problem. Government should be market based. George W. Bush grabbed more power for the executive branch than anyone since Nixon. The ultra-rights' fortunes depend on public cynicism toward government. With the U.S. having been set up as a merchant state, the idea of small government is now a canard - mass privatization and outsourcing is preferred. Building cynicism toward government is the objective. Neoliberals don't want efficient government, they want less competition and more profits - especially for defense contractors. Under Reagan, civil servants were out, loyalists were in.

    While the Clinton team spoke of entrepreneurial government - of reinventing government - the wrecking crew under Republicans has made the state the tool of money as a market-based system replaced civil service by a government-by-contractor (outsourcing). Page 137 This has been an enduring trend, many of the great robber barons got their start as crooked contractors during the Civil War. Contractors are now a fourth branch of government with more people working under contracts than are directly employed by government - making it difficult to determine where government stops and the contractors start in a system of privatized government where private contractors are shielded from oversight or accountability. (Page 138)

    The first general rule of neoliberal administration: cronies in, experts out. The Bush team did away with EPA's office of enforcement - turning enforcement power over to the states. (Page 159) In an effort to demolish the regulatory state, Reagan, immediately after taking office, suspended hundreds of regulations that federal agencies had developed during the Carter Administration. Under Reagan, a philosophy of government blossomed that regarded business as its only constituent. In recent years, neoliberals have deliberately piled up debt to force government into crisis.

    Watergate poisoned attitudes toward government - helping sweep in Ronald Reagan with his anti-government cynicism. Lobbying and influence peddling proliferated in a privatized government. Lobbying is how money casts its vote. It is the signature activity of neoliberal governance - the mechanism that translates market forces into political action. (Page 175)

    It is the goal of the neoliberal agenda to smash the liberal state. Deficits are one means to accomplish that end.- to persuade voters to part with programs like Social Security and Medicare so these funds can be transferred to corporate contractors or used to finance wars or deficit reduction.. Uncle Sam can raise money by selling off public assets.

    Since liberalism depends on fair play by its sworn enemies, it is vulnerable to sabotage by those not playing by liberalism's rules/ (Page 265) The Liberal State, a vast machinery built for our protection has been reengineered into a device for our exploitation. (Page 8) Liberalism arose out of a long-ago compromise between left-wing social movements and business interests. (Page 266) Neoliberalism speaks of not compromise but of removing adversaries from the field altogether. (Page 266) No one dreams of eliminating the branches of state that protect Neoliberalism's constituents such as the military, police, or legal privileges granted to corporations, neoliberals openly scheme to do away with liberal bits of big government. (Page 266)

    Liberalism is a philosophy of compromise, without a force on the Left to neutralize the magneticism exerted by money, liberalism will be drawn to the right. (Page 274)

    Through corporate media and right wing talk show, liberalism has become a dirty word. However, liberalism may not be dead yet. It will have to be resurrected from the trash bin of history when the next capitalist crisis hits. One should never forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal that saved capitalism from itself. Also, one should not forget that capitalism came out of the classical liberal tradition. Capitalists had to wrest power away from the landowning nobility, the arch neoliberal tradition of its time.

    [Aug 19, 2016] Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasnt just violating the norms; she was trying to weaken her Party, draining away resources to the Clinton campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... The violation of norms was similar, but Tom DeLay invented his scheme as a way of strengthening his Party and making it more powerful in Congress, which was kinda his job, and he was quite successful in adding Republicans to the Texas delegation. ..."
    "... Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't just violating the norms; she was trying to weaken her Party, draining away resources to the Clinton campaign that they had no legitimate claim to from parts of the Party that needed those resources. And, it is part of a pattern of leadership action to weaken the Party. (Patrick Murphy, her hand-picked candidate for U.S. Senate from Florida is exhibit one.) ..."
    "... I think it is fair and accurate to describe the HVF transfer arrangements as a means of circumventing campaign financing limits and using the State parties to subsidize the Clinton campaign. ..."
    "... Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of [June], the fund had brought in $142 million, . . . 44 percent [to] DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), . . . state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee - or only 0.56 percent. ..."
    "... Beyond the transfers, much of the fund's $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties ..."
    "... The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for "salary and overhead expenses" to reimburse it for fundraising efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive - both of which also serve the Clinton campaign - for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton campaign materials. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.02.16 at 9:45 pm 72

    Wasn't Tom DeLay indicted and driven from Congress over a similar sort of money shuffle?

    The violation of norms was similar, but Tom DeLay invented his scheme as a way of strengthening his Party and making it more powerful in Congress, which was kinda his job, and he was quite successful in adding Republicans to the Texas delegation.

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't just violating the norms; she was trying to weaken her Party, draining away resources to the Clinton campaign that they had no legitimate claim to from parts of the Party that needed those resources. And, it is part of a pattern of leadership action to weaken the Party. (Patrick Murphy, her hand-picked candidate for U.S. Senate from Florida is exhibit one.)

    bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 1:08 am

    Layman @ 79

    I am not interested in a prolonged back and forth, but I will lay out a bare outline of facts. I do not find much support for your characterization of these arrangements, which give new meaning to the fungibility of funds. I think it is fair and accurate to describe the HVF transfer arrangements as a means of circumventing campaign financing limits and using the State parties to subsidize the Clinton campaign. Court rulings have made aggregate fund raising legal and invites this means of circumventing the $2700 limit on individual Presidential campaign donations. Whether the circumvention is legal - whether it violates the law to invite nominal contributions to State Parties of $10,000 and channel those contributions wholly to operations in support of Clinton, while leaving nothing in State Party coffers is actually illegal, I couldn't say; it certainly violates the norms of a putative joint fundraising effort. It wasn't hard for POLITICO to find State officials who said as much. The rest of this comment quotes POLITICO reports dated July 2016.

    Hillary Victory Fund, which now includes 40 state Democratic Party committees, theoretically could accept checks as large as $436,100 - based on the individual limits of $10,000 per state party, $33,400 for the DNC, and $2,700 for Clinton's campaign.

    Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of [June], the fund had brought in $142 million, . . . 44 percent [to] DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), . . . state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee - or only 0.56 percent.

    . . . state parties have received $7.7 million in transfers, but within a few days of most transfers, almost all of the cash - $6.9 million - was transferred to the DNC . . .

    The only date on which most state parties received money from the victory fund and didn't pass any of it on to the DNC was May 2, the same day that POLITICO published an article exposing the arrangement.

    Beyond the transfers, much of the fund's $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties.

    The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for "salary and overhead expenses" to reimburse it for fundraising efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive - both of which also serve the Clinton campaign - for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton campaign materials.

    [Aug 18, 2016] Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted

    Notable quotes:
    "... In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. ..."
    "... The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. ..."
    "... Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? ..."
    "... It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard Nixon, who also had a plan. ..."
    "... Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted ..."
    "... The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine (an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    stevenjohnson 08.09.16 at 3:46 pm

    Criticizing Clinton from the right is just as reactionary as criticizing Trump from the right. Further, assigning an individual such personal responsibility denies the reality of a bipartisan system that administers an imperialist government with only a formal simulacrum of popular support. That is, this "criticism" is fundamentally from the right.

    In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. The careers of Stevenson and Bolton alone show that the potential importance of security council veto means the President reserves direct supervision for himself, no matter what an organizational chart may say.

    The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. The implication that for a Secretary of State to sell weapons to foreign nations isn't constituent service borders on the silly. Besides, isolationism is not left win, never has been, never was.

    And the implication that the any US government would ever favor supporting a leftish president in Latin America because of its commitment to democracy thoroughly falsifies the nature of the US government. Disappearing left criticism of Obama is thoroughly reactionary.

    Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? Buying into this is buying decades of reactionary propaganda. I suppose this is mindlessness enough to satisfy people who alleged that SYRIZA was going to save Greece (the rock that should by the way have sunk Jacobin magazines credibility, leaving next to the Titanic,) or Bernie Sanders was starting a revolution.

    It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard Nixon, who also had a plan. I suppose F. Foundling eager awaits Trump's great "Nixon goes to China" moment. I have no idea why.

    Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted. As to which one it is, there has really never been much doubt that Clinton in the end will gain enough minority support to carry the big cities. But if the reactionaries depress the turnout enough, Trump has a shot at an electoral college victory, especially given the precedents on how votes are counted.

    The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine (an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares.

    [Aug 14, 2016] The Ghost of Seth Rich strikes DemoRats in the House of Representatives

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jim Haygood , August 12, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    The Ghost of Seth Rich strikes:

    After disappearing for a couple of weeks, the hacker "Guccifer 2.0" returned late this afternoon to provide a new headache for Democrats.

    In a post to his WordPress blog, the vandal–who previously provided nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee e-mails to Wikileaks–uploaded an Excel file that includes the cell phone numbers and private e-mail addresses of nearly every Democratic member of the House of Representatives.

    The Excel file also includes similar contact information for hundreds of congressional staff members (chiefs of staff, press secretaries, legislative directors, schedulers) and campaign personnel.

    In announcing the leak of the document, "Guccifer 2.0" reported that the spreadsheet was stolen during a hack of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. " As you see I wasn't wasting my time! It was even easier than in the case of the DNC breach," the hacker wrote.

    http://thesmokinggun.com/buster/democratic-national-committee/guccifer-dccc-hack-645891

    Bryan Pagliano could have stopped this outrage.

    [Aug 14, 2016] WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant

    Notable quotes:
    "... WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant. ..."
    "... In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the risks of being a source for his organization. Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks. ..."
    "... The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established a motive for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he likely died during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told Omaha CBS-affiliate KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was stolen: his watch, money, credit cards and phone were still with him. ..."
    "... The WikiLeaks founder said that others have suggested that Rich was killed for political reasons and that his organization is investigating the incident. ..."
    "... "I think it is a concerning situation. There isn't a conclusion yet. We wouldn't be able to state a conclusion, but we are concerned about it," he continued. "More importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens." ..."
    www.yahoo.com

    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant.

    In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the risks of being a source for his organization.

    Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks.

    But Assange was apparently interested in hinting about an even darker theory.

    "Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often very significant risks. There's a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, who was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington," Assange said on Nieuwsuur. BuzzFeed drew more attention to the interview in the U.S.

    Somewhat startled, news anchor Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal said, "That was just a robbery, I believe - wasn't it?"

    "No, there's no finding," Assange responded. "I'm suggesting that our sources take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."

    "Why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?" van Rosenthal asked.

    "Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States," Assange said, "and that our sources face serious risks. That's why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity."

    The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established a motive for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he likely died during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told Omaha CBS-affiliate KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was stolen: his watch, money, credit cards and phone were still with him.

    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant.

    In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the risks of being a source for his organization.

    Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks.

    But Assange was apparently interested in hinting about an even darker theory.

    "Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often very significant risks. There's a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, who was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington," Assange said on Nieuwsuur. BuzzFeed drew more attention to the interview in the U.S.

    Somewhat startled, news anchor Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal said, "That was just a robbery, I believe - wasn't it?"

    "No, there's no finding," Assange responded. "I'm suggesting that our sources take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."

    "Why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?" van Rosenthal asked.

    "Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States," Assange said, "and that our sources face serious risks. That's why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity."

    The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established a motive for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he likely died during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told Omaha CBS-affiliate KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was stolen: his watch, money, credit cards and phone were still with him.

    The WikiLeaks founder said that others have suggested that Rich was killed for political reasons and that his organization is investigating the incident.

    "I think it is a concerning situation. There isn't a conclusion yet. We wouldn't be able to state a conclusion, but we are concerned about it," he continued. "More importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens."

    WikiLeaks further fanned the flames of conspiracy by offering a $20,000 reward for anyone with information leading to the conviction of the person responsible for killing Rich.

    [Aug 14, 2016] It has been said that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. Bernie Sanders wishes to fool all of the people, at least those who were once his loyal devotees, all of the time.

    www.counterpunch.org
    It has been said that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. Apparently, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders wishes to fool all of the people, at least those who were once his loyal devotees, all of the time. This writer received an enthusiastic email from some organization talking about the next steps in Mr. Sanders 'revolution', and requesting that this writer hold a house party to watch a speech to be given by the senator, as part of the initiation of a new organization called 'Our Revolution'.

    Well, there is certainly something revolting about all this, but it has nothing to do with a social change.

    Mr. Sanders, that avowed socialist with a long and undistinguished career in what passes in the U.S. for public service (well-paid 'service', that is), lost all credibility with any but his most blindly loyal followers when, after months of railing against everything that Hillary Clinton stands for, even to the point of calling her unfit to be president, he put on a happy face and gave her a glowing endorsement at the Democratic Convention. Does this sound to the reader like a man of integrity? Does endorsing Miss Wall Street 2016 have that ring of revolutionary fervor? Does such glowing support of the Princess of Israel sound like part of revolutionary change

    Methinks not. No, his support for Mrs. Clinton, and his forthcoming address about 'Our Revolution', seem to be the work of a career politician who wants to bask in whatever remains of the adulation of his naive and enthusiastic youthful followers, while at the same time enjoying all the perquisites of 'the good old boys' club'. The only thing he sacrifices along the way (in addition, of course, to self-respect, but who in elected office has that anyway?), is credibility. Oh, and integrity. And honesty. Well, maybe he does make many sacrifices to enjoy both the prestige of change agent and maintainer of the status quo. But really, does anyone do it better than he?

    [Aug 13, 2016] Mysterious Deaths of DNC s Seth Rich and Other East Coast Politicos Fuel Conspiracy Theories

    See Julian Assange viewpoint YouTube also see INCREDIBLE! RUSH Wikileaks' Julian Assange Implies Murdered DNC Staffer Was Email-Leaker - YouTube
    Notable quotes:
    "... "From Claudia Kash: I know why Seth Rich had to die. There were 2 sets of polling places this primary season -- one set for most of the voters, who went on state websites to find their polling locations -- a second set for Hillary Clinton supporters who looked on Hillary Clinton's website to find their polling location. The Secretary of State for each state had one set of locations on >the record; the other set of locations, the ones listed on Hillary's website, were not on the state record. I know this because I looked on her website to find where a friend should vote -- then double-checked the state >website, which showed a different address. I thought there must be a mistake -- I kept checking, right up to election day. ..."
    "... But until they killed Seth Rich, I couldn't figure out why there would be two different polling places. This is how I think the scam worked: While most voters look up their location on their state website, voters who were signed up as Hillary Clinton supporters would be directed to her site to find their polling place. It was set up the same as any other DNC polling place -- with DNC volunteers, regular voting machines, etc. -- and a duplicate voter roster, the same as the roster at the other polling place. Voters would be checked off on the roster, same as at the other polling place... and after the polls closed, the DNC supervisor would pick up the roster and the ballots. ..."
    "... Seems a straight Machiavellian operation. Murder the young insider, Seth Rich, that leaked the emails to Assange's Wikileaks and then blame it on an enemy that none can fact check on. DNC= Deep National Control ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    Yul | Aug 11, 2016 2:18:39 PM | 13
    WRT Seth Rich

    check this site :
    https://heatst.com/politics/mysterious-deaths-of-dncs-seth-rich-and-other-east-coast-politicos-fuel-conspiracy-theories/

    Mysterious Deaths of DNC's Seth Rich and Other East Coast Politicos Fuel Conspiracy Theories

    Tom in AZ | Aug 11, 2016 3:15:01 PM | 18
    The media reporting on keeps making the statement from the police 'that nothing was missing from his body or belongings'. The guy was walking around at 4 AM, and apparently no one but his killers actually saw him. So, I guess he couldn't be carrying anything outside of his pockets? In has hands?
    Miok | Aug 11, 2016 11:58:26 PM | 47
    This is supposedly from Seth rich's girlfriend

    https://m.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4vqvug/dnc_staffer_seth_rich_was_set_to_expose_dnc_voter/

    "From Claudia Kash: I know why Seth Rich had to die. There were 2 sets of polling places this primary season -- one set for most of the voters, who went on state websites to find their polling locations -- a second set for Hillary Clinton supporters who looked on Hillary Clinton's website to find their polling location. The Secretary of State for each state had one set of locations on >the record; the other set of locations, the ones listed on Hillary's website, were not on the state record. I know this because I looked on her website to find where a friend should vote -- then double-checked the state >website, which showed a different address. I thought there must be a mistake -- I kept checking, right up to election day.

    But until they killed Seth Rich, I couldn't figure out why there would be two different polling places. This is how I think the scam worked: While most voters look up their location on their state website, voters who were signed up as Hillary Clinton supporters would be directed to her site to find their polling place. It was set up the same as any other DNC polling place -- with DNC volunteers, regular voting machines, etc. -- and a duplicate voter roster, the same as the roster at the other polling place. Voters would be checked off on the roster, same as at the other polling place... and after the polls closed, the DNC supervisor would pick up the roster and the ballots.

    The supervisor would then pick up the roster at the legitimate polling place and the ballots there. He(or she) >would then replace a number of Bernie Sanders ballots with an equal number of the ballots from the Hillary >Clinton voting location. Then the duplicate roster from the HRC would be shredded and thrown away, along >with all the Bernie Sanders ballots that had been replaced. That way the number of people who voted (on the >remaining roster) still matches the number of ballots. This is why so many states reported a "lower than expected voter turnout".

    Seth Rich, who was responsible for the app that helped voters find their polling places, did not realize that there were two sets of polling places until he himself went to vote. He lived in Washington DC, which voted at the end of the primary season, a week after Clinton had already been declared the winner. I believe he discovered it then, and had started asking questions about why the polling places on Hillary's website didn't match the ones on the DC website.

    But even if he didn't say a word to anybody, it would have been dangerous to let him live. He would have >figured it out sooner or later -- and he would have reported it when he did."

    BRF | Aug 12, 2016 3:01:15 PM | 63
    Seems a straight Machiavellian operation. Murder the young insider, Seth Rich, that leaked the emails to Assange's Wikileaks and then blame it on an enemy that none can fact check on. DNC= Deep National Control.

    [Aug 13, 2016] Inside The Head Of Trump Voters

    Notable quotes:
    "... individuals' innate psychological predispositions to intolerance ("authoritarianism") interacting with changing conditions of societal threat. The threatening conditions, particularly resonant in the present political climate, that exacerbate authoritarian attitudes include, most critically, great dissension in public opinion and general loss of confidence in political leaders. Using purpose-built experimental manipulations, cross-national survey data and in-depth personal interviews with extreme authoritarians and libertarians, the book shows that this simple model provides the most complete account of political conflict across the ostensibly distinct domains of race and immigration, civil liberties, morality, crime and punishment, and of when and why those battles will be most heated. ..."
    "... But the latent authoritarianism within them is triggered when they perceive a threat to the stable moral order. ..."
    "... It's at this point in the talk when Haidt surely began to make his audience squirm. He says that in his work as an academic and social psychologist, he sees colleagues constantly demonizing and mocking conservatives. He warns them to knock it off. "We need political diversity," he says. And: "They are members of our community." ..."
    "... The discourse and behavior of the Left, says Haidt, is alienating millions of ordinary people all over the West. It's not just America. We are sliding towards authoritarianism all over the West, and there's really only one way to stop it. ..."
    "... we can reduce intolerance and defuse the conflict by focusing on sameness. We need unifying rituals, beliefs, institutions, and practices, he says, drawing on Stenner's research. The romance the Left has long had with multiculturalism and diversity (as the Left defines it) has to end, because it's helping tear us apart. ..."
    "... If we don't have a feasible conservative party, we open the way for authoritarianism. ..."
    "... I don't think the center can hold anymore. It's too late. The cultural left in this country is very authoritarian, at least as regards orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. On one of the Stenner slides, we see that she defines one characteristic of authoritarians as "punishing out groups." Conservative Christians are the big out group for the cultural left, and have been for a long time. ..."
    "... The threat to the moral order is very real, and not really much of a threat anymore; it's a reality. ..."
    "... Haidt says that the authoritarian impulse comes when people cease trusting in leaders. Yep, that's where a lot of us are, and not by choice. ..."
    The American Conservative
    If you look back far enough in humankind's history, you will observe that you don't see civilizations starting without their building temples first. Haidt, who is a secular liberal, is not making a theistic point, not really. He's saying that the work of civilization can only be accomplished when a people binds itself together around a shared sense of the sacred. It's what makes a people a people, and a civilization a civilization. "It doesn't have to be a god," says Haidt. Anything that we hold sacred, and hold it together, is enough.

    The thing is, this force works like an electromagnetic field: the more tightly it binds us, the more alien others appear to us, and the more we find it impossible to empathize with them. This is what Haidt means by saying that morality binds and blinds.

    Haidt quizzes the 700-800 people in the hall about their Hillary vs. Trump feelings. The group - all psychologists, therapists, professors of psychology, and so forth - were overwhelmingly pro-Hillary and anti-Trump. No surprise there. But then he tells them that if they believe that they could treat without bias a patient who is an open Trump supporter, they're lying to themselves. In the America of 2016, political bias is the most powerful bias of all - more polarizing by far than race, even.

    Haidt turns to the work of social psychologist Karen Stenner, and her 2005 book The Authoritarian Dynamic. The publisher describes the book like this (boldface emphases mine):

    What are the root causes of intolerance? This book addresses that question by developing a universal theory of what determines intolerance of difference in general, which includes racism, political intolerance, moral intolerance and punitiveness. It demonstrates that all these seemingly disparate attitudes are principally caused by just two factors: individuals' innate psychological predispositions to intolerance ("authoritarianism") interacting with changing conditions of societal threat. The threatening conditions, particularly resonant in the present political climate, that exacerbate authoritarian attitudes include, most critically, great dissension in public opinion and general loss of confidence in political leaders. Using purpose-built experimental manipulations, cross-national survey data and in-depth personal interviews with extreme authoritarians and libertarians, the book shows that this simple model provides the most complete account of political conflict across the ostensibly distinct domains of race and immigration, civil liberties, morality, crime and punishment, and of when and why those battles will be most heated.

    Haidt says Stenner discerns three strands of contemporary political conservatism: 1) laissez-faire libertarians (typically, business Republicans); 2) Burkeans (e.g., social conservatives who value stability); and 3) authoritarians.

    Haidt makes a point of saying that it's simply wrong to call Trump a fascist. He's too individualistic for that. He's an authoritarian, but that is not a synonym for fascist, no matter how much the Left wants to say it is.

    According to Haidt's reading of Stenner, authoritarianism is not a stable personality trait. Most people are not naturally authoritarian. But the latent authoritarianism within them is triggered when they perceive a threat to the stable moral order.

    It's at this point in the talk when Haidt surely began to make his audience squirm. He says that in his work as an academic and social psychologist, he sees colleagues constantly demonizing and mocking conservatives. He warns them to knock it off. "We need political diversity," he says. And: "They are members of our community."

    The discourse and behavior of the Left, says Haidt, is alienating millions of ordinary people all over the West. It's not just America. We are sliding towards authoritarianism all over the West, and there's really only one way to stop it.

    At the 41:37 point in the talk, Haidt says that we can reduce intolerance and defuse the conflict by focusing on sameness. We need unifying rituals, beliefs, institutions, and practices, he says, drawing on Stenner's research. The romance the Left has long had with multiculturalism and diversity (as the Left defines it) has to end, because it's helping tear us apart.

    This fall, the Democrats are taking Stenner's advice brilliantly, says Haidt, referring to the convention the Dems just put on, and Hillary's speech about how we're all better off standing together. Haidt says this is actually good advice, period. "It's not just propaganda you wheel out at election time," he says. If we don't have a feasible conservative party, we open the way for authoritarianism.

    To end the talk, Haidt focuses on what his own very tribe - psychologists and academics - can do to make things better. They can start by being aware of their own extreme bias. "We lean very far left," he says, then shows a graph tracking how far from the center the academy has become over the past 20 years.

    Haidt says we don't need "equality" - that is, an equal number of conservatives and liberals in the academy. We just need to have diversity enough for people to be challenged in their viewpoints, so an academic community can flourish according to its nature. But this is not what we have. According to the research Haidt presents, in 1996, liberals in the academy outnumbered conservatives 2:1. Today, it's 5:1 - and the conservatives are concentrated in engineering and other technical fields. Says Haidt: "In the core areas of the university - in the humanities and social sciences - it's 10 to 1 and 40 to 1."

    The Right has left the university faculties, he said - and a lot of that is because they got tired of the "hostile climate and discrimination"

    "People who are not on the left … are often in the closet," says Haidt. "They can't speak up. They can't criticize. They hear somebody say something, they believe it's false, but they can't speak up and say why they believe it's false. And that is a breakdown in our science."

    Until they repent (my word, not his), university professors will continue to be part of the problem, not the solution, says Haidt. He ends by calling on his colleagues to "get our hearts in order." To stop being moralistic hypocrites. To be humble. To be more forgiving, and more open to hearing what their opponents have to say. Says Haidt, "If we want to change things, we need to do it more from the perspective of love, not of hate."

    It's an extraordinary speech by a brave man who is a true humanist. Watch it all here, and read more about it.

    Here's what I think about all of this.

    I don't think the center can hold anymore. It's too late. The cultural left in this country is very authoritarian, at least as regards orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. On one of the Stenner slides, we see that she defines one characteristic of authoritarians as "punishing out groups." Conservative Christians are the big out group for the cultural left, and have been for a long time.

    We are the people who defile what they consider most sacred: sexual liberty, including abortion rights and gay rights. The liberals in control now (as distinct from all liberals, let me be clear) have made it clear that they will not compromise with what they consider to be evil. We are the Klan to them. Error has no rights in this world they're building.

    If you'll recall my blogging about Hillary Clinton's convention speech, I really liked it in theory - the unity business. The thing is, I don't believe for one second that it is anything but election propaganda. I don't believe that the Democratic Party today has any interest in making space for us. I wish I did believe that. I don't see any evidence for it. They and their supporters will drive us out of certain professions, and do whatever they can to rub our noses in the dirt.

    I know liberal readers of this blog will say, "But we don't!" To which I say: you don't, maybe, but you're not running the show, alas.

    The threat to the moral order is very real, and not really much of a threat anymore; it's a reality. As I've written in this space many times, this is not something that was done to us; all of us, Republicans and Democrats, Christians and non-Christians, have done this to ourselves. At this point, all I want for my tribe is to be left alone. But the crusading Left won't let that happen anymore. They don't even want the Mormons to be allowed to play football foe the Big 12, for heaven's sake. This assault is relentless. Far too many complacent Christians believe it will never hurt them, that it will never happen where they live. It can and it will.

    There is no center anymore. Alasdair MacIntyre was right. I may not be able to vote in good conscience for Trump (and I certainly will not vote for Hillary Clinton), but I know exactly why a number of good people have convinced themselves that this is the right thing to do. Haidt says that the authoritarian impulse comes when people cease trusting in leaders. Yep, that's where a lot of us are, and not by choice.

    This week, I've been interviewing people for the Work chapter of my Benedict Option book. In all but one case, the interviewees - lawyers, law professors, a doctor, corporate types, academics - would only share their opinion if I promised that I wouldn't use their name. They know what things are like where they work. They know that this is going to spread. That fear, that remaining inside the closet, tells you something about where you are. When professionals feel that to state their opinion would be to put their careers at risk, we are not in normal times.

    The center has not held. I certainly wish Jon Haidt well. He's a good man doing brave, important work. And I hope he proves me wrong on this. I honestly do. Because if I'm right, there goes America. On the other hand, reasoning that this must not be true therefore it is not true is a good way to get run over.

    [Aug 13, 2016] How few people are actually showing up for HRC rallies and how the polls are rigged

    www.moonofalabama.org
    crone | Aug 11, 2016 3:02:01 PM | 17
    this guy's youTubes show how few people are actually showing up for HRC rallies and how the polls are rigged

    [Aug 12, 2016] Robert Fitrakis Sanders May Have Lost Due to Election Fraud

    www.defenddemocracy.press

    Defend Democracy Press

    FITRAKIS: Well one of the obvious things in this election was the visible hijacking of Bernie Sanders voters. Bernie brought in what political scientists would call an asymmetrical entrance of new voters. He went out and got a lot of people that hadn�t voted previously and at first emerged in New York City, in Brooklyn where you had 126 thousand people. Overwhelmingly new voters supporting Bernie that were purged at the last second from the voting rolls. And that�s being investigated but it turned out to be a clerk said to have Republican leanings. But just prior to the purge, the daughter of a Clinton super delegate had bought property from her. A million and a half dollars over the street value that wasn�t even being listed. So at least it calls into question, whether it was an old fashioned Tammany Hall bribe for purging voters.

    So it�s what me and my co-author Harvey [Wasserman] call vote stripping, right? I think before this is all through the leaks by the Democratic National Committee, you�ll find that somebody had access to those databases and were targeting the Bernie people to purge them.

    NOOR: And can you talk about what the tactics were that were used in order to target these Bernie supporters and as youre saying, discount their votes?

    FITRAKIS: Well, you simply purge them from the voting rolls. And that can be done in a variety of ways depending upon the state. In most states people dont realize it but you privatize with companies, the voter databases. And also you have often these poll books. Many of them are electronic that are also created by proprietary companies.

    So the US is the only democracy in the world that allows private for profit partisan companies those that actually make contributions as did Dominion, the remnants of [Depolled] that went out of business for worldwide fraud following the 04 election and Hart Intercivic. So Hart Intercivic and Dominion both made contributions to the Clinton foundation. So you wonder, when a candidates running for president, why are voting machine companies making donations to their campaigns?

    So we allow these private, for-profit partisan companies to count our vote, to set our databases with secret proprietary software that nobody can look at. It violates every principle of transparency. And the only person on a high level willing to talk about this is Jimmy Carter, who says to Der Spiegel that America has a dysfunctional democracy and that we dont meet minimum standards of transparency.

    ... ... ...

    So all the evidence says were the absolute worst. But youve got this enculturation. Youve got two parties and both historically corporate capitalists parties, particularly since the Koch brothers decided we needed a DLC following the 84 election that they wanted a corporate wing of the Republican Party and they got that in 1992 in the form of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, which were both DLC people. Two corporate capitalist free trade parties. People wouldnt even, many people think Sanders was very progressive and he was and he spoke as a democratic socialist.

    But Jerry Brown in 1992 called for a 50% cut in the U.S. military. I mean, thats territory. But George Herbert Walker Bush actually talked about a peace dividend. We dont even talk anymore about nearly half of the money on planet earth beings spent in the U.S. military. And weve got soldier arguably or advisers in 181 out of 203 nations no one wants to say in great detail. And Sanders was touching on all these issues that that appears to be imperialism.

    But these the Stein campaign has enormous room to actually talk about what is happening in the United States. She asked people on the stage at this convention actually used the correct term, imperialism. And they actually do talk about a rigged election system. Because its systematically rigged when you bring these private contractors in and then they say its a computer glitch. In 2004 [D Bolt] two weeks before the election, accidentally glitched 10,000 voters in the city of Cleveland who were going to vote 95% for John Kerry.

    I dont believe those are glitches. I believe private contractors in this privatization has allowed big money to come in in the form of the corporation. And theres an old axiom, theres not much money in counting vote but theres a lot of money in the voting results.

    [Aug 10, 2016] Assange Implies Murdered DNC Staffer May Have Been Wikileaks Source

    www.redstate.com

    RedState

    It's hard to overstate the amount of caution we should all display with this story, but it's too newsworthy to ignore.

    It starts with this interview with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange where he brings up murdered DNC staffer, Seth Rich, unprompted.

    Here's the juicy part:

    ASSANGE: Our whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. There's a 27 year old that works for the DNC, he was shot in the back. Murdered, uh just a few weeks ago, uh, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington. So...

    INTERVIEWER: That was, that was just a robbery I believe. Wasn't it?

    ASSANGE: No. There's no finding. So...

    INTERVIEWER: What are you suggesting? What are you suggesting?

    ASSANGE: I'm suggesting our sources take risks and they uh, become concerned, uh to see things occurring, like that.

    INTERVIEWER: Was he one of your sources then? I mean...

    ASSANGE: We don't comment on who our sources are.

    INTERVIEWER: Then why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?

    ASSANGE: Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States. And our sources are ... you know... our sources face serious risks. That's why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity.

    Then comes the news that Wikileaks is offering a $25,000 reward for any information leading to the capture of Rich's murderer.

    [Aug 10, 2016] Hillary Clintons hormones have nothing to do with her qualifications

    Notable quotes:
    "... Jennifer Gunter is an obstetrician-gynecologist and author of The Preemie Primer . She blogs at her self-titled site, Dr. Jen Gunter . ..."
    www.kevinmd.com
    ... ... ...

    Dr. Holland also gets the endocrinology wrong (hope she's got it right in her book) when she refers to estrogen a "stress hormone that helps a woman be resilient during her fertile years."

    Stress hormones are part of the "flight or fight" response, and the major stress hormones include cortisol and epinephrine. Stress hormones can be released rapidly by the body in response to a threat of some kind (running the gamut from a broken toe to reading an article on how hormones make or break a woman's ability to be president). This is not estrogen. Estrogen thickens the lining of the uterus, affects breast tissue, and of course (like most hormones) has a multitude of effects everywhere in the body. It is not, however, a stress hormone. It may be able to counteract oxidative stress in some tissues, but that doesn't make it a stress hormone).

    The major source of estrogen before menopause is the developing egg and how far the egg is in the cycle is what governs the release of estrogen, not stress. The female endocrine system is just not built to churn out large amounts of estrogen in response to stress. Also, girls don't have estrogen before puberty so it would be a pretty poor evolutionary design for a stress hormones to only kick in at puberty. Bad luck if you get chased by a saber-toothed tiger at the age of eight!

    ... ... ...

    Postmenopausal women are not biologically primed to handle stress any more or less than premenopausal women. Hillary Clinton's hormones have nothing to do with her qualifications, and I find any connection between the two, whether well-intentioned or simply a book plug, an insult.

    To say a woman's hormones are in some way related to her fitness to be president then also means at some time you think she is less fit to be president. You can't have it both ways.

    There is no wisdom in menopause. There is wisdom, and then there is menopause. All I care about is Ms. Clinton's wisdom, and that's all you should care about too.

    Jennifer Gunter is an obstetrician-gynecologist and author of The Preemie Primer. She blogs at her self-titled site, Dr. Jen Gunter.

    [Aug 10, 2016] Hillary Clinton Chronic Health Issues May Interfere With Presidency, Says Political Insider

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Washington Post ..."
    Jul 07, 2016 | inquisitr.com

    Hillary Clinton reportedly has chronic health issues that may interfere with the presidency, according to one political insider. The 68-year-old presumptive Democratic nominee has never been too open about her medical history, but the coughing fits alone may be enough to indicate that Clinton has some serious health problems. Radar Online issued a report on Wednesday that has an insider close to Hillary Clinton saying the presidential hopeful is facing "mounting health issues."

    Several coughing fits have been caught on camera as Hillary Clinton has campaigned across the nation for the 2016 primary elections and caucuses. The Washington Post reported in April that Clinton had two public coughing fits in one week, leaving Democratic constituents wondering if she's even healthy enough to become president. Actress Susan Sarandon even said in May during an interview with Larry King that she won't endorse Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate because "she may have health issues."

    ... ... ...

    In April, an article published on KevinMD.com outlined some concerns about Hillary Clinton's health records, but said that Clinton's health risks aren't anything that should disqualify her from being president. However, "they are certainly something to ponder."

    [Aug 10, 2016] COMPLETE INTERVIEW: George Stephanopoulos Interviewes Donald Trump On This Week

    www.youtube.com

    7/31/2016

    An awesome interview. I'm on the left so this is making me feel uncomfortable, but Trump is unapologetic about wanting to end the cold war with Putin, that's worth voting for. Trump is not a Neocon. Is he a con artist, or could he have the guts to kick the Neocons out? And he wants NATO to
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWdQD0SANgY

    [Aug 08, 2016] Globalization and its New Discontents

    economistsview.typepad.com
    JohnH :

    Globalization and its New Discontents

    Stiglitz: AUG 5, 2016 8
    Globalization and its New Discontents

    NEW YORK – Fifteen years ago, I wrote a little book, entitled Globalization and its Discontents, describing growing opposition in the developing world to globalizing reforms. It seemed a mystery: people in developing countries had been told that globalization would increase overall wellbeing. So why had so many people become so hostile to it?

    Now, globalization's opponents in the emerging markets and developing countries have been joined by tens of millions in the advanced countries. Opinion polls, including a careful study by Stanley Greenberg and his associates for the Roosevelt Institute, show that trade is among the major sources of discontent for a large share of Americans. Similar views are apparent in Europe.

    How can something that our political leaders – and many an economist – said would make everyone better off be so reviled?

    One answer occasionally heard from the neoliberal economists who advocated for these policies is that people are better off. They just don't know it. Their discontent is a matter for psychiatrists, not economists.

    But income data suggest that it is the neoliberals who may benefit from therapy. Large segments of the population in advanced countries have not been doing well: in the US, the bottom 90% has endured income stagnation for a third of a century. Median income for full-time male workers is actually lower in real (inflation-adjusted) terms than it was 42 years ago. At the bottom, real wages are comparable to their level 60 years ago.

    The effects of the economic pain and dislocation that many Americans are experiencing are even showing up in health statistics. For example, the economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton, this year's Nobel laureate, have shown that life expectancy among segments of white Americans is declining.

    Things are a little better in Europe – but only a little better.

    Branko Milanovic's new book Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization provides some vital insights, looking at the big winners and losers in terms of income over the two decades from 1988 to 2008. Among the big winners were the global 1%, the world's plutocrats, but also the middle class in newly emerging economies. Among the big losers – those who gained little or nothing – were those at the bottom and the middle and working classes in the advanced countries. Globalization is not the only reason, but it is one of the reasons.

    Under the assumption of perfect markets (which underlies most neoliberal economic analyses) free trade equalizes the wages of unskilled workers around the world. Trade in goods is a substitute for the movement of people. Importing goods from China – goods that require a lot of unskilled workers to produce – reduces the demand for unskilled workers in Europe and the US.

    This force is so strong that if there were no transportation costs, and if the US and Europe had no other source of competitive advantage, such as in technology, eventually it would be as if Chinese workers continued to migrate to the US and Europe until wage differences had been eliminated entirely. Not surprisingly, the neoliberals never advertised this consequence of trade liberalization, as they claimed – one could say lied – that all would benefit.

    The failure of globalization to deliver on the promises of mainstream politicians has surely undermined trust and confidence in the "establishment." And governments' offers of generous bailouts for the banks that had brought on the 2008 financial crisis, while leaving ordinary citizens largely to fend for themselves, reinforced the view that this failure was not merely a matter of economic misjudgments.

    In the US, Congressional Republicans even opposed assistance to those who were directly hurt by globalization. More generally, neoliberals, apparently worried about adverse incentive effects, have opposed welfare measures that would have protected the losers.

    But they can't have it both ways: if globalization is to benefit most members of society, strong social-protection measures must be in place. The Scandinavians figured this out long ago; it was part of the social contract that maintained an open society – open to globalization and changes in technology. Neoliberals elsewhere have not – and now, in elections in the US and Europe, they are having their comeuppance.

    Globalization is, of course, only one part of what is going on; technological innovation is another part. But all of this openness and disruption were supposed to make us richer, and the advanced countries could have introduced policies to ensure that the gains were widely shared.

    Instead, they pushed for policies that restructured markets in ways that increased inequality and undermined overall economic performance; growth actually slowed as the rules of the game were rewritten to advance the interests of banks and corporations – the rich and powerful – at the expense of everyone else. Workers' bargaining power was weakened; in the US, at least, competition laws didn't keep up with the times; and existing laws were inadequately enforced. Financialization continued apace and corporate governance worsened.

    Now, as I point out in my recent book Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy, the rules of the game need to be changed again – and this must include measures to tame globalization. The two new large agreements that President Barack Obama has been pushing – the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and 11 Pacific Rim countries, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the EU and the US – are moves in the wrong direction.

    The main message of Globalization and its Discontents was that the problem was not globalization, but how the process was being managed. Unfortunately, the management didn't change. Fifteen years later, the new discontents have brought that message home to the advanced economies.

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/globalization-new-discontents-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2016-08

    [Aug 08, 2016] Full and unconditional capitulation of Sanders

    His campaign ended with him performing the classic role of shipdog for Hillary, who shares none of his ideas and economic policies. If this is not Obama style "bait and switch' I do not know what is...
    economistsview.typepad.com

    August 05, 2016

    Fred C. Dobbs :

    LA Times

    Bernie Sanders: I support Hillary Clinton. So should everyone who voted for me http://fw.to/mVDxuLJ

    The conventions are over and the general election has officially begun. In the primaries, I received 1,846 pledged delegates, 46% of the total. Hillary Clinton received 2,205 pledged delegates, 54%. She received 602 superdelegates. I received 48 superdelegates. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee and I will vigorously support her.

    Donald Trump would be a disaster and an embarrassment for our country if he were elected president. His campaign is not based on anything of substance - improving the economy, our education system, healthcare or the environment. It is based on bigotry. He is attempting to win this election by fomenting hatred against Mexicans and Muslims. He has crudely insulted women. And as a leader of the "birther movement," he tried to undermine the legitimacy of our first African American president. That is not just my point of view. That's the perspective of a number of conservative Republicans.

    In these difficult times, we need a president who will bring our nation together, not someone who will divide us by race or religion, not someone who lacks an understanding of what our Constitution is about.

    On virtually every major issue facing this country and the needs of working families, Clinton's positions are far superior to Trump's. Our campaigns worked together to produce the most progressive platform in the history of American politics. Trump's campaign wrote one of the most reactionary documents.

    Clinton understands that Citizens United has undermined our democracy. She will nominate justices who are prepared to overturn that Supreme Court decision, which made it possible for billionaires to buy elections. Her court appointees also would protect a woman's right to choose, workers' rights, the rights of the LGBT community, the needs of minorities and immigrants and the government's ability to protect the environment.

    Trump, on the other hand, has made it clear that his Supreme Court appointees would preserve the court's right-wing majority.

    Clinton understands that in a competitive global economy we need the best-educated workforce in the world. She and I worked together on a proposal that will revolutionize higher education in America. It will guarantee that the children of any family in this country with an annual income of $125,000 a year or less – 83% of our population – will be able to go to a public college or university tuition free. This proposal also substantially reduces student debt.

    Trump, on the other hand, has barely said a word about higher education.

    Clinton understands that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, it is absurd to provide huge tax breaks to the very rich.

    Trump, on the other hand, wants billionaire families like his to enjoy hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax breaks.

    Clinton understands that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and is one of the great environmental crises facing our planet. She knows that we must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and move aggressively to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

    Trump, on the other hand, like most Republicans, rejects science and the conclusions of almost all major researchers in the field. He believes that climate change is a "hoax," and that there's no need to address it.

    Clinton understands that this country must move toward universal healthcare. She wants to see that all Americans have the right to choose a public option in their healthcare exchange, that anyone 55 or older should be able to opt in to Medicare, and that we must greatly improve primary healthcare through a major expansion of community health centers. She also wants to lower the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs.

    And what is Donald Trump's position on healthcare? He wants to abolish the Affordable Care Act, throw 20 million people off the health insurance they currently have and cut Medicaid for lower-income Americans.

    During the primaries, my supporters and I began a political revolution to transform America. That revolution continues as Hillary Clinton seeks the White House. It will continue after the election. It will continue until we create a government which represents all of us and not just the 1 percent – a government based on the principle of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.

    I understand that many of my supporters are disappointed by the final results of the nominating process, but being despondent and inactive is not going to improve anything. Going forward and continuing the struggle is what matters. And, in that struggle, the most immediate task we face is to defeat Donald

    [Aug 08, 2016] The communists of China are seeking a long-term partnership with Russia – a nominally capitalist country? Of course, Russia is seeking the same with China

    Blowback for sleazy Barack Obama neocon policies is coming. And it will not be pretty...
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Patient Observer , August 7, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    Isn't it interesting that the communists of China are seeking a long-term partnership with Russia – a nominally capitalist country? Of course, Russia is seeking the same with China.

    July 1, China marked an important date on July 1. It was the 95th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party. Chairman Xi Jinping addressed the solemn meeting devoted to this event. In addition to the praises of "Long live!" (And deservedly so, since the CCP has much to be proud of) there was Chairman Xi's speech which was short, but very important.

    "The world is on the verge of radical change. We see how the European Union is gradually collapsing, as is the US economy - it is all over for the new world order. So, it will never again be as it was before, in 10 years we will have a new world order in which the key will be the union of China and Russia. "

    http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/china-openly-offers-russia-alliance.html

    If the above translation is accurate I wonder what is meant by …key will be the union of China and Russia . In any event, it appears that ideology is not at the core of the unity; its something much deeper and more resilient. I offer that it is a shared view that embraces a realization that the world can no longer accept global hegemony from the West otherwise catastrophe is virtually certain in the form of (pick one or two): nuclear war, financial or ecological collapse. Their mission is basically to save the world from Western insanity which handily trumps anything that may separate them.

    And, I think that the Chinese and Russians are far too wise to seek global hegemony for themselves. The trick for them will be taking down the Western house of cards without triggering a catastrophic miscalculation by the West. …Whew, now time for an hot fudge sundae.

    marknesop , August 7, 2016 at 8:28 pm
    I think it's mutual disgust with the USA's blatant and shameless rigging of the playing field in every contest. If America can't win, then it's a loss for all of mankind. And it blabbers constantly and loudly about its values, and then does things which completely contradict those supposed values, and never appears to notice anything unusual or untoward about it.

    [Aug 07, 2016] In Response to Trump, Another Dangerous Movement Appears by Matt Taibbi

    Financial oligarchy now is really afraid of losing power... They have weak neocon stooge Hillary -- an old woman with frail health, blood clots in the brain and probably other unknown to public ailments. And will fight back tooth and nail to preserve it. Like trump said -- expect the elections to be rigged.
    Jun 30, 2016 | Rolling Stone

    In "How American Politics Went Insane," Brookings Institute Fellow Jonathan Rauch spends many thousands of words arguing for the reinvigoration of political machines, as a means of keeping the ape-citizen further from power.

    He portrays the public as a gang of nihilistic loonies determined to play mailbox baseball with the gears of state.

    "Neurotic hatred of the political class is the country's last universally acceptable form of bigotry," he writes, before concluding:

    "Our most pressing political problem today is that the country abandoned the establishment, not the other way around."

    Rauch's audacious piece, much like Andrew Sullivan's clarion call for a less-democratic future in New York magazine ("Democracies end when they are too democratic"), is not merely a warning about the threat posed to civilization by demagogues like Donald Trump. It's a piece that praises Boss Tweed's Tammany Hall (it was good for the Irish!), the smoke-filled room (good for "brokering complex compromises"), and pork (it helps "glue Congress together" by giving members "a kind of currency to trade").

    Rauch even chokes multiple times on the word "corruption," seeming reluctant to even mention the concept without shrouding it in flurries of caveats. When he talks about the "ever-present potential for corruption" that political middlemen pose, he's quick to note the converse also applies (emphasis mine):

    "Overreacting to the threat of corruption is just as harmful. Political contributions, for example, look unseemly, but they play a vital role as political bonding agents."

    The basic thrust is that shadowy back-room mechanisms, which Rauch absurdly describes as being relics of a lost era, have a positive role and must be brought back.

    He argues back-room relationships and payoffs at least committed the actors involved to action. Meanwhile, all the transparency and sunshine and access the public is always begging for leads mainly to gridlock and frustration.

    In one passage, Rauch blames gridlock on the gerrymandering that renders most congressional elections meaningless. In a scandal that should get more media play, Democrats and Republicans have divvied up territory to make most House districts "safe" for one party or another. Only about 10 to 20 percent of races are really contested in any given year (one estimate in 2014 described an incredible 408 of the 435 races as "noncompetitive").

    As Rauch notes, meaningless general elections make primaries the main battlegrounds. This puts pressure on party candidates to drift to extremes...

    ... ... ...

    But it's all bull.

    Voters in America not only aren't over-empowered, they've for decades now been almost totally disenfranchised, subjects of one of the more brilliant change-suppressing systems ever invented.

    We have periodic elections, which leave citizens with the feeling of self-rule. But in reality people are only allowed to choose between candidates carefully screened by wealthy donors. Nobody without a billion dollars and the approval of a half-dozen giant media companies has any chance at high office.

    People have no other source of influence. Unions have been crushed. Nobody has any job security. Main Street institutions that once allowed people to walk down the road to sort things out with other human beings have been phased out. In their place now rest distant, unfeeling global bureaucracies.

    Has a health insurance company wrongly denied your sick child coverage? Good luck even getting someone on the phone to talk it over, much less get it sorted out. Your neighborhood bank, once a relatively autonomous mechanism for stimulating the local economy, is now a glorified ATM machine with limited ability to respond to a community's most basic financial concerns.

    One of the underpublicized revelations of the financial crisis, for instance, was that millions of Americans found themselves unable to get answers to a simple questions like, "Who holds the note to my house?"

    People want more power over their own lives. They want to feel some connection to society. Most particularly, they don't want to be dictated to by distant bureaucrats who don't seem to care what they're going through, and think they know what's best for everyone.

    These are legitimate concerns. Unfortunately, they came out in this past year in the campaign of Donald Trump, who'd exposed a tiny flaw in the system.

    People are still free to vote, and some peculiarities in the structure of the commercial media, combined with mountains of public anger, conspired to put one of the two parties in the hands of a coverage-devouring billionaire running on a "Purge the Scum" platform.

    Donald Trump is dangerous because as president, he'd likely have little respect for law. But a gang of people whose metaphor for society is "We are the white cells, voters are the disease" is comparably scary in its own banal, less click-generating way.

    These self-congratulating cognoscenti could have looked at the events of the last year and wondered why people were so angry with them, and what they could do to make government work better for the population.

    Instead, their first instinct is to dismiss voter concerns as baseless, neurotic bigotry and to assume that the solution is to give Washington bureaucrats even more leeway to blow off the public. In the absurdist comedy that is American political life, this is the ultimate anti-solution to the unrest of the last year, the mathematically perfect wrong ending.

    Trump is going to lose this election, then live on as the reason for an emboldened, even less-responsive oligarchy. And you thought this election season couldn't get any worse.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Neoliberalism gave us Trump A dying America is raging against the capitalist machine by Steve Fraser

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Age of Acquiescence ..."
    "... "The rise and fall of American resistance to organized wealth and power." Simply stated, that mystery was: Why do people rebel at certain moments and acquiesce in others? ..."
    "... A "silent majority" would no longer remain conveniently silent. The Tea Party howled about every kind of political establishment in bed with Wall Street, crony capitalists, cultural and sexual deviants, free-traders who scarcely blinked at the jobs they incinerated ..."
    "... In the face-off between right-wing populism and neoliberalism, Tea Party legions and Trumpists now find Fortune 500 CEOs morally obnoxious and an economic threat, ..."
    "... I couldn't disagree more with this parasite that is attempting to twist history, so as to continue the elitist programming of youth with more distorted understanding of their heritage! ..."
    "... If you doubt me then do a little research it what the foundation of 'May Day' is all about! ..."
    "... Then check and see how many modern nations all over the world celebrate it as a national holiday (over 100) and then ask why it is not celebrated in America, where it was founded on the blood and sweat of American workers! ..."
    "... Yes, there was a socialist system built into this nation and that system was called a society based upon a 'Commonwealth' that translated into todays terminology could be defined as a 'Democratic Socialism'!! ..."
    "... "As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal' refers to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all NLs)" ..."
    "... Soon, very soon, Sanders shall do what he keeps promising to do, and endorse the dangerous Warmonger of Wall Street, with whom he pretends to disagree, on so many issues. He might even be her Vice Presidential choice, in order to better neuter his supporters, and to minimize the political contortions that he'll have to go through, to convince his supporters to vote for her. Gird yourselves. ..."
    "... If you keep in mind that Capitalism is a Pyramid Scheme, the whole thing makes better sense. ..."
    "... The problem today is that the worship of money has taken on such proportions, that even the least among us has thoughts of riches coming their way, at any moment, even if it's the false hope of winning the "Lottery", the big one!! And as long as they have those dreams, the cognition of what is happening around them is dulled. ..."
    "... I have neighbors who play the state lottery every week. Now and then I mention to them that buying lotto tickets is a fools bet. They reply like trained parrots "you can't win if you don't play", and mumble something about lotto proceeds and "education". ..."
    "... "But Republicans have more than shared in this; they have, in fact, often taken the lead in implanting a market- and finance-driven economic system that has produced a few "winners" and legions of losers. Both parties heralded a deregulated marketplace, global free trade, the outsourcing of manufacturing and other industries, the privatization of public services, and the shrink-wrapping of the social safety net." ..."
    "... Yes. Reagan was a neoliberal. Both Bushes too... wanna hear something really crazy? Hillary is both a neoliberal AND a neoconservative... true story. ..."
    Salon.com
    A year ago, in my book The Age of Acquiescence, I attempted to resolve a mystery hinted at in its subtitle: "The rise and fall of American resistance to organized wealth and power." Simply stated, that mystery was: Why do people rebel at certain moments and acquiesce in others?

    Resisting all the hurts, insults, threats to material well-being, exclusions, degradations, systematic inequalities, over-lordship, indignities, and powerlessness that are the essence of everyday life for millions would seem natural enough, even inescapable, if not inevitable. Why put up with all that?

    ... ... ...

    A "silent majority" would no longer remain conveniently silent. The Tea Party howled about every kind of political establishment in bed with Wall Street, crony capitalists, cultural and sexual deviants, free-traders who scarcely blinked at the jobs they incinerated, anti-taxers who had never met a tax shelter they didn't love, and decriers of big government who lived off state subsidies. In a zip code far, far away, a privileged sliver of Americans who had gamed the system, who had indeed made gaming the system into the system, looked down on the mass of the previously credulous, now outraged, incredulously.

    ...it was The Donald who magically rode that Trump Tower escalator down to the ground floor to pick up the pieces. His irreverence for established authority worked. ...worked for millions who had grown infatuated with all the celebrated Wall Street conquistadors of the second Gilded Age.

    ... .. ..

    In the face-off between right-wing populism and neoliberalism, Tea Party legions and Trumpists now find Fortune 500 CEOs morally obnoxious and an economic threat, grow irate at Federal Reserve bail-outs, and are fired up by the multiple crises set off by global free trade and the treaties that go with it.

    ... ... ...

    The Sanders campaign had made its stand against the [neo]iberalism of the Clinton elite. It has resonated so deeply because the candidate, with all his grandfatherly charisma and integrity, repeatedly insists that Americans should look beneath the surface of a liberal capitalism that is economically and ethically bankrupt and running a political confidence game, even as it condescends to "the forgotten man."

    Steve Fraser's new book, "The Limousine Liberal: How an Incendiary Image United the Right and Fractured America" is being published on May 10 by Basic Books. His other books include Every Man a Speculator, Wall Street, and Labor Will Rule, which won the Philip Taft Award for the best book in labor history. He also is the co-editor of The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order. His work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, The Nation, The American Prospect, Raritan, and the London Review of Books. He has written for the online site Tomdispatch.com, and his work has appeared on the Huffington Post, Salon, Truthout, and Alternet, among others. He lives in New York City.

    R B, Jun 4, 2016

    I truly believe that this author, Steve Fraser through his writings has clearly revealed his role as that of a member of the elite class or even worse one of the blood sucking hounds that pit the lower classes against each other!!! He defends the capitalists by indicating that for anyone to think or speak of any form of socialism is a crime against America and that it is counter to everything this nation has EVER stood for! I couldn't disagree more with this parasite that is attempting to twist history, so as to continue the elitist programming of youth with more distorted understanding of their heritage!

    Our Fore Fathers wrapped this society in a specific form of government that encouraged free-enterprise, not capitalism! Guess what Americans, they are different in goals! These Fore Fathers recognized that a healthy society included a system of economic stimulation, but more importantly that it has a sense of unity and equality, that left no one to beg in the streets! They achieved this even in those early and rugged days of colonialism through a system that the capitalists and republicans have always hated and have done everything in their power to destroy in the past century! If you doubt me then do a little research it what the foundation of 'May Day' is all about! Where it began and what it was based upon, who celebrated the day and how it came to be drowned out of American society. Then check and see how many modern nations all over the world celebrate it as a national holiday (over 100) and then ask why it is not celebrated in America, where it was founded on the blood and sweat of American workers!

    Yes, there was a socialist system built into this nation and that system was called a society based upon a 'Commonwealth' that translated into todays terminology could be defined as a 'Democratic Socialism'!! So Mr. Fraser, I state that you have been writing not to enlighten the general citizenry of the reality to their world, but to the continued domination of the 'One Percent'!!!

    trt3, Jun 3, 2016

    @Blueflash The author does not use the term in its proper context ether. I wish people would stop using the term at all. It does not mean new liberal as in neoconservative, neo-fascist, or neo-nazi. History of the term can be found here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

    Over the last year or so many commenters have attempted to paint HRC's economic platform as neoliberalism as a smear because she takes donations from Wall Street.. Or, that Bill Clinton, because he had to work with the congress of Newt Gingrich, worked to deregulate investment bankers.

    If you want to see the effects of modern day neoliberalism look at Kansas and the devastation that the Chicago school of economics brings, (as opposed to California with a more Keynesian economic approach).

    Tristero1, Jun 3, 2016

    @trt3 @Blueflash From below:

    "As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal' refers to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all NLs)"
    If there are no more conservatives, "They're all the same" rules the day and the artists formerly known as conservatives rule the planet.

    Jayne Cullen, Jun 3, 2016

    Soon, very soon, Sanders shall do what he keeps promising to do, and endorse the dangerous Warmonger of Wall Street, with whom he pretends to disagree, on so many issues. He might even be her Vice Presidential choice, in order to better neuter his supporters, and to minimize the political contortions that he'll have to go through, to convince his supporters to vote for her. Gird yourselves.

    Faulkner, Jun 3, 2016

    The IMF and German banks of the neoliberal international aristocracy are forcing Greece to rescind its social safety net and assets in order to keep making interest payments - a scheme to keep them debt slaves to the new financial imperialism, similar to what is happening to Puerto Rico and the US.

    This is neoliberalism's endgame - to create a modern day feudalism, which is why it must be stopped.

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/06/02/western-financial-system-looting-greece/

    johnie2xs, Jun 3, 2016

    If you keep in mind that Capitalism is a Pyramid Scheme, the whole thing makes better sense. Just the same way your older brother or sister beat the snot outta you playing monopoly as a kid, so are the richest among us, burying us, in debt, and in isolation. Now back in TR's day there was a little better sense about fair play, and helping your fellow man. That was not an overwhelming altruistic thought that swept the country, at that time, but rather it grew out of years of degrading abuse imposed by rich Industrialists. This caused a backlash, and corrections were made.

    The problem today is that the worship of money has taken on such proportions, that even the least among us has thoughts of riches coming their way, at any moment, even if it's the false hope of winning the "Lottery", the big one!! And as long as they have those dreams, the cognition of what is happening around them is dulled. There will be riots, I am sure. If this persistent process of moving money to the top, and appreciably nowhere else, the backlash will be inevitable, and harsh. The longer it takes, the harsher it will be. And if you think not, you've been watching too many Disney Movies.

    cactusbill, Jun 3, 2016

    I have neighbors who play the state lottery every week. Now and then I mention to them that buying lotto tickets is a fools bet. They reply like trained parrots "you can't win if you don't play", and mumble something about lotto proceeds and "education".

    So when you notice the glazed eyes and fist pumping at a Drumpf rally, remember how many Americans spend rent and food money on lotto tickets.

    It's the same people.

    AJS197, Jun 3, 2016

    @Joel Graham As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal' refers to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all NLs). A closer read and you will recognize he implicates both parties in the neoliberal ascent:

    "But Republicans have more than shared in this; they have, in fact, often taken the lead in implanting a market- and finance-driven economic system that has produced a few "winners" and legions of losers. Both parties heralded a deregulated marketplace, global free trade, the outsourcing of manufacturing and other industries, the privatization of public services, and the shrink-wrapping of the social safety net."

    AJS1972, Jun 3, 2016

    Yes. Reagan was a neoliberal. Both Bushes too... wanna hear something really crazy? Hillary is both a neoliberal AND a neoconservative... true story.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Bill Neal on Neoliberalism Karl Polanyi and the Coming U.S. Election Corrente by William R. Neal]

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's hard not to notice, during the American Presidential election drama, that despite all the debates and speeches, and multiple candidates, the terms "Neoliberalism" and "austerity" have yet to be employed, much less explained, these being the two necessary words to describe the dominant economic "regime" of the past 35 years. And this despite the fact that most observers recognize that a "populist revolt" driven by economic unhappiness is underway via the campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. With Trump, of course, we are getting much more, the uglier side of American populism: racism, xenophobia and misogyny, at least; the culture wars at a higher pitch. ..."
    "... the underlying driver of his supporters' anger is economic distress, not the ugly cultural prejudices. ..."
    www.correntewire.com

    It's hard not to notice, during the American Presidential election drama, that despite all the debates and speeches, and multiple candidates, the terms "Neoliberalism" and "austerity" have yet to be employed, much less explained, these being the two necessary words to describe the dominant economic "regime" of the past 35 years. And this despite the fact that most observers recognize that a "populist revolt" driven by economic unhappiness is underway via the campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. With Trump, of course, we are getting much more, the uglier side of American populism: racism, xenophobia and misogyny, at least; the culture wars at a higher pitch.

    Yet when Trump commented on the violence which canceled his Chicago rally on the evening of March 11th, he stated that the underlying driver of his supporters' anger is economic distress, not the ugly cultural prejudices. The diagnoses for the root cause of this anger thus lie at the heart of the proposed solutions. For students of the Great Depression, this will sound very familiar. That is because, despite many diversions and sub-currents, we are really arguing about a renewed New Deal versus an ever more purified laissez-faire, the nineteenth century term for keeping government out of markets – once those markets had been constructed. "Interventions," however, as we will see, are still required, because no one, left or right, can live with the brutalities of the workings of "free markets" except as they exist in the fantasyland of the American Right.

    [Aug 04, 2016] Trump refuses to support Paul Ryan, John McCain in upcoming Republican primaries

    www.washingtonpost.com

    02 Aug 2016

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is refusing to back House Speaker Paul D. Ryan [Social Security-cutting, TPP dirt-bag #1 ] in his upcoming primary election, saying in an interview Tuesday that he is "not quite there yet" in endorsing his party's top-ranking elected official. Trump also said he was not supporting Sen. John McCain [ scum-bag #2 ] in his primary in Arizona, and he singled out Sen. Kelly Ayotte [ fraud #3 ] as a weak and disloyal leader in New Hampshire, a state whose presidential primary Trump won handily. With Ryan's Wisconsin primary scheduled for next Tuesday, Trump praised the House speaker's underdog opponent, Paul Nehlen, for running "a very good campaign."

    [Aug 04, 2016] Trump Could Make the Deal of His Life and Defeat Clinton

    Paleoconservatives are not libertarians, but they have identical foreign policy -- noninterventionism.
    finance.yahoo.com

    ... ... ...

    The two men are not so far apart on many policies. Both are millionaires whose worldview is informed by the realism of having built major businesses, employed scores of workers and survived government interference. Johnson started a construction company in New Mexico right after college, which became one of the state's most successful builders. He ultimately sold it in 1999. Trump, of course, is a significant commercial real estate developer.

    Johnson first entered politics in 1994 advocating a "common sense business approach" and financing his first run for governor with his own money. He ran on a platform of lower taxes, job creation and law and order. Sound familiar?

    Both candidates are socially liberal and are wary of our military entanglements overseas. It's a start.

    Though Trump has embraced GOP orthodoxy opposing abortion, it is clear this is not an important issue to him personally. Johnson's campaign website says he "believes in the sanctity of the unborn" but recognizes that legal abortion is the law of the land.

    While both men support simplifying our tax system and reducing taxes, Johnson goes further, advocating getting rid of the IRS.

    Asked about Trump's controversial questioning of our NATO commitments, Johnson does not rule out reassessing our long-standing alliances, including NATO.

    Related: Your Vote for a Third Party Candidate Won't Be a Waste in 2016

    The two men are most at odds over immigration, which Johnson embraces as positive for the economy. He insists that people entering the country illegally are taking only the jobs that Americans do not want, and notes that the number of undocumented people crossing the border has dropped. Despite his fiery rhetoric, Trump also endorses immigration – but only if it is legal.

    Other areas of disagreement include Johnson's support for the TPP trade pact, which Trump opposes. Also, Johnson is on record wanting to slash military spending, while Trump has vowed to reverse recent declines. At the same time, Johnson has taken a more aggressive posture of late in combatting ISIS, which may require some retooling of his 2012 enthusiasm for military retrenchment.

    Where Johnson and Trump are most in sync is in their dislike for Hillary Clinton. Though he once extolled her as a "wonderful public servant," Johnson has most recently described Clinton as "beholden" and decries her "establishment" credentials as well as her hawkish inclinations. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, he said that if she is elected, "Nothing's gonna really change, government's gonna have the answer to everything, and that's gonna mean taxes are gonna go up."

    Polls show Johnson now attracting an average of 7.5 percent of a four-way vote (which includes Green Party nominee Jill Stein). More important, he is gathering momentum in critical swing states. According to Quinnipiac, Johnson grabs between 8 percent and 10 percent in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, a number that could determine those contests.

    [Aug 03, 2016] Israel to US Give Us More! by Justin Raimondo

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources to get Congress to pressure the White House. ..."
    "... As Glenn Greenwald points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure, their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is occurring. ..."
    "... We made possible the Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use the "f"-word lightly. I've been chronicling Israel's slide toward a repulsive ethno-nationalism for years , and today – with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders – my predictions are coming true. ..."
    "... The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous insults , slights, and outright sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from You Know Who: it's time to put America first. ..."
    "... What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's just what they are. ..."
    original.antiwar.com
    August 03, 2016 | Antiwar.com

    Washington is preparing to increase US aid to Israel by billions of dollars, with a ten-year ironclad agreement that couldn't be altered by President Obama's successor. But that isn't good enough for Bibi Netanyahu. He wants more. Much more.

    Unlike the case with other countries, the US engages in protracted and often difficult negotiations with Israel over how much free stuff they're going to get come budget time. This year, the talks are taking on a particularly urgent tone because of … you guessed it, Donald Trump. While Trump is fervently pro-Israel, he has said that the Israelis, like our NATO allies, are going to have to start paying for their own defense (although with him, you never know what his position is from one day to the next ). This uncertainty has the two parties racing to sign an agreement before President Obama's term is up in January. And it also has inspired the inclusion of a novel clause: a ten-year guarantee that aid will remain at the agreed level, with no possibility that the new President – whoever that may be – will lower it.

    The Israelis currently receive over half the foreign aid doled out by Uncle Sam annually, most of it in military assistance with an extra added dollop for "refugee resettlement." That combined with loan guarantees comes to roughly $3.5 billion per year – with all the money handed to them up front, in the first weeks of the fiscal year, instead of being released over time like other countries.

    So how much is this increase going to amount to? With negotiations still ongoing, the US isn't releasing any solid figures, although Bibi, we are told, is demanding $5 billion annually. The New York Times is reporting the final sum could "top $40 billion." What we do know is that the administration told Congress in a letter that they are prepared to offer Tel Aviv an aid package "that would constitute the largest pledge of military assistance to any country in US history." In addition, it would guarantee US aid for Israel's missile defense, taking it out of the annual appropriations song-and-dance, and immunizing it from any cuts.

    Aside from the "haggling" – as the Times put it – over the amount, there is another issue: the Israeli exception to a rule that applies to all other recipients of American aid. Other countries must spend their welfare check in dollars – that is, they must buy American. Not the Israelis. They're allowed to spend up to 25% of their aid package at home: which means that US taxpayers have been subsidizing the Israeli military-industrial complex to the tune of multi-billions since the 1980s, when this special arrangement was legislated. However, in an era where "America First" is now a popular political slogan – popularized by You Know Who – the Obama administration is trying to end this exception to the rules. Naturally, the Israelis are resisting, but, according to Ha'aretz :

    "The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth said the White House was prepared to let Israel keep the arrangement for the first five years of the new MOU but it would be gradually phased out in the second five years, except for joint U.S.-Israeli military projects."

    If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources to get Congress to pressure the White House.

    In their letter to Congress, national security honcho Susan Rice and OMB chief Shaun Donovan evoke the Iran deal as justification for this new and sweeter aid package. Yet this argument undermines the administration's contention that the agreement with Iran doesn't endanger Israel – because if it doesn't, then why do the Israelis need billions more in aid in the first place?

    What the letter tiptoes around is the fact that this aid package is extortion, pure and simple. It's a purely political attempt by the Obama White House to appease the Israelis, and mobilize the Israel lobby behind the Democrats in a crucial election year. It's important to keep Haim Saban happy.

    As Glenn Greenwald points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure, their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is occurring.

    What in the heck is going on here?

    We made possible the Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use the "f"-word lightly. I've been chronicling Israel's slide toward a repulsive ethno-nationalism for years , and today – with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders – my predictions are coming true.

    The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous insults , slights, and outright sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from You Know Who: it's time to put America first.

    What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's just what they are.

    [Aug 03, 2016] Neocon-like Groupthink Dominates Both Conventions

    Notable quotes:
    "... The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland. ..."
    "... The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States. Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee, then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat, Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it. ..."
    "... Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation. ..."
    "... And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed, Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media around thirty years ago. ..."
    "... Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S., never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents. ..."
    "... Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there are separate reports suggesting that one of her first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party. ..."
    "... If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020. ..."
    The Unz Review

    The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland.

    The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States. Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee, then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat, Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it.

    Those in the media and around Hillary who were baying the loudest about how outraged they were over the hack curiously appear to have no knowledge of the existence of the National Security Agency, located at Fort Meade Maryland, which routinely breaks into the government computers of friends and foes alike worldwide. Apparently what is fair game for American codebreakers is no longer seen so positively when there is any suggestion that the tables might have been turned.

    Republican nominee Donald Trump noted that if the Russians were in truth behind the hack he would like them to search for the 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton reportedly deleted from her home server. The comment, which to my mind was sarcastically making a point about Clinton's mendacity, brought down the wrath of the media, with the New York Times reporting that "foreign policy experts," also sometimes known as "carefully selected 'Trump haters,'" were shocked by The Donald. The paper quoted one William Inboden, allegedly a University of Texas professor who served on President George W. Bush's National Security Council. Inboden complained that the comments were "an assault on the Constitution" and "tantamount to treason." Now I have never heard of Inboden, which might be sheer ignorance on my part, but he really should refresh himself on what the Constitution actually says about treason, tantamount or otherwise. According to Article III of the Constitution of the United States one can only commit treason if there is a declared war going on and one is actively aiding an enemy, which as far as I know is not currently the case as applied to the U.S. relationship with Russia.

    Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation.

    And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed, Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media around thirty years ago.

    Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S., never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents.

    No other foreign country was mentioned as often as Israel apart from Iran, which was regularly cited as an enemy of both the U.S. and – you guessed it – Israel. Indeed, the constant thumping of Iran is a reflection of the overweening affection for Netanyahu and his right wing government. Regarding Iran, the GOP foreign policy platform states "We consider the Administration's deal with Iran, to lift international sanctions and make hundreds of billions of dollars available to the Mullahs, a personal agreement between the President and his negotiat­ing partners and non-binding on the next president. Without a two-thirds endorsement by the Senate, it does not have treaty status. Because of it, the de­fiant and emboldened regime in Tehran continues to sponsor terrorism across the region, develop a nuclear weapon, test-fire ballistic missiles inscribed with 'Death to Israel,' and abuse the basic human rights of its citizens."

    The final written Republican platform for 2016 as relating to the Middle East, drawn up with the input of two Trump advisors Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, rather supports the suggestion that Trump would be pro-Israel rather than the claim of impartiality. The plank entitled "Our Unequivocal Support of Israel and Jerusalem," promises to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, praises Israel in five different sections, eulogizing it as a "beacon of democracy and humanity" brimming over with freedom of speech and religion while concluding that "support for Israel is an expression of Americanism." It pledges "no daylight" between the two countries, denies that Israel is an "occupier," and slams the peaceful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS), which it describes as anti-Semitic and seeking to destroy Israel. It calls for legal action to "thwart" BDS. There is no mention of a Palestinian state or of any Palestinian rights to anything at all.

    The Democratic plank on the Middle East gives lip service to a two state solution for Israel-Palestine but is mostly notable for what it chose to address. Two Bernie Sanders supporters on the platform drafting committee James Zogby and Cornel West wanted to remove any illegal under international law affirmation that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel and also sought to eliminated any condemnation of BDS. They failed on both issues and then tried to have included mild language criticizing Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its settlement building. They were outvoted by Hillary supporters on all the issues they considered important. Indeed, there is no language at all critical in any way of Israel, instead asserting that "a strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism." That none of that was or is true apparently bothered no one in the Hillary camp.

    The Democratic platform document explicitly condemns any support for BDS. Hillary Clinton, who has promised to take the relationship with Israel to a whole new level, has reportedly agreed to an anti-BDS pledge to appease her principal financial supporter Haim Saban, an Israeli-American film producer. Clinton also directly and personally intervened through her surrogate on the committee Wendy Sherman to make sure that the party platform would remain pro-Israel.

    But many Democrats on the floor of the convention hall have, to their credit, promoted a somewhat different perspective, displaying signs and stickers while calling for support of Palestinian rights. One demonstrator outside the convention center burned an Israeli flag, producing a sharp response from Hillary's spokeswoman for Jewish outreach Sarah Bard, "Hillary Clinton has always stood against efforts to marginalize Israel and incitement, and she strongly condemns this kind of hatred. Burning the Israeli flag is a reckless act that undermines peace and our values." Bill meanwhile was seen in the hall wearing a Hillary button written in Hebrew. It was a full court press pander and one has to wonder how Hillary would have felt about someone burning a Russian flag or seeing Bill sport a button in Cyrillic.

    Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there are separate reports suggesting that one of her first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party.

    The Democratic platform also beats down on Iran, declaring only tepid support for the nuclear deal while focusing more on draconian enforcement, asserting that they would "not hesitate to take military action if Iran violates the agreement." It also cited Iran as "the leading state sponsor of terrorism" and claimed that Tehran "has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East." For what it's worth, neither assertion about Iran's regional role is true and Tehran reportedly has complied completely with the multilateral nuclear agreement. It is the U.S. government that is failing to live up to its commitments by refusing to allow Iranian access to financial markets while the Congress has even blocked an Iranian bid to buy Made-in-the-U.S.A. civilian jetliners.

    So those of us who had hoped for at least a partial abandonment of the hitherto dominant foreign policy consensus have to be disappointed as they in the pro-war crowd in their various guises as liberal interventionists or global supremacy warriors continue to control much of the discourse from left to right. Russia continues to be a popular target to vent Administration frustration over its inept posturing overseas, though there is some hope that Donald Trump might actually reverse that tendency. Iran serves as a useful punchline whenever a politician on the make runs out of other things to vilify. And then there is always Israel, ever the victim, perpetually the greatest ally and friend. And invariably needing some extra cash, a warplane or two or a little political protection in venues like the United Nations.

    If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020.

    [Aug 03, 2016] American voters don't trust Hillary Clinton

    Feb 18, 2016 | www.ronpaulforums.com

    Originally from http://www.salon.com/2016/02/19/hill...efeat_the_gop/

    In addition, American voters don't trust Hillary Clinton. At what point will critics of Bernie Sanders realize that American voters will never vote for a candidate they don't trust and don't like? In October of 2015, I explained in the following YouTube segment why Clinton is unelectable, and in another segment why Clinton must always evolve on key issues.

    After all, it's difficult to trust a politician who completely fabricated a story about being fired upon by snipers. Like POLITIFACT states, "it's hard to understand how she could err on something so significant as whether she did or didn't dodge sniper bullets."

    [Aug 02, 2016] NSA Architect: Agency Has ALL of Clinton's Deleted Emails

    A very important, informative interview. Outlines complexity of challenges of modern society and the real power of "alphabet agencies" in the modern societies (not only in the USA) pretty vividly. You need to listen to it several times to understand better the current environment.
    Very sloppy security was the immanent feature both of Hillary "bathroom" server and DNC emails hacks. So there probably were multiple parties that has access to those data not a single one (anti Russian hysteria presumes that the only party are Russian and that's silly; what about China, Iran and Israel?). Russian government would not use a "known attack" as they would immediately be traced back.
    Anything, any communications that goes over the network are totally. 100% exposed to NSA data collection infrastructure. Clinton email messages are not exception. NSA does have information on them, including all envelopes (the body of the message might be encrypted and that's slightly complicate the matter, but there is no signs that Clinton of DNC used encryption of them)
    NSA has the technical capabilities to trace the data back and they most probably have most if not all of deleted mail. The "total surveillance", the total data mailing used by NSA definitely includes the mail envelopes which makes possible to enumerate all the missing mails.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday. ..."
    "... Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists." ..."
    "... "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
    "... Listen to the full interview here: ... ..."
    "... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer ..."
    www.breitbart.com
    The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday.

    Speaking as an analyst, Binney raised the possibility that the hack of the Democratic National Committee's server was done not by Russia but by a disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker concerned about Clinton's compromise of national security secrets via her personal email use.

    Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency.

    He was speaking on this reporter's Sunday radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio," broadcast on New York's AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia's NewsTalk 990 AM.

    Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists."

    Stated Binney:

    "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails."

    "So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated of Clinton's emails as well as DNC emails.

    Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the deleted correspondence, Binney replied in the affirmative.

    "Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there."

    Listen to the full interview here: ...

    Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.

    And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails.

    The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:

    GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).

    Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

    [Aug 02, 2016] Feel the BURN Bernie Hot Mic Proves He Was Never a Real Candidate

    www.youtube.com

    YouTube

    Published on Jul 26, 2016

    Most of us knew this already, but now here's proof. Is Bernie going down fighting for his political beliefs like a real presidential candidate would? Is he even being remotely honest with his supporters at this point? Nope. He's keeping his mouth shut and staying on script for Hillary - who everyone knows will be the worst kind of tyrannical dictator - saying, "I'm proud to stand with her".

    For those of us who didn't know this, Bernie was like a magical fairy unicorn. People want so badly to believe it's real... but it just isn't... and it never was. Feel the burn...

    Truthstream Can Be Found Here:
    Website: http://TruthstreamMedia.com
    FB: http://Facebook.com/TruthstreamMedia
    Twitter: @TruthstreamNews
    Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/bbxcWX

    ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*­~*~*~*~*~

    Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Lemmy Fuque 1 day ago

    For decades the Clintons have run a criminal organization of fraud, deception, hypocrisy, conspiracy, bribes, blackmail, espionage, treason, murder, assassination, money laundering, sex-slaves, pedophilia, etc. that would leave Capone and Giancana in awe. Leaked DNC emails is your proof that Bernie was just another Clinton pawn. (Add Seth Rich to the Clinton body count after leaking DNC emails). Though Bernie attracted a lot of followers, do NOT under estimate the stupidity of the brainwashed Libtard electorate to vote the skank criminal cunt for POTUS. Clintons run the $100B criminal Clinton Foundation & Global initiative and get what they want-or they will take you out. Libtards will be the easiest and first lead to FEMA camps for NWO depopulation.
    cros99 1 day ago
    You can't blame Bernie for he is a Professional politician after all. To survive in that game, one has to play ball with party management. Half the trouble in this country comes from the two parties who make the decisions....Not the people.
    Garren Luce 5 hours ago
    like jessse venture said ..politics is exactly like wrestling - In front of the cameras they hate each other , but when it's off they eating lunch together
    j jay 4 hours ago
    Bernies reaction that night when Clinton dared to thank him said it all ,sad fact is he refuses to say they fucked him and lied and cheated because she has offered him something or he is scared.

    [Aug 02, 2016] Trump was right when he said Democrats wrote Khizr Khan's speech

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not a Trump supporter, but Trump was right when he said Democrats wrote Khizr Khan's speech. In the middle of attacking Trump for the Mexican wall and ban on Muslims, he attacked Trump for opposing free trade. (Something only Clintonista weasels would dream up.) ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    Ron Waller said in reply to pgl...

    Not a Trump supporter, but Trump was right when he said Democrats wrote Khizr Khan's speech. In the middle of attacking Trump for the Mexican wall and ban on Muslims, he attacked Trump for opposing free trade. (Something only Clintonista weasels would dream up.)

    It's ridiculous to suggest that a politician is not allowed to say anything in defense of attacks leveled by "sacred" parents of slain soldiers. Their point was that they are Muslim and American and their son died fighting for America. His point: why didn't the speechwriters give the wife a couple of lines? Is this husband a social-conservative Muslim who doesn't permit his wife to speak? Those are not American values.

    BTW, do people think Trump's ban on Muslims is bad? The fact is, America is at war with a number of Muslim nations and factions. FDR declared war on Japan. Then put Japanese Americans in concentration camps. Trump has yet to get FDR on their asses!

    ilsm said in reply to Ron Waller... I am a Vietnam era veteran, I earned a pension, with no disability, and I think the 6000 KIA from Clinton's Universal perpetual war vote are discredited by Clinton using a family of a KIA to rub Trumps nose in his "screen muslims position". Reply Monday, August 01, 2016 at 04:31 PM Ron Waller said in reply to ilsm... Ha. Didn't even realize the hypocrisy.

    I did notice it in Hillary's attack on Trump for using outsourcing yet opposing free trade. She helped put the TPP together and called it the 'gold standard' of trade deals. (By gold standard I take it she means big on investor protection limiting the scope of democratic government.)

    This is the same as calling Warren Buffet a hypocrite calling for higher taxes on the rich, but not willing to donate the difference to the government.

    Business people operate in the business environment and the existing supply chains. They have to play by the existing rules or lose out to their competitors. No business person is a hypocrite calling for reforms to the system. Only government regulations can change the system.

    Trump is putting his money where his mouth is by vowing to tear up terrible trade deals that could cut into his profits.

    Hillary's position on the TPP is don't ask/don't tell. Don't ask if she'll tear up the agreement and she won't tell she's already taken the bribe money. Reply Monday, August 01, 2016 at 05:32 PM chriss1519 said... Frankly, I find Paul Ryan more vile than Trump. Trump says some awful things, but at least his policies come from a place where he has some concern for the little guy. Ryan is all too happy to see the poor ground into the dirt. Ideological consistency above all else. Reply Monday, August 01, 2016 at 02:30 AM lilnev said in reply to chriss1519... Trump is all too happy to screw the little guy. That's been his behavior all his life. He has found that applause lines about the little guy are a great way to promote himself, that's all.
    I do find Paul Ryan more heinous, though. The man who wouldn't even let Congress vote on Zika funding because he knew it would pass. That's a much more calculated evil than the filth that spews out of Trump. Reply Monday, August 01, 2016 at 05:39 AM Sanjait said in reply to chriss1519... If you think Trump cares about the little guy, I have a degree program from Trump University to sell you ...

    But I take your point about Ryan, RC AKA Darryl, Ron said... "...But democracy isn't about making a statement, it's about exercising responsibility. And indulging your feelings at a time like this amounts to dereliction of your duty as a citizen..."

    [Paul Krugman appears to confuse the way the world actually works with how he thinks the world should work. I guess that is how voting works in his model, but if it really worked that way in reality then there is no way to explain the existence of either of our two mainstream political parties. You don't get to where we are with our political system by exercising responsibility and that has been true all my life. Politics has been entirely about triangulating demographic groups by their susceptibility to leveraging their contradictions between their aspirations and their fears.] Peter K. said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... They tell you to choose between Coke and Pepsi and make the responsible choice. Politics is more than that.

    It's about that almighty dollar.

    As Obama said in his speech in Philly:

    "So if you agree that there's too much inequality in our economy, and too much money in our politics, we all need to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders' supporters have been."

    The New Democrats like Bill Clinton who triangulate do so in part to attract wealthy donors. Sanders showed you don't have to with his numerous small contributions.

    But when you appeal to the wishes of wealthy donors you demoralize your base and depress the vote.

    If Hillary isn't progressive enough, she'll create more Trump voters. How is that responsible? jjhman said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... In these discussions my mind alwasy turns back to, as said above, how things actually work instead of what we would like or the constitution may require.

    The way things really work is that political elites run the show. For government to work the elites have to give the voters rational choices that depend on elites doing thier homework and actually having reasons for why one path or the other would advance the needs of the society. The system only works when there is some sense of noblesse oblige in the elites and the voters believe that the elites actually are trying to make things better.

    The success of the Trump and Sanders campaigns show that large numbers of voters don't believe that the actors in the two parties are working to solve the country's problems. And there is certainly evidence that the Paul Ryans and Mitch McConnells care more about their own careers than the good of the country or even of any ideology. EMichael said in reply to jjhman... I love the idea that somehow, in 2016, there is a change in the feelings of the American people from other elections.

    The first election I paid attention to was in the 60s. Starting then, and continuing right through today every single election has been about how bad things are and what can make them better. And either the previous admin paid no attention to those things or we just need to build on what the previous admin did. Reply Monday, August 01, 2016 at 09:45 AM RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to jjhman... I would agree with all of that if you were to omit the word "rational." Elites give voters choices. It is not rational to expect that those choices would actually be in the interest of the majority of voters anywhere near as much in the interest of elites except in those instances that the electorate is on the verge of rebellion and insurrection. The US Constitution was never structured to serve a democracy in any egalitarian manner. The Constitution provided for a system of elite privilege based on property rights and inheritance instead of bloodline and inheritance. We have been given the means to rebel democratically within the Constitutional provisions for elections within the republic, but instead we cling to elites for guidance and are fated to eternally fall to disappointment and regret. Solidarity can render the existing party system irrelevant. Don't re-elect anyone until they all do what we want. We just lack solidarity. Reply Monday, August 01, 2016 at 10:45 AM David said... The more I think about Trump the less I know what I could rationally think to say about him.

    The Republican party has advantages that are structured in gerrymandering and just demographics, in the South. As a national party, they are losing these advantages, and will continue to do so.

    But one point: in my youth, the right wing was always paranoid in a weird way about communism. The Manchurian Candidate, Dr. Strangelove. The Vietnam war. The cold war. So I honestly thought when the cold war ended that the paranoia and hate would stop.

    Then we get Bill Clinton. And the hate and paranoia increased! The point is, hate and paranoia is right wing oxygen - without it they die, they have no raison d'etre.

    But even some of the right wingers have seen hate and paranoia can be twisted, manipulated by someone who, let's be honest, has no idea of what he's doing, no self-control, and no understanding global politics. He's like a child who wanders into the middle of a movIe:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wu598ENenk

    (anne ignore link! repeat ignore!)

    But he's a dangerous child. Observer said in reply to David ... Judging buy the comments here, there is plenty of "hate and paranoia" on both sides. ilsm said in reply to pgl... Kissinger and Albright endorsed Clinton! Sanjait said in reply to Eric377... There is something weird about fear of communism *taking over the United States*. It was never going to happen and it was always obvious it was never going to happen.

    It's only less ridiculous by a matter of degree than people who fear "creeping Sharia law" in the US. jjhman said in reply to Sanjait... The hysterical fear of communism in the US goes back at least to the Red Scare era following the Russian revolution. I have always wondered how much effort the industrial magnates of that post-gilded age had to invest in the media to get that horse running and keep it running for the rest of the 20th century. It seems that the fear-mongerers of today have abandoned socialism for Islamic terrorism. I suspect that was one reason why Bernie could slip into a national election with his socialism barely an issue. ilsm said in reply to David ... The bat @*&^ war mongers have gone blue. Maybe the bat @*&^ GOPsters are going isolation.

    The neocons Kagan and so forth are backing the Clinton war wagon.

    Fits with Bill breaking up Serbia, pushing the Kremlin's nose in it and reneging on keeping NATO in the west.

    I love it when the Clinton campaign kids who would never put on a uniform say: "we have to honor alliances" that have no relation to the common defense.

    I am old enough to not worry about nuclear winter, it is faster than climate disaster! RGC said... PK has jumped the shark. He is now pure political hack.

    He ignores what those "center-left" policies of the DLC democrats have done, the Clinton's role in that and the resulting frustration and anger of the people affected.

    A majority of Americans now see no decent future for themselves and their children and they are frustrated. They are doing what people do in that situation - they are looking for someone to blame and punish.

    PK and the DLC democrats point them to the republicans. The republicans point to the democrats. But the truth is that they both created the economic malaise that now exists on behalf of their plutocrat sponsors. The difference between them is cultural - not economic.

    Trump has the advantage of not having participated in creating that malaise. He is also voicing some truths about US foreign policy that exposes the neocon element in both parties. He is a terrible choice for president but when you are drowning you grab for any piece of flotsam that floats by.

    PK has played his part in getting us to this point by protecting the left flank of economic policy from effective but "socialist" answers. But being a neoliberal isn't enough, now he is a neocon too. Reply Monday, August 01, 2016 at 05:46 AM JF said in reply to RGC... And I hope that the Clinton campaign reads this.

    They need to find positioning like the one Sanders had, imo, or your characterization could end up being true at the polls.

    Using PK in the positioning is using the wrong kind of person. Reply Monday, August 01, 2016 at 06:16 AM Pinkybum said in reply to RGC... Yeah that's right Paul Krugman is keeping the working class down in cahoots with the DLC democrats.

    Sure the turn to austerity in 2010 was an economic own-goal but it wasn't Obama who turned down a jobs bill in 2011 worth $447 billion. RGC said in reply to Pinkybum... It was Obama who appointed 'deregulatin Larry' Summers and 'tax-evading Timmy' Geithner. It was Obama who proposed cutting social security. It was Obama who proposed austerity by saying we had to live within our means just like any household.
    Etc., etc. Peter K. said in reply to RGC... It's Obama pushing the TPP. RGC said in reply to Tmb81... I think Obama could have gotten all that and more. I think he disappeared the day after the election.
    I think he was bought and paid for just like Hillary is. ilsm said in reply to RGC... Obama reneged and acted as if he supported AUMF from 2002 on! ilsm said in reply to Johannes Y O Highness... UN needs to establish witness protection for Russian hackers!

    Obama calls off the FBI, someone has to look into Clinton corruption.

    IAW the mafia it is a crime to be a stool pigeon. Bob said... Just remember that the same billionaires that employ Hillary also employ Krugman.

    [Aug 02, 2016] My model shows Donald Trump has an 87 percent chance of beating Hillary Clinton by Helmut Norpoth

    July 28, 2016 | Newsday

    My advice: Beware of pollsters bearing forecasts, especially anyone trying to peek into the future, especially those with money to bet.

    Some 20 years ago, I constructed a formula, The Primary Model, that has predicted the winner of the popular vote in all five presidential elections since it was introduced. It is based on elections dating to 1912. The formula was wrong only once: The 1960 election. That one hurt because John F. Kennedy was my preferred candidate.

    The Primary Model consists of two ingredients: The swing of the electoral pendulum, and the outcomes of primaries.

    You can see the pendulum work with the naked eye. After two terms in office, the presidential party in power loses more often than not. In fact, over the past 65 years, it managed to win a third term only once. In 1988, President George H.W. Bush extended Ronald Reagan's presidency by one more term. Reagan made this possible by winning re-election by a bigger margin than when he first got elected. That spells continuity, a desire for more of the same.

    President Barack Obama has not left such a legacy for a Democratic successor. He did worse in his re-election victory over Mitt Romney in 2012 than when he beat John McCain in 2008. That spells, "It's Time for a Change!" The pendulum points to the GOP in 2016, no matter whether the candidate was named Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich or whoever.

    Now add the outcomes of presidential primaries. Although some experts claim primary votes have no bearing on general elections, the fact is that primaries prove uncanny in forecasting the winner in November. Take the first election with a significant number of primaries, in 1912. In November that year, Woodrow Wilson, the winner in Democratic primaries, defeated William Howard Taft, the loser in Republican primaries; Taft was renominated since most states then did not use primaries. In general, the party with the stronger primary candidate wins the general election.

    This year, Trump has wound up as the stronger of the two presidential nominees. He won many more primaries than did Clinton. In fact, this was apparent as early as early March. Trump handily won the first two primaries, New Hampshire and South Carolina, while Clinton badly lost New Hampshire to Sen. Bernie Sanders before beating him in South Carolina.

    The Primary Model predicts that Trump will defeat Clinton with 87 percent certainty. He is the candidate of change. When voters demand change, they are willing to overlook many foibles of the change candidate. At the same time, the candidate who touts experience will get more intense scrutiny for any missteps and suspicions of misconduct of the record of experience.

    Trump may be lucky to have picked an election in which change trumps experience and experience may prove to be a mixed blessing.

    Helmut Norpoth is the director of undergraduate studies and political science professor at Stony Brook University.

    [Aug 01, 2016] DemExit 13 Million to leave Democratic Party Thursday

    Notable quotes:
    "... FBI wants to know who did the hack of DNC instead of crimes of DNC–Rich ..."
    investmentwatchblog.com
    FBI wants to know who did the hack of DNC instead of crimes of DNC–Rich

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fbi-says-its-investigating-the-hack-of-the-dnc-emails-2016-07-25-11914032?link=MW_latest_news

    Look at the comments at the bottom. Title of thread summarizes the article from market watch.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Clintons Conundrum Poll Data Show Many Sanders Voters Prefer Jill Stein

    www.peoplespunditdaily.com

    However, there are a significant number of voters who supported Sen. Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary who now say they will either vote for Dr. Stein, Mr. Trump, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson or not at all–in that order.

    Below is an interactive chart based on more than 400 responses conducted last night (7/30/2016) via our Internet panel and live interviews. It provides cross tab data to determine the presidential preference for primary voters based on the candidate they voted for in the primaries. While these results are particularly strong for Dr. Stein–there were also an unusually high number of 18 to 29 year-old samples–the total results include the 7-day rolling average, are weighted based on demographics from the U.S. Census Current Population Survey and show Mr. Trump ahead 46.8% to 42.2%.

    The sub-sample shown in the chart paints pretty much the same picture as the overall result. The polling data indicate Mr. Trump did a better job winning over those Republicans who did not vote for him in the Republican presidential primary (88%), as well as maintain those who did (97.8%). Mrs. Clinton is maintaining 94.4% of Democratic voters who cast their primary ballot for her, but less than half (47.7%) of those who voted for Sen. Sanders say they are certain they will be on board.

    Now to Dr. Stein's bump. Again, we do not believe Mrs. Clinton will only end up with half of Sen. Sanders' voters. Last night was an unusual response. But we are saying many, many voters are very, very angry.

    Nearly 16% of Sanders supporters say they will vote for Mr. Trump, but more than a quarter are at least giving Dr. Stein a serious look. Sanders' voters also have a largely favorable view of Dr. Stein (56%), compared to only 33% who say the same for Mrs. Clinton. Not surprisingly, these voters are markedly more likely to say they don't believe the federal government acts in the interest of the people. Another 5.6% of her support comes from the small pool of voters who supported another candidate in the Democratic presidential primary.

    Whether Dr. Stein can maintain that level of support is uncertain and worth debating as we collect and digest more polling data in the upcoming days and weeks. But what isn't up for debate is the fact that a significant number of Sen. Sanders' voters have extremely negative views of Mrs. Clinton and are not quite ready to just suck it up and move on.

    [Aug 01, 2016] DemExit: Bernie Sanders Supporters Opt to Vote for Green Partys Jill Stein

    Notable quotes:
    "... Similar to the styling of the British vote to leave the European Union, they're calling the movement #DemExit. ..."
    "... After the Democratic National Convention brought some Sanders supporters into the fold, others are refusing to settle viewing the leaked emails, indicating the DNC's preference for Hillary Clinton over Sanders as the final straw. ..."
    fox40.com
    There's a push to make green the new blue. As some Bernie Sanders supporters are jumping ship from the democratic party, opting instead to vote for green party candidate Jill Stein.

    Similar to the styling of the British vote to leave the European Union, they're calling the movement #DemExit.

    Some Sanders supporters see the choice between the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees as simple: "Whether we get Hillary or we get Trump, we get just as dangerous on either side just-in different ways," Sanders supporter Erik Rydberg said.

    After the Democratic National Convention brought some Sanders supporters into the fold, others are refusing to settle viewing the leaked emails, indicating the DNC's preference for Hillary Clinton over Sanders as the final straw.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Progressive Leaders Urge Voters To Wait To #DemExit Until After State Primaries

    Notable quotes:
    "... Progressives who are fed up with the Democratic leadership's adherence to the status quo are calling for a major #DemExit on July 29. ..."
    www.inquisitr.com

    Progressives who are fed up with the Democratic leadership's adherence to the status quo are calling for a major #DemExit on July 29. However, progressive groups, such as Black Men for Bernie, are urging voters to stay in the party until they have a chance to vote in their states' primaries, especially if they live in closed or semi-closed primary states.

    Abstaining from #DemExit until after state and local primaries is especially important for Florida, which has a closed primary. On August 30, Professor and legal expert Tim Canova has a chance to unseat Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, whose tenure as the head of the Democratic Party has been fraught with controversy and more recently, allegations of election fraud and rigging.

    A mass exodus, therefore, could sabotage progressives' own agenda to elect officials who are challenging incumbents and establishment candidates. As of now, 23 states and territories have local and state primaries up until September 13, so it is imperative for current members of the Democratic party to stay until they've voted and then commit to #DemExit.

    [Aug 01, 2016] DNC Lock Sanders Delegates Out Of Room, Reject Superdelegate Reforms

    Aug 01, 2016 | InvestmentWatch
    Bernie Sanders delegates were forcefully locked out of a DNC meeting on Saturday as the Democratic National Committee attempted to block superdelegate reforms.

    The meeting of 187 rules committee members took place in a small room at the Wells Fargo Center where they unceremoniously voted to reject a proposal that would ban superdelegates in future primaries.

    Usuncut.com reports:

    The DNC's Rules Committee, which is co-chaired by former Massachusetts Congressman and outspoken Clinton surrogate Barney Frank, is made up of representatives of both campaigns in proportion to how many delegates each campaign won during the primary process.

    DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also appointed 25 members of the Rules Committee who are able to vote on each proposal. The superdelegate elimination proposal and related measures were easily the most high-profile votes of the day.

    On Saturday afternoon, the committee voted to reject a proposal eliminating the role of superdelegates in future Democratic presidential primaries - something that multiple state Democratic conventions voted in favor of earlier this year. Similar proposals to minimize or limit the power of superdelegates were also defeated.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Differences Between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... What cannot be ignored is that Hilary Clinton has supported a war machine that has resulted in the death of millions, while also supporting a neoliberal economy that has produced massive amounts of suffering and created a mass incarceration state. ..."
    "... It is crucial to note that Clinton hides her crimes in the discourse of freedom and appeals to democracy ..."
    www.truth-out.org

    What cannot be ignored is that Hilary Clinton has supported a war machine that has resulted in the death of millions, while also supporting a neoliberal economy that has produced massive amounts of suffering and created a mass incarceration state. Yet, all of that is forgotten as the mainstream press focuses on stories about Clinton's emails and the details of her electoral run for the presidency. It is crucial to note that Clinton hides her crimes in the discourse of freedom and appeals to democracy while Trump overtly disdains such a discourse. In the end, state and domestic violence saturate American society and the only time this fact gets noticed is when the beatings and murders of Black men are caught on camera and spread through social media.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Henry A. Giroux White Supremacy and Sanctioned Violence in the Age of Donald Trump by Henry A. Giroux

    A very weak article, but some ideas are worth quoting. I think "Make America Great" again is a slogan of paleoconservatives, who are organically opposed neoconservatives -- the groups most closely related to neofascism (despite the fact that it consists mainly of Jewish intellectuals and policymakers). So Henry A. Giroux is wrong on this particular slogan: neofascism is first of all the wars of [neoliberal] conquest and Noninterventionalism is not compatible with neofascism. In this sense Hillary Clinton is truly neofascist candidate in the current race.
    Notable quotes:
    "... State-manufactured fear offers up new forms of domestic terrorism embodied in the rise of a surveillance state while providing a powerful platform for militarizing many aspects of society. ..."
    "... Under such circumstance, the bonds of trust dissolve, while hating the other becomes normalized and lawlessness is elevated to a matter of commonsense. ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    July 27, 2016 | truth-out.org

    Across the globe, fascism and white supremacy in their diverse forms are on the rise. In Greece, France, Poland, Austria and Germany, among other nations, right-wing extremists have used the hateful discourse of racism, xenophobia and white nationalism to demonize immigrants and undermine democratic modes of rule and policies. As Chris Hedges observes, much of the right-wing, racist rhetoric coming out of these countries mimics what Trump and his followers are saying in the United States.

    One consequence is that the public spheres that produce a critically engaged citizenry and make a democracy possible are under siege and in rapid retreat. Economic stagnation, massive inequality, the rise of religious fundamentalism and growing forms of ultra-nationalism now aim to put democratic nations to rest. Echoes of the right-wing movements in Europe have come home with a vengeance.

    Demagogues wrapped in xenophobia, white supremacy and the false appeal to a lost past echo a brutally familiar fascism, with slogans similar to Donald Trump's call to "Make America Great Again" and "Make America Safe Again." These are barely coded messages that call for forms of racial and social cleansing. They are on the march, spewing hatred, embracing forms of anti-semitism and white supremacy, and showing a deep-seated disdain for any form of justice on the side of democracy. As Peter Foster points out in The Telegraph, "The toxic combination of the most prolonged period of economic stagnation and the worst refugee crisis since the end of the Second World War has seen the far-Right surging across the continent, from Athens to Amsterdam and many points in between."

    State-manufactured lawlessness has become normalized and extends from the ongoing and often brutalizing and murderous police violence against Black people and other vulnerable groups to a criminogenic market-based system run by a financial elite that strips everyone but the upper 1% of a future, not only by stealing their possessions but also by condemning them to a life in which the only available option is to fall back on one's individual resources in order to barely survive. In addition, as Kathy Kelly points out, at the national level, lawlessness now drives a militarized foreign policy intent on assassinating alleged enemies rather than using traditional forms of interrogation, arrest and conviction. The killing of people abroad based on race is paralleled by (and connected with) the killing of Black people at home. Kelly correctly notes that the whole world has become a battlefield driven by racial profiling, where lethal violence replaces the protocols of serve and protect.

    Fear is the reigning ideology and war its operative mode of action, pitting different groups against each other, shutting down the possibilities of shared responsibilities, and legitimating the growth of a paramilitary police force that kills Black people with impunity. State-manufactured fear offers up new forms of domestic terrorism embodied in the rise of a surveillance state while providing a powerful platform for militarizing many aspects of society. One consequence is that, as Charles Derber argues, America has become a warrior society whose "culture and institutions... program civilians for violence at home as well as abroad." And, as Zygmunt Bauman argues in his book Liquid Fear, in a society saturated in violence and hate, "human relations are a source of anxiety" and everyone is viewed with mistrust. Compassion gives way to suspicion and a celebration of fear and revulsion accorded to those others who allegedly have the potential to become monsters, criminals, or even worse, murderous terrorists. Under such circumstance, the bonds of trust dissolve, while hating the other becomes normalized and lawlessness is elevated to a matter of commonsense.

    Politics is now a form of warfare creating and producing an expanding geography of combat zones that hold entire cities, such as Ferguson, Missouri, hostage to forms of extortion, violence lock downs and domestic terrorism -- something I have demonstrated in detail in my book America at War with Itself. These are cities where most of those targeted are Black. Within these zones of racial violence, Black people are often terrified by the presence of the police and subject to endless forms of domestic terrorism. Hannah Arendt once wrote that terror was the essence of totalitarianism. She was right and we are witnessing the dystopian visions of the new authoritarians who now trade in terror, fear, hatred, demonization, violence and racism. Trump and his neo-Nazi bulldogs are no longer on the fringe of political life and they have no interests in instilling values that will make America great. On the contrary, they are deeply concerned with creating expanding constellations of force and fear, while inculcating convictions that will destroy the ability to form critical capacities and modes of civic courage that offer a glimmer of resistance and justice.

    ... ... ...

    In short, this emerging American neo-fascism in its various forms is largely about social and racial cleansing and its end point is the construction of prisons, detention centers, enclosures, walls, and all the other varieties of murderous apparatus that accompany the discourse of national greatness and racial purity. Americans have lived through 40 years of the dismantling of the welfare state, the elimination of democratic public spheres, such as schools and libraries, and the attack on public goods and social provisions. In their place, we have the rise of the punishing state with its support for a range of criminogenic institutions, extending from banks and hedge funds to state governments and militarized police departments that depend on extortion to meet their budgets.

    [Jul 31, 2016] If Sanders had defined success as betraying his supporters, he is a successful man

    Notable quotes:
    "... Older people–and older AAs are no exception–I think just are less receptive to the Sanders message. They've been propagandized for too long and too successfully. Actually I don't just think this, the polling data fairly screams it. It might be a waste of time chasing those AA church lady grandmothers, they are right wing conservatives in almost any objective sense who minus the identity politics woo woo would be Republicans but just need a safe space to be that way without rubbing shoulders with overt white racists, and the corporate neocon-neolib DP mainstream is a perfect fit for them. ..."
    "... Obama, who pretty much could be George W Bush in blackface, is the perfect identity politics totem for that role. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    APPENDIX II: Sanders' Role in the 2016 Election

    We will have to wait for the campaign tell-alls to understand what the Sanders campaign believed its strategy was, and whether the campaign believes it was successful, or not. While it is true that reform efforts in the Democrat Party have a very poor track record, it's also true that third parties have a terrible track record. (It's worth noting that in the eight years just past, with the capitol occupations, Occupy proper, Black Lives Matter, fracking campaigns all on the boil, the Green Party was flatlined, seeminly unable to make an institutional connection with any of these popular movements. It may be that 2016 is different. It may also be that the iron law of institutions applies to the GP just as much as it does to any other party.) Therefore, "working within the Democrat Party" - which Sanders consistently said he would do; the label on the package was always there - is not, a priori , a poor strategic choice, especially if "working within" amounts to a hostile takeover followed by a management purge. And it's hard for me to recall another "working within" approach that garnered 45% of the vote, severed the youth of the party - of all identities - from the base of the ruling faction, and invented an entirely new and highly successful funding model. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, which the dominant faction in today's Democrat Party destroyed, would be the closest parallel, and the material conditions of working people are worse today than they were in Jackson's time, and institutions generally far less likely to be perceived as legitimate. And if we consider the idea that one of Sander's strategic goals was not the office but the successful propagation of the socialist idea - as a Johnny Appleseed, rather than a happy warrior - then the campaign was a success by any measure. (That said, readers know my priors on this: I define victory in 2016 as the creation of independent entities with a left voice; an "Overton Prism," as it were, three-sided, rather than an Overton Window, two-sided. I've got some hope that this victory is on the way, because it's bigger than any election.)

    With those views as background, most of the attacks on Sanders accuse him of bad faith. This was the case with the Green Party's successfully propagated "sheepdog" meme; it's also the case with the various forms of post-defeat armchair cynicism, all of which urge, that in some way Sanders succeeded by betraying his supporters in some way. (This is, I suppose, easier to accept than the idea that Sanders got a beating by an powerful political campaign with a ton of money and the virtually unanimous support of the political class.)

    If Sanders had defined success as betraying his supporters, I would expect him to act and behave like a successful man. That's not the case. Here is Sanders putting Clinton's name into nomination:

    It's a sad, even awful, moment, I agree, but politics ain't beanbag. While it would be irresponsible to speculate that Sanders looks so strained and unhappy because he found a horse's head in his bed ( "Mrs. Clinton never asks a second favor once she's refused the first, understood?" ), his body language certainly doesn't look like he's a happy man, a man who is happy with the deal he's made, or a man who has achieved success through the betrayal of others; you'd have to look at the smiling faces on the Democrat main stage for that.

    ....

    ambrit, July 29, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    I don't know the psychology of Sanders, but, how much did he really expect to win in the early days of his campaign? Could "getting the Socialism ball rolling" have been his definition of success in the beginning? Like Trump, the other disruptional candidate, could his very success in the primary season have surprised him? If so, then his pivot back to the Senate and Socialist coalition movement building makes perfect sense.

    In this sense, the anger focused on Sanders would be a displacement of the groundswell of anger by the general public at the sheer brazenness of the DNC's anti public policies. The DNC has shown contempt and disdain for the very people they purport to work for. Whoever shifted the popular anger from the DNC onto Sanders has done a masterful job of propaganda. Saint Bernays would be proud.

    Toby613, July 29, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    I don't think he was expecting to win when he started, but at the same time he was probably thinking it was worth a running a primary challenge to change the conversation. His political strategy of trying to increase turnout of working class voters was not a bad one, considering that Democrat primary voters have lately been the demographics who support either neoliberalism or would be racially biased against a non-Christian candidate. He was mainly hurt by three things, two of which were largely out of his control: (1) he lacked the polish/media saavy to not get dragged into minor issues that distracted from his core message (like the flap about calling Clinton unqualified, or his visit to the Vatican), (2) he literally had the entire media and political establishment working against him, and arguably inciting voter suppression and fraud , and (3) his non-Christianity limited his ability to coalesce support from older African-Americans, which hurt him in the South and hurt him from a perception standpoint.

    What remains to be seen is where his supporters go now. Dissatisfaction with the status quo will only continue to increase. Something interesting though, is that Tulsi Gabbard seems to be setting herself to be the continuation of the Sanders movement. I am unfamiliar with her policies, but her positioning is in stark contrast to the rest of the Democrat Party.

    Kurt Sperry, July 29, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    Older people–and older AAs are no exception–I think just are less receptive to the Sanders message. They've been propagandized for too long and too successfully. Actually I don't just think this, the polling data fairly screams it. It might be a waste of time chasing those AA church lady grandmothers, they are right wing conservatives in almost any objective sense who minus the identity politics woo woo would be Republicans but just need a safe space to be that way without rubbing shoulders with overt white racists, and the corporate neocon-neolib DP mainstream is a perfect fit for them.

    Obama, who pretty much could be George W Bush in blackface, is the perfect identity politics totem for that role. The good news is obviously that this demographic is dying off and young AAs don't share their elders' pretty extreme right wing Christian viewpoint. I don't think the left needs to fix that "problem" or even can. Time will fix it and nothing much else can.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Dear Sanders Supporters You and you beliefs will be thrown under the bus. Hilary has plans to attract Republican Votes to secure the presidency, as predicted

    Notable quotes:
    "... You have succeeded in making Hillary's coronation unpleasant for her. Embarrassed her with her shady past, and demonstrated on topics on which she has a firm interest in pas$$ing (TPP). ..."
    "... For those of you who believe Jill Stein is worthy of a vote, I do not believe so. If she were motivated then she would be copying Bernie's fundraising activities, and not off in her own world of irrelevance (and possibly privilege). The Iron Law of Institutions hold here, she is happier in her position and has demonstrated no incentive to change things. ..."
    "... Of course Clinton does not respect my views. But the idea that Donald Trump "respects my views" is patently ludicrous. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Synoia, July 29, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Dear Sanders Supporters:

    I'll be blunt. You and you beliefs will be thrown under the bus, and trampled into the dust. Hilary has plans to attract Republican Votes to secure the presidency, as predicted.

    You have succeeded in making Hillary's coronation unpleasant for her. Embarrassed her with her shady past, and demonstrated on topics on which she has a firm interest in pas$$ing (TPP).

    Note:

    The DNC has also informed Sanders delegates that they will have their credentials taken away for holding up anti-TPP signage as well

    That is not the action of a person who respects your views in any manner at all.

    For those of you who believe Jill Stein is worthy of a vote, I do not believe so. If she were motivated then she would be copying Bernie's fundraising activities, and not off in her own world of irrelevance (and possibly privilege). The Iron Law of Institutions hold here, she is happier in her position and has demonstrated no incentive to change things.

    So who will you vote for? That's a poor question, a better question is who will you vote against?

    Why do I write that? Well, you can vote for (Jill, the Looser, Stein), a person who will damage you (Hillary the Honest), or a person who might help you (Donald the Magnificent). – Just to be clear, sarcasm is intended in all three instances.

    Good luck with that decision, mine is made, and I made it months ago (a list of preferences, 1, 2 3), 3 was ABC – Anyone but Clinton, for I believe firmly that she will do me no good, and probably do myself and my children and my grandchildren much harm.

    What I read here is people somewhere in the stages of grief. Time to move on, at least by November.

    Optimader, July 29, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    Of course Clinton does not respect my views. But the idea that Donald Trump "respects my views" is patently ludicrous.

    And is a fallacy of false choice. I'm surprised you offer that. The fact that Trump doesn't "respect your views" doesn't make HRC a more acceptable choice.

    Vatch, July 29, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    ...Although I know other people who are convinced that Clinton is the lesser evil. Anyhow, Lesser Evilism is only relevant in swing states. Everywhere else, people ought to vote strategically. They should look to the future, and choose a candidate who will help create positive outcomes in future elections. We already know that the result of the 2016 election will be a disaster.

    [Jul 31, 2016] I love those old cartoons from the 1890s that show the reformers smashing the monopolists. Envision Trump with an axe, chopping off the tentacles of the vampire squid

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Dave, July 29, 2016 at 1:10 pm

    Who cares what foreigners think about our election?

    Only people with financial ties to the outcome of the election can be expected to really care. Goldman Sach's tentacles are worldwide.

    I love those old cartoons from the 1890s that show the reformers smashing the monopolists. Envision Trump with an axe, chopping off the tentacles of the vampire squid which screams in agony and bleeds to death.

    I'm reminded of the buttinsky old woman from Austria who is always lecturing me on how we treat our "Africa-Americans."
    I respond with , "So, how do you treat the gypsies in Austria?"
    " Oh, that's different!" she shrieks.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Donald Trump says hes taking the gloves off as party conventions wrap

    Pro-Hilary bots dominate discussion. Still there are few interesting comments
    Notable quotes:
    "... Meh, Hitler only ascended to power because he aligned himself with corporate interests and Germany's 1%. They did so because he stoked their fear of the other guys...who were communists. Sounds more like Hillary's playbook than Trumps ..."
    "... Trump may or may not be as he is portrayed, but to hold Hilary up as a paragon of virtue isn't going to get the Democrats very far. Between Hilary and Bill there are so many skeletons that there are not enough cupboards to hold them. Whitewater and other nepharious business dealings combined with corruption , sexual double dealing , this couple (for that is what they are) cannot preach to anyone re morality , honesty and trustworthiness. In addition Hilary is a master of the dark arts of Politics ( and that's being kind) Trump, has not been found out and if there were skeletons there then be sure they would have been found by now. Trump to win and Hilary to be placed in a well deserved prison cell. ..."
    Jul 31, 2016 | theguardian.com
    Sam3456 -> Merveil Meok , 2016-07-31 03:31:48
    Hillary has no such problems:

    Hedge fund owners and employees have so far this election cycle contributed nearly $48.5 million for Hillary Clinton, compared to about $19,000 for Donald Trump, an indication that Wall Street is clearly backing the Democratic presidential nominee.

    RogTheDodge -> peter nelson , 2016-07-31 13:35:21
    He didn't ask anyone to spy on us. He said if the Russians *already* had Clinton's 30,000 deleted emails, the media would love to get them and he'd love to read them. At no point did he ask anyone to hack anything.
    MsEvenstar , 2016-07-30 23:51:36
    Donald Trump sings from Hitler's playbook. There is a real difference, however, as an orator, he is not quite so polished. To date, his campaign has been devoted creating a "cult of personality", and on labeling all those who disagree un-American. A collection of slogans and sound-bites and an itchy Twitter finger do not a coherent platform make, but they are ideally suited to turning a crowd into a mob, one of the oldest tricks in the Hitler playbook.
    Sam3456 -> MsEvenstar , 2016-07-31 03:30:43
    Meh, Hitler only ascended to power because he aligned himself with corporate interests and Germany's 1%. They did so because he stoked their fear of the other guys...who were communists. Sounds more like Hillary's playbook than Trumps
    1iJack , 2016-07-30 17:19:11
    Whoever thought the Democrats would become the party of Wall Street?

    "Wall Street for Hillary? Clinton has $48.5M in hedge fund backing, compared to Trump's $19K"


    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/30/wall-street-for-hillary-clinton-has-48-5m-in-hedge-fund-backing-compared-to-trumps-19m.html
    ethane21 -> Kelly Grey , 2016-07-30 17:40:26

    Trump has the backing of Russia, so...

    The CLinton's already have that sewn up by flogging the Russkies Uranium mines a deal facilitated through the Clinton Foundation.
    'Uranium1' - check it.
    dalepues , 2016-07-30 15:51:45
    Thank God for Donald Trump. He is the only person of national stature who has taken the whip to GWB and his sorry, criminal administration. Donald Trump should be lauded for telling the truth in front of 40,000,000 viewers about the neocon crime syndicate that created Operation Iraqi Freedom and, of course, its members, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, erstwhile U.S. Senator who voted in favor of going to war in Iraq and who has never seen a war she didn't like or profit from. Trump in a single evening destroyed once and forever the myth that GWB "kept America safe". I look forward to the taking down of the Clinton brand.
    edward Marbletoe -> dalepues , 2016-07-30 16:18:39
    Trump:
    took down GWB worship
    took down FOX and Ailes
    took down Cruz
    took down GOP

    Sounds like the to-do list of a democrat. A very successful one.

    dylan37 , 2016-07-30 14:21:57
    Seems blindingly obvious to me that Trump is a born entertainer and knows exactly how to manipulate the media spotlight and get headlines..his "no more Mr Nice Guy" schtick is straight out of the TV villain playbook, like those mullet swinging moustachioed Amercan wrestlers..the crowd love it..he gets the attention..it generates comments and effectively shifts the low level debate back on to his ground, after Hillary enjoyed a couple of days of glass ceiling smashing. It's old vaudeville and pantomime and he's a master of it. Every serious reaction and outraged comment plays beautifully into his now gloveless hands. Don't fall for it. No need to worry, until he secures the keys to the kingdom come November.
    shejean , 2016-07-30 14:21:33
    'Nice'? Trump has never been 'nice' to Hillary or any other person, let alone another candidate Repub or Dem. How long did it take for him to come up with this rhetoric? Be afraid, very afraid, if he ever becomes POTUS. ��
    Nedward Marbletoe -> shejean , 2016-07-30 16:12:24
    Trump donated to Hillary. If that's not nice, idk what is.
    mythology 200gnomes , 2016-07-30 11:31:02
    Let's help out here: Jill Stein : and Gary Johnson .

    Real people worth voting for. Who would have guessed that America had a choice?
    Given a level democratic playing field, surely what a democracy is meant to be, then we would be seeing prime time coverage of all people standing for President.

    But the U.S. is not a democracy, it is an elected dictatorship.

    oldwatcher , 2016-07-30 10:59:51
    Anyone but the Clinton family in the White House for another eight years signals a disaster for the whole of the United States of America
    Trump has never sullied the White House and never will like that dirty bugger Clinton.
    Scipio1 , 2016-07-30 10:57:53
    What has happened to America's conscience, its democratic traditions, its sense of reason and fair play, where is its morality - all gone apparently if the Democratic Party Convention and nomination of HRC is anything to go by.

    Herewith an interesting snippet.

    ''Our Gross National Product - if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our Redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in a chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear war-head, and armoured cars and police to fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Specks Knife, and the TV programmes which glorify violence to sell toys to our children.

    GDP does not the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.''

    Who said that? Martin Luther King, Noam Chomsky, Jill Stein? Actually it was Bobby Kennedy (Remarks at the University of Kansas, 18 March 1968 - quoted in S.Das - The Age of Stagnation 2015)

    Can anyone today imagine in their wildest dreams a leading Democrat espousing views such as this? This is how far into the night that America has come. God help us all.

    anotherwelshbloke , 2016-07-30 10:46:54
    Obama tried to influence our referendum by saying that if the UK voted for Brexit then the UK would go to the back of the queue. Hilary as president will try and make sure that his word is carried out. However.....
    Trump wanted Brexit to happen. He also has a love for Scotland where he owns a golf course. He is also likely to see eye to eye with our new Foreign Secretary who was responsible for annoying Obama in the first place. I think both Boris and Trump are lunatics but looking at the bigger picture Trump will be so much better for British and Scottish interests than Hilary. He will place us at the front of the queue and Nicola Sturgeon would almost certainly be given a place at the high table.
    keyser soze , 2016-07-30 10:44:57
    Down with establishment and status quo TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP lets go Trump
    ydobon , 2016-07-30 10:30:54
    The people complaining about Trump being dishonest about the numbers of New Jersey Muslims celebrating 911 are themselves guilty of an even bigger falsehood in claiming that the number was zero.

    ""When I saw they were happy, I was pissed," said Ron Knight, 56, a Tonnele Avenue resident who said he heard cries of "Allahu Akbar" as he shouldered his way through a crowd of 15 to 20 people on John F. Kennedy Boulevard that morning.

    "Collectively, the gatherings amounted to dozens of people at the two locations, the witnesses said. Callers also flooded the 911 system with accounts of jubilant Muslims on a rooftop at a third location, three police officers said"

    http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/12/exclusive_jersey_city_cop_residents_say_some_musli.html

    And honestly, why should this even be surprising? Living in a Western country doesn't instantly make all Muslims loyslpatriots, as I would've thought anyone would recognise by now.

    Paul Silbert -> ydobon , 2016-07-30 11:08:33
    I thought that it was supposed to be Israelis celebrating in NJ because of 9/11? I guess that I must have been fed the wrong conspiracy theory. It doesn't matter, really, because it's pure unadulterated bullsh--, whoever you claim it about.
    Frogdoofus , 2016-07-30 09:57:44
    Lots of anti-Trump comments, fine and perfectly understandable. To clarify, the election is not a yes/no vote on Trump as President. It is a choice between Trump and HRC. To call HRC a deeply flawed candidate is an understatement. The important discussion is not over which one is evil, but which one is the lesser evil.

    If there is one candidate that you simply cannot go into a voting booth and vote for, then the other one gets your vote. For some people both candidates are "unvoteable", which is a quandary. Throwing away ones vote by not voting or going third party is not a civic option. It will be a tough few months.

    heatherton , 2016-07-30 09:56:54
    Trump may or may not be as he is portrayed, but to hold Hilary up as a paragon of virtue isn't going to get the Democrats very far. Between Hilary and Bill there are so many skeletons that there are not enough cupboards to hold them. Whitewater and other nepharious business dealings combined with corruption , sexual double dealing , this couple (for that is what they are) cannot preach to anyone re morality , honesty and trustworthiness. In addition Hilary is a master of the dark arts of Politics ( and that's being kind) Trump, has not been found out and if there were skeletons there then be sure they would have been found by now. Trump to win and Hilary to be placed in a well deserved prison cell.
    erazmatazz , 2016-07-30 09:50:59
    Clinton supporters always focus on the petty issues. Listen to Trump speak, there is a lot of substance in those speeches relating to the common people of the US of A. Reason why this guy is winning! And Why the Main stream media ( Including the quintessential Hillary supporters news paper The Guardian) hates Donald Trump. Let's put it this way, if you want a fair assessment of Donald Trump and what He is about, stay away from the main stream media.
    Clark8934 , 2016-07-30 09:48:27
    Judging by the comments below Trump is doing just fine! They remind you of people who would go to see stand-up comedy acts, not get the jokes, then mis-represent them and run home to mummy in shock! Yes, Trump is a stand-up act, hes entertaining, hes mainly unscripted and he has an audience. I think the world is divided between those with a sense of humor and those without! No-one with such a sense of humor can be dangerous, but sure as heck the Clintons and the Sanders are, as they take themselves very seriously now dont they!
    ydobon , 2016-07-30 09:38:59
    "his false claim that Muslims celebrated September 11"

    It isn't false that (some) Muslims celebrated 911. It isn't even false that some in New Jersey celebrated it. The only dispute is over numbers: dozens, possibly hundreds (as early news reports suggested) or thousands (as Trump asserts). It is ridiculous that the media so quick to paint Trump as a liar on this issue are themselves pushing an even bigger lie, ie that no Muslims celebrated at all.

    centerline -> IanCPurdie , 2016-07-30 10:26:57
    Earlier in the US farce, I looked up the various candidates websites and looked for their foreign policy. Non had foreign policy. All had war policy, or war and peace. This is the US version of foreign policy. On this Trump has been consistent - negotiation.
    Trump's an unknown, a showman. Clinton is a known - war.
    In the stratosphere of US $emocracy, all we can hope for here is an independent foreign policy rather than a foreign policy delivered direct from the US embassy.
    tupacalypse7 , 2016-07-30 09:05:29
    Good lord, the Russiaphobic brainwashing on these comments is thick and terrifying. I'm sorry, but I'd rather not have Cold War 2.0 over fucking Syria, thanks! But please go ahead and Vote For Hillary even though she's in bed with all the MidEast Wahhabist Dictatorships, AIPAC, and wants to demolish Damascus. Fucking nightmare. Seriously, Hillary people are either bought-off or brainwashed. And it's all because of Big Bad Trump, a decades long Clinton-Democrat who is now literally Hitler, right?
    Kess , 2016-07-30 09:04:15
    All this simplistic "Trump = bad / Clinton = good" reporting is getting ridiculous. Both candidates have a lot of dubious qualities and skeletons in their cupboards, yet one is glossed over while the other is exaggerated into caricature.

    Are there any truly independent newspapers that will report both sides fairly and evenly? The Guardian clearly won't.

    poststructuralist , 2016-07-30 08:30:21
    Another Trump bashing article. Nice to see your journalistic objectivity is intact Guardian. The establishment is finally being challenged - No more spin, no more smooth one liners, no more oppressive political correctness from the liberal elites. The gloves are off - and if we don't see the establishments bare hands this time - they will without a doubt lose. People are tired of being handled the the establishments kit gloves.
    Chris Bartelt , 2016-07-30 08:12:06
    Can we have an article on Clinton's proposed 'Syria reset' please, the one where she's proposing ramping the war up and arming more 'moderate rebels' and imposing a 'no fly zone' on Russian airstrips (what could possibly go wrong)..... This woman is a dangerous menace and will bring you everything you all wanted to get away from. Lots and lots of war for her mates in the banks and MIC.
    I despair if that warmongering liar gets in.
    Neemleaf1 , 2016-07-30 05:40:57
    India, US agree to share military supplies and fuel

    http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/ashton-carter-manohar-parrikar-india-us-agree-in-principle-to-use-each-others-military-bases /

    DWLindeman , 2016-07-30 02:46:51
    Donald Trump: "I've been Mr Nice Guy for too long. Now, I'm taking the gloves off, and I'm going to yell and scream and swear and insult anyone and everyone who doesn't believe I'm a real candidate, and that I really want to be president. No one understands just how serious I am. I've been trying to be serious all my life, and I will scare the bewillies out of anyone who doesn't believe in me now. After all, some one's go to pay."
    Free Speech , 2016-07-30 01:13:54
    The Guardian is quaking in their boots. The propaganda is not working thanks to the abundant info on the internet.
    People are waking up to the populist. I predict a double digit lead in 2 weeks time.
    Great time to be alive!
    Free Speech Aldythe , 2016-07-30 02:24:17
    LOL. Reuters were found to be colluding with the Democrats. They have lost any respect.

    Thank you Wikileaks for exposing the dishonest media.

    [Jul 31, 2016] New poll shows that Jill Stein will pull 22% of Democrats w/ a negative view of Clinton which is 67% of Democrats

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    AnEducatedFool , July 29, 2016 at 7:56 pm

    In response to Ambrit. I do not know who is attacking Bernie. New poll shows that Jill Stein will pull 22% of Democrats w/ a negative view of Clinton which is 67% of Democrats. May be off w/ the 67% but the poll is recent and from WSJ/NBC

    Clinton will not win. Sanders mortally wounded the DLC/Clinton machine.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Trump is a representative of the local big money and power centers, the local businessmen who run the show in state houses and county freeholders

    Notable quotes:
    "... The difference between Trump and Hillary is that enough is known from Hillary's past actions to leave little doubt about her mendacity. ..."
    "... I perceive Trump as a representative of the local big money and power centers, the people who run the show in state houses and county freeholders - people rooted to specific locales. ..."
    "... I perceive Hillary as a representative of jet-set big money and international corporate interests with a willingness to support all their most destructive activities including wars ..."
    "... There is no "we" here. After the mess in Ukraine, Syria and Libya we now know that a continuation of Obama's policies will basically destroy Europe. ..."
    "... The odds are that our leadership will simply go along with less US stupidity when it's coming from Trump, while they will certainly follow Hillary to whatever end. ..."
    "... The reality of the Democrats consists of a party with significant constituencies that increasingly support a militarized foreign policy as well as economic/cultural policy that is anti-growth, anti-working class and pro-ethnic/race identity– in essence–more and more classically reactionary. ..."
    "... Modern Democrats have also increasingly merged with and identify primarily with upper-middle class professional/managerial/bureaucratic power centers as well as with key sectors of Big capital and Big Finance. ..."
    "... This party now stand completely against that average citizens interest in rising living standards, equality of opportunity and the strengthening of democracy. ..."
    July 29, 2016

    I don't see what optimism Hudson manifests about Donald Trump in his essay. Mildly put he shows a lack of optimism about Hillary as well as disgust at Sanders capitulation.

    Here's my penny's worth of a two cents - how I see our choices in the upcoming election:

    Trump has some very skivy friends and associates. The Bill Moyers website posted a review of Donald Trump's business associates and friends http://billmoyers.com/story/donald-trump-story-youre-not-hearing/ [not sure if this has already been referenced in the past - if so sorry]. Trump is in a business very close to the "legitimate" side of organized crime - casinos and large scale real-estate development. Trump makes outrageous statements I've seen described as explicit statements of the coded statements the Republican party rolled out to draw the South into their party. Trump also makes a lot of statements with a ring of truth seeming to "talk truth to power." Several people I've discussed politics with favor Trump just because the people who run our show have displayed such plain distaste for him.

    Hillary Clinton's email server fiasco would land most ordinary holders of government clearance in prison or at very least put them back on the streets with a large blackball next to their name. But I consider the email server affair a minor breach compared to her ties with big money and big Corporations, her actions as Secretary of State and her efforts on her Healthcare plan during Bill's reign.

    Trump says a lot of the right stuff - but so did Obama - and Hillary tries to say the right stuff. The difference between Trump and Hillary is that enough is known from Hillary's past actions to leave little doubt about her mendacity. Trump's business associations and his handling of his businesses only suggest he too just mouths the right words.

    I perceive Trump as a representative of the local big money and power centers, the people who run the show in state houses and county freeholders - people rooted to specific locales. I view organized crime as relatively respectful of eachother's turfs. Trump is the friend to people who build highways to nowhere and use eminent domain to take over beach areas for their developments in places like Atlantic City.

    I perceive Hillary as a representative of jet-set big money and international corporate interests with a willingness to support all their most destructive activities including wars .

    I can't offer any specifics or solid reasons for why I have these feelings and perceptions about the candidates.

    We have no good choices here. I am terrified of Donald Trump and of Hillary Clinton. I could never vote for either one of them and I don't regard Jill Stein or the Greens as viable alternatives. I plan to renew my passport and lie low someplace away from large urban areas if possible. I can salve any concerns that not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump with the forlorn hope that should Trump win he will at least tend to keep the destruction within our borders. fajensen , July 29, 2016 at 2:39 pm

    There is no "we" here. After the mess in Ukraine, Syria and Libya we now know that a continuation of Obama's policies will basically destroy Europe.

    The odds are that our leadership will simply go along with less US stupidity when it's coming from Trump, while they will certainly follow Hillary to whatever end.

    Treadingwaterbutstillkicking , July 29, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    You make an interesting point here. Even if Trump has an only marginally effective presidency (take this to mean whatever you would like, lol) and the constituencies that vote for him feel that he is better than Hillary would've been or the other Republican clown show that he beat in 2016, it pretty much means Ted Cruz's political career is history as Trump (or a hand-picked successor) will be running as a Republican again in 2020.

    Trump going down this year means we are going to see and hear 4 years of Cruz campaigning. And with the $hill as president there will be A LOT to campaign against. Yuck.

    Jim , July 29, 2016 at 2:31 pm

    The reality of the Democrats consists of a party with significant constituencies that increasingly support a militarized foreign policy as well as economic/cultural policy that is anti-growth, anti-working class and pro-ethnic/race identity– in essence–more and more classically reactionary.

    Modern Democrats have also increasingly merged with and identify primarily with upper-middle class professional/managerial/bureaucratic power centers as well as with key sectors of Big capital and Big Finance.

    This party now stand completely against that average citizens interest in rising living standards, equality of opportunity and the strengthening of democracy.

    What was once progressive has become terminally reactionary–what was once considered left has become terminally right.

    Booneavenueboy , July 29, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    I write from Lyon, France. I will be voting for Jill Stein, but rooting for Trump. The anti-Trump bias in the American media is beyond belief, matched only by its hatred for Putin. No one has mentioned how a Trump victory would undermine the two-party duopoly, a huge gain for America.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Media myth that Trump supports are ignorant rednecks

    Notable quotes:
    "... If I'm not mistaken I believe that it's already been debunked that Trump supporters are ignorant as it is. The corporate media will always quote the crazies when it suits them and ignore any inconvenient truths, statements or memes ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Treadingwaterbutstillkicking , July 29, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    If I'm not mistaken I believe that it's already been debunked that Trump supporters are ignorant as it is. The corporate media will always quote the crazies when it suits them and ignore any inconvenient truths, statements or memes. (An older NC link had even noted that Trump supporters had the highest average income, not that I'm saying that's important, but it may be from a managerial class perspective).

    That would be hard to believe anyway after seeing the true believers in the audience of the DNC last week.

    [Jul 30, 2016] Snowden And WikiLeaks Go To War Over The Ethics Of The DNC Email Hack

    If the intent is to expose corruption then that is doing a public service. The public's interest is the content of the e-mails and the dirty tricks played by the DNC and Clinton. The e-mails clearly show that the journalists are in bed with the DNC/Clinton and this article is just another example of this corruption of the media
    Notable quotes:
    "... Reading the comments it is hard to understand what is wrong with a lot of you commenters. You seem to swallow whole one side or the other and march off the cliff just like lemming. This argument is a few sentences and is about proper handling of the leaks, not the leaks themselves. The leaks show Hillary supporters helped steal the primary votes from Sanders when the DNC was supposed to be neutral. That is a crime against democracy, an attack on you, it is third world corruption. If you believe Hillary is for you than you are just hopeless. ..."
    "... All the noise about Russian plots and secret agendas is a bit ironic as it seems the truth is that the DNC and their presidential candidate are the ones with a secret agenda that was made public. ..."
    "... The collapse of the government and Google as a-censor is imminent. ¨ Everyone is switching to Duckduckgo.com ..."
    "... How this backfire ??? We just get proof how the DNC establishment nominate what candidate they want not what people want. If after this Sanders supporters will still vote for Hillary, they just simply give the establishment green lite to do it same thing anytime they want and democracy really is just the empty word...... ..."
    "... Wikileaks only confirms that DNC has rigged the primaries to help Hillary Clinton, that's why Debbie W. Schultz had to resign her Chair. Whether that will cost Clinton her election depends on how many of the Bernie Sanders supporters are angry enough to boycott the election. ..."
    "... The problem in America is that we have a two party political system that can be easily manipulated by the wealthy and those with evil intent .When that happens you have basically one party speaking double talk , controlled by the few and sewing confusion among the voters in order to divide and polarize the country . ..."
    "... It is interesting (albeit unsurprising) that since the leak makes Hillary Clinton's backers in the DNC look bad, the media is so interested in the motives of the leakers. This was never the case with the anti-Bush crowd in the 2000's. Going back a bit further, anyone involved in exposing the Watergate break-in is practically treated like a national hero. Suddenly, the "truth to power" crowd has become the "can't handle the truth" crowd. ..."
    "... This #$%$ article is just ridiculous! "Oh, well, the leak hasn't revealed anything important". Hello! Wake up! It has shown how crooked the DNC was during this election cycle ..."
    "... Did you notice there's no (By-Line) for this article? Because what is IN the emails is most important. Firstly, they blame the Russians. Then they blame Trump. Then they blame the Russians and Trump. Now they don't know who to blame. But, the FBI said for certain the server was hacked and there were indications of who hacked it. This was established in a couple of short weeks - or less. The FBI had Hillary's server for a year and couldn't make a determination. ..."
    "... The most important question to ask is about the motives of American Journalists is there report a distraction from the truth are they in fact trying to do damage control are they being controlled by a political party as these E-MAILS seem to suggest . The motive of the leaker is less important than the truth. ..."
    "... The DNC had to hire actors at $50 a pop by advertising on Craigslist so Hillary Clinton wouldn't look like the clown she is in front of a half-empty DNC stadium during her acceptance speech. ..."
    "... The exodus of hundreds, if not thousands, of Bernie Sanders supporters from the convention made crystal clear the extent of discord among Democratic voters. ..."
    "... It's a sad state of affairs in that we are depending on Julian Assange to save the Republic from corrupt Hillary and the Clinton foundation. If Clinton becomes President she will basically place the United States up for sale so that the globalists can destroy what little remains of the American middle class. America will truly become a third world nation with only rich and poor. ..."
    "... We can not allow this to happen. Trump may be a little "rough around the edges" however he is a true American who will bring back jobs, try his best to eliminate illegal immigration, and take America back from the globalists. This will help middle class Americans to thrive -- Vote Trump for President in 2016 -- ..."
    "... I think most commenters are missing the point that Snowden made: what is the intent of the leak? If the intent is to expose corruption then that is doing a public service. ..."
    "... All look at the bang up job the FBI did with Clinton's email wrong doings. She broke the law and lied and the FBI tip toed around it by not taking her statements under oath so she wouldn't be charged. ..."
    "... Another article to divert from the content of the emails, which were so damning that the DNC used all their Media contacts to create the "Russia Hack" scenario and then accused Trump of conspiring with Russia. As of yet not one DNC official has denied the facts or content in the e-mails. ..."
    "... I found it interesting you didn't mention that Politico was found in cahoots with the DNC as well in the emails.. Just like the mainstream media didn't hardly cover the protesters at the DNC convention but surely did at the RNC convention. You pick & choose what you want to report don't you. ..."
    Jul 29, 2016 | yahoo.com

    michaelmichael

    Reading the comments it is hard to understand what is wrong with a lot of you commenters. You seem to swallow whole one side or the other and march off the cliff just like lemming. This argument is a few sentences and is about proper handling of the leaks, not the leaks themselves. The leaks show Hillary supporters helped steal the primary votes from Sanders when the DNC was supposed to be neutral. That is a crime against democracy, an attack on you, it is third world corruption. If you believe Hillary is for you than you are just hopeless.

    DoctorNoDoctorNo

    At what point in civilization did the truth become unethical? No one is denying that the information contained in these e-mails is not true. All the noise about Russian plots and secret agendas is a bit ironic as it seems the truth is that the DNC and their presidential candidate are the ones with a secret agenda that was made public.

    We have one presidential candidate under IRS, FBI and State Department investigation and another who opens their mouth only to change feet placing the American voter in an untenable position come November.

    fudmer

    @ Tim Schultze Humanity refuses to be ruled by the few! ¨

    The collapse of the government and Google as a-censor is imminent. ¨ Everyone is switching to Duckduckgo.com

    Enough Oligarch monopoly and control. Yesterday 40 civilians bombed to death and 50 more injured in Syria by US Air force and marines killed in actions in Yemen. What the hell is the USA doing in Syria or Yemen?

    Democracy is freedom of movement, action and thought, not controlled, restricted and regulated movement, not punishment for each action that challenges the established monopolies, and not mind control and media propaganda as a total cultural environment.

    Everywhere world wide humanity, Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Moslem [except the wabahi Sunni] are rising to the challenge the few.

    nobodynobody

    "The DNC email leak has backfired on WikiLeaks, and arguably Russia and Trump, because theorizing about who leaked these emails has been far more intriguing to journalists and the general public than the emails themselves."

    How this backfire ??? We just get proof how the DNC establishment nominate what candidate they want not what people want. If after this Sanders supporters will still vote for Hillary, they just simply give the establishment green lite to do it same thing anytime they want and democracy really is just the empty word......

    AlitaAlita,

    Wikileaks only confirms that DNC has rigged the primaries to help Hillary Clinton, that's why Debbie W. Schultz had to resign her Chair. Whether that will cost Clinton her election depends on how many of the Bernie Sanders supporters are angry enough to boycott the election.

    JohnJohn

    The problem in America is that we have a two party political system that can be easily manipulated by the wealthy and those with evil intent .When that happens you have basically one party speaking double talk , controlled by the few and sewing confusion among the voters in order to divide and polarize the country . Which leads to a lack of unity and everyone for him or her self . What we need is not more or fewer political parties but a more informed public


    Scotty P.Scotty P.

    It is interesting (albeit unsurprising) that since the leak makes Hillary Clinton's backers in the DNC look bad, the media is so interested in the motives of the leakers. This was never the case with the anti-Bush crowd in the 2000's. Going back a bit further, anyone involved in exposing the Watergate break-in is practically treated like a national hero. Suddenly, the "truth to power" crowd has become the "can't handle the truth" crowd.

    Similarly, Edward Snowden proudly violated national security laws, in the name of exposing government corruption. But now that someone else has done it to a politcal base Snowden finds more tolerable (he's a known liberal), he takes issue with it? Get over yourself, Ed. You're no better than WikiLeaks, and your agenda is no more "pure" than theirs.

    Lastly, the author of this article saying the leak has "backfired" is truly rich. This isn't the 90's, when feckless partisans tried to take down the Clintons, only to have disgraced themselves- although Newt Gingrich still ATTEMPTS to be relevant. (But I digress.) This time, the Clintons have angered a lot of people on the left, who see that the Democrats are no more a "party of the people" than the Republicans are- although anyone paying attentions wouldn't need WikiLeaks to tell them that.

    SomeSome

    Talk about playing it down, this proved media collusion further evidenced by the blackout of delegates lack of media coverage when over 1,000 walked out after roll call and stormed the media tents. (Video's all over YouTube)

    My Revolution brothers and sisters, even though we are separated by #DemExit, I understand and appreciate your fight from within. I am fighting to build a new home in the Green party. We are still together even when we are apart.

    But whatever you do you have to keep moving forward!

    michael

    Another is a long line of distortion and lies by the establishment to make the establishment Queen elected. The lies just never stop. Snowden tweeted a sentence and Wikileaks tweeted by another. from this a whole pyramid of lies and distortions was written. There is zero evidence the Russians government hacked these emails, zero, nada, nothing. What is important is the DNC was for Hillary and was trying to sabotage another Democrat, Sanders, running for the same office. That is corruption pure and simple, nothing less. Third world corruption going on at the DNC.

    TimmyTimmy

    This #$%$ article is just ridiculous! "Oh, well, the leak hasn't revealed anything important". Hello! Wake up! It has shown how crooked the DNC was during this election cycle, and in truth the RNC probably isn't any better. But here we have PROOF of just how crooked hilary and her cronies are, and they are all getting a free pass. No one sees a problem with this?

    Gordon

    Did you notice there's no (By-Line) for this article? Because what is IN the emails is most important. Firstly, they blame the Russians. Then they blame Trump. Then they blame the Russians and Trump. Now they don't know who to blame. But, the FBI said for certain the server was hacked and there were indications of who hacked it. This was established in a couple of short weeks - or less. The FBI had Hillary's server for a year and couldn't make a determination.

    Too much of this just doesn't add up. The Democrats went into immediate Damage Control mode when the emails came out and Not ONE person was screaming, "This ain't True!". Nope, not even a whisper. We can't tell who's pulling the strings on this. But, there's dammed sure someone behind the curtain.

    Richard

    The most important question to ask is about the motives of American Journalists is there report a distraction from the truth are they in fact trying to do damage control are they being controlled by a political party as these E-MAILS seem to suggest . The motive of the leaker is less important than the truth. Wiki-leaks hates Clinton , Russia hacked the DNC server that is another subject . The fact weather or not the DNC acted in a unethical manner is the subject.

    JULEA

    There is nothing wrong with Transparency. We need MORE of it. How long did WE Hack and Spy on Germany, Merkel? They were suing US. What ever happened about this? We ALSO need more transparency about TPP and who can be sued for some Corporation losing profits..even if they are doing wrong to make their profits. I think something falls on States, counties, even citizens. Even SCIENCE for proving harmful things involved. We just need Transparency and who is giving money to who and why. The DNC became VERY Undemocratic and this just a BIG BIG BIG No to every Liberal and should not be covered up for anything. WE HACK EVERY COUNTRY.

    DickDick

    Nobody except America's enemies wants vital secrets that jeopardize our well being hacked. On the other hand we have a national interest in finding out what our leaders have been hiding that jeopardize our liberties. Snowden exposed extreme violations of the fourth amendment by the NSA. Wikileaks exposed political chicanery by the democrat central committee. Hiding information like this is harmful and only benefits those who are trying to cover up something just to protect themselves. Both Snowden and wikileaks have done good deeds.

    Snowden, who risked his life to spill the beans, said he would reveal all in return for immunity. But too many people have reason to fear the truth so I doubt if he will be granted it. A shame.

    mike

    Democrat or Republican they both pull this kind of #$%$. The only answer is to vote all of them out of office and put term limits in place . We need to stop the Life long politicians who are in it for their own riches. And we know its "All" of them, they find out how easy it is to rip the American people off and get by with it.

    DavidSDavidS

    This attempt to paint Clinton the victim is sooooo over played. She has been the "victim" all her life. Focus on just how corrupt she and everyone around her is. DWS didn't get punished for what she did (or allowed), she was rewarded. Doesn't that speak volumes about Clinton? The more corrupt you are, the more she and hers will reward. Wake up people, there was a time when a single lie told to the public was a career ending blotch. Now it's who can tell the biggest.

    Ron

    I love how this story tries to downplay the content of the emails and focus on the hackers. The emails exposed a coordinated effort to rob Bernie. Journalists may be having more fun speculating on who hacked them, but Bernies followers could care less. They know the old man got robbed.

    Lord Doom

    The Leak disclosed how the main stream media has bias with the DNC. Yahoo news wants to blow down the story and mask its importance it seems to me.

    Idontwanngiveit

    Dan Seitz.... Do you practice being a political dolt or does it come naturally?

    The DNC had to hire actors at $50 a pop by advertising on Craigslist so Hillary Clinton wouldn't look like the clown she is in front of a half-empty DNC stadium during her acceptance speech.

    The exodus of hundreds, if not thousands, of Bernie Sanders supporters from the convention made crystal clear the extent of discord among Democratic voters.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the devastating fall-out of the WikiLeaks e-mail dump on Hillary Clinton's election bid. She is the No. 1 casualty -- albeit "collateral damage" -- inflicted by the party upon itself!

    Prior to the WikiLeaks e-mail showing how Bernie got jerked around by a rigged system, most of his supporters would have held their nose and grudgingly voted for Hillary in November. Now, since learning how party officials conspired against them, they want and deserve blood!

    The disgruntled masses who stormed out of the DNC represent a microcosm of the equally disgruntled masses of Democrats nation-wide who are incensed over the party's machinations and shenanigans. The ones in Pennsylvania and those watching on TV, following events on the Internet and reading newspapers at home are fully informed about what took place and will now do one of three things:

    1. Sit out the election entirely our of frustration over a status-quo system that's patently rigged against them, which benefits Donald Trump.
    2. Vote for a third-candidate, which splits the Democratic ticket and, again, benefits Trump.
    3. Vote for Donald Trump directly out of shear spite to show the Democratic Party exactly what it deserves for screwing with them, which also Trump.

    Even if all those people constitute just 5 or 10 percent of the Party's voting base, their loss and its effect on Hillary's chances of winning the White House will be devastating!

    So, as a staunch Trump supporter myself, Thank you, Julian Assange! Thank you very much for your generous and very helpful assistance in securing the Oval Office for Donald J. Trump on Nov. 8.

    Oh yeah. And one other thing.... Please keep those Democratic Party internal e-mails coming. They're absolutely fascinating!

    Joseph

    It's a sad state of affairs in that we are depending on Julian Assange to save the Republic from corrupt Hillary and the Clinton foundation. If Clinton becomes President she will basically place the United States up for sale so that the globalists can destroy what little remains of the American middle class. America will truly become a third world nation with only rich and poor.

    We can not allow this to happen. Trump may be a little "rough around the edges" however he is a true American who will bring back jobs, try his best to eliminate illegal immigration, and take America back from the globalists. This will help middle class Americans to thrive -- Vote Trump for President in 2016 !

    Elizabeth

    I think most commenters are missing the point that Snowden made: what is the intent of the leak? If the intent is to expose corruption then that is doing a public service. Leaking private information like credit card numbers and SS numbers only makes the victims vulnerable to thieves and does not fall in the "need to know" category. Wiki could have edited the leak to expose the DNC while protecting private information.

    joanjoan

    All look at the bang up job the FBI did with Clinton's email wrong doings. She broke the law and lied and the FBI tip toed around it by not taking her statements under oath so she wouldn't be charged.

    A Yahoo reader

    What could be more hypocritical of this pro-Clinton commentary questioning the objectivity of documents released with no commentary at all. Any rational person appreciates being provided the truth. It's of no consequence that the truth provider doesn't like Clinton. There's no law that says people have to like Clinton, at least not yet.

    alfredalfred

    Nice try to discredit the emails. They happened. She resigned. Democrats are terrible people. They get away with it because we are stupid and believe everything this media tells us.

    Danny

    OK, you won't listen to a guy (Edward Snowden) about issues, when he releases information that the public NEEDS to know, but "MAY BE" detrimental to the people in National Security, you put him on the World's MOST WANTED LIST, take his citizenship away. So what is his choice, he HAS NO CHOICE, he goes on the offense, obtaining and releasing even more information, and working with whomever will protect him.

    There is no evidence Russia is holding him prison, just protecting him. There is no evidence he can't leave anytime he wants, even come back to his own country. Yet our government continues to villanize Snowden.

    Look at the data released - It is true, it proves ALL the crooks are in our own government and politics, there is no evidence Russia is doing anything but helping people find, obtain and release material our politicians create.

    So, Killary, DNC, Obama, one and all attack Snowden and Russia, even adding Trump to the mix. I think we need to pack up all these crooked Democrats, including Obama, and ship them off to another country and tell them to GET A JOB. Then, let Snowden back into his country and let him do his job of protecting the United States of America. And Trump doesn't have anything to do with Killary, Obama and DNCs crooked politics.

    krainkrain

    Then there is the language issue. "I hate being attributed to Russia," the Guccifer 2.0 account told Motherboard, probably accurately. The person at the keyboard then claimed in a chat with Motherboard's Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai that Guccifer 2.0 was from Romania, like the original Guccifer, a well-known hacker. But when asked to explain his hack in Romanian, he was unable to respond colloquially and without errors. Guccifer 2.0's English initially was also weak, but in subsequent posts the quality improved sharply, albeit only on political subjects, not in technical matters-an indication of a team of operators at work behind the scenes.

    VernyVerny
    The government is protecting Hillary and the Clinton Gang, so "leaks and hacks" are the only methodology of showing Americans the truth about Hillary, the most corrupt politician in American history.

    Jayster b

    Another article to divert from the content of the emails, which were so damning that the DNC used all their Media contacts to create the "Russia Hack" scenario and then accused Trump of conspiring with Russia. As of yet not one DNC official has denied the facts or content in the e-mails. So, Assange scored in this first round so much that Debbie is no longer head of the DNC, and the FBI has demanded access to the DNC server to analyze it, meaning they will have access to all the donor information from foreign countries that are helping the Democrats steal the nomination from Bernie. What a crazy world. Assange 1, DNC 0

    TomTom

    I found it interesting you didn't mention that Politico was found in cahoots with the DNC as well in the emails.. Just like the mainstream media didn't hardly cover the protesters at the DNC convention but surely did at the RNC convention. You pick & choose what you want to report don't you.

    [Jul 30, 2016] MSM lied about danger of trusting Trump the nuclear button -- Hillary is proved to be reckless and impulsive like most female sociopath

    Notable quotes:
    "... Really? Do I trust Trump to give the keys to 6970 nukes, 10 carrier strike groups, and a $1Trillion/yr military-industrial complex to a bigoted, sociopathic liar. NOT. I still do remember what it was like the first time I gave my car keys to my 16-year old son. Give the nuclear keys to Trump – ABSOLUTELY. NEVER. ..."
    "... Why can't the choice be that noone should have the keys to the nukes? That's assuming anyone does single handedly which is almost certainly false anyway. You think senile old Reagan did? Really you really truly believe that do you? ..."
    "... "Should the president decide to order the launch of nuclear weapons, they would be taken aside by the "carrier" of the nuclear football and the briefcase opened. Once opened, the president would decide which "Attack Options", specific orders for attacks on specific targets, to use. The Attack Options are preset war plans developed under OPLAN 8010, and include Major Attack Options (MAOs), Selected Attack Options (SAOs), and Limited Attack Options (LAOs). The chosen attack option and the Gold Codes would then be transmitted to the NMCC via a special, secure channel. As commander-in-chief, the president is the only individual with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons;however, the two-man rule still applies. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Dr B Gerard , July 29, 2016 at 10:16 am

    Excellent article. However, having said that:

    "The problem with Trump is not mistrust;"

    Really? Do I trust Trump to give the keys to 6970 nukes, 10 carrier strike groups, and a $1Trillion/yr military-industrial complex to a bigoted, sociopathic liar. NOT. I still do remember what it was like the first time I gave my car keys to my 16-year old son. Give the nuclear keys to Trump – ABSOLUTELY. NEVER.

    Which is not to say that I am totally thrilled with neocon hawk Hillary. Number 1 on my list of the 9 reasons why I voted for Bernie rather than her in our Primary is that she voted for Bush's Iraq War and my son did six tours.

    "The solution is not to save the Democratic Party, but to replace it."

    True enough, but that will not happen between now and 08 November.

    We have a binary choice on 08 Nov – I do not think a replay Nader in FL in 2000 is a particularly smart option.

    jrs , July 29, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    Why can't the choice be that noone should have the keys to the nukes? That's assuming anyone does single handedly which is almost certainly false anyway. You think senile old Reagan did? Really you really truly believe that do you?

    John Wright , July 29, 2016 at 11:14 pm

    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Codes

    "Should the president decide to order the launch of nuclear weapons, they would be taken aside by the "carrier" of the nuclear football and the briefcase opened. Once opened, the president would decide which "Attack Options", specific orders for attacks on specific targets, to use. The Attack Options are preset war plans developed under OPLAN 8010, and include Major Attack Options (MAOs), Selected Attack Options (SAOs), and Limited Attack Options (LAOs). The chosen attack option and the Gold Codes would then be transmitted to the NMCC via a special, secure channel. As commander-in-chief, the president is the only individual with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons;however, the two-man rule still applies.

    The National Command Authority comprising the president and Secretary of Defense must jointly authenticate the order to use nuclear weapons to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The order would then be transmitted over a tan-yellow phone, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Alerting Network, otherwise known as the "Gold Phone", that directly links the NMCC with United States Strategic Command Headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska."

    So there are some checks to prevent Donald Trump or HRC launching a nuclear strike in a fit of temper..

    The "nuclear football" is a briefcase, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football

    [Jul 30, 2016] Hillary Covers Her Bases by Scott McConnell

    Trying to steal back workers from Trump will probably not work -- Hillary is too distrusted to make the message convincing. But a nice try... Nailing Hillary on issues is like trying to pin jelly to a wall
    Notable quotes:
    "... She devoted a fair amount of time addressing Trump voters, white working-class folks whose wages and position in the country have been gradually squeezed. She promised good jobs for everyone, to punish Wall Street, to reject bad trade deals, to protect steel and auto workers, to stand up to China. This was essentially an effort to steal the Trump platform and adopt part of Trump's message, and these words would never have been uttered by Goldman Sachs' favorite speaker if the GOP had nominated Jeb Bush or if Trump weren't actually leading in some national polls. This is new territory for Hillary, a concession to Trump she didn't make to Bernie Sanders. ..."
    "... Probably, somewhere in the back of her mind, Hillary knows that there is a fundamental contradiction between good-paying jobs and open borders, but denying that inescapable economic fact of supply and demand is now part of her party's message. ..."
    "... On foreign policy, she remains a liberal hawk, giving a warning that we are prepared to go war over Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, while giving a one-sentence endorsement of the centerpiece of Obama's diplomatic legacy, the Iran deal. Again, this is a kind of rhetorical box-checking that doesn't predict much about her future orientation: clearly either the neocons or Obama supporters will be roundly disappointed in a Hillary foreign policy. We just don't know which it will be. ..."
    July 29, 2016 | The American Conservative
    Nevertheless, the speech Hillary did give revealed much about where the race is. She devoted a fair amount of time addressing Trump voters, white working-class folks whose wages and position in the country have been gradually squeezed. She promised good jobs for everyone, to punish Wall Street, to reject bad trade deals, to protect steel and auto workers, to stand up to China. This was essentially an effort to steal the Trump platform and adopt part of Trump's message, and these words would never have been uttered by Goldman Sachs' favorite speaker if the GOP had nominated Jeb Bush or if Trump weren't actually leading in some national polls. This is new territory for Hillary, a concession to Trump she didn't make to Bernie Sanders. Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe's blurting out that Hillary didn't really mean it (her opposition to the TPP in particular) is probably a reliable assertion that she doesn't. But the fact that she had to proclaim that she heard the complaints of working-class voters and would seek to address them is a kind of tribute to the Trump and Sanders movements.

    In Hillary's world, America's diversity is its strength, and she probably does believe this. We will not build a wall, she said, but build an economy where "everyone who wants a good paying job" can have one. In years past, a presidential candidate might have said, more or less unconsciously, "every American" instead of "everyone," but Hillary has already embraced a comprehensive immigration reform with amnesty as its centerpiece, and the Democratic Party is increasingly aligned to that part (now vanquished) of the GOP that prefers relatively open borders. If any kind of future border enforcement is part of that comprehensive package, Hillary certainly didn't mention it. Left-wing activists now tout a "right to immigrate," and this may implicitly have become part of the Democratic platform. Probably, somewhere in the back of her mind, Hillary knows that there is a fundamental contradiction between good-paying jobs and open borders, but denying that inescapable economic fact of supply and demand is now part of her party's message.

    ... ... ...

    On foreign policy, she remains a liberal hawk, giving a warning that we are prepared to go war over Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, while giving a one-sentence endorsement of the centerpiece of Obama's diplomatic legacy, the Iran deal. Again, this is a kind of rhetorical box-checking that doesn't predict much about her future orientation: clearly either the neocons or Obama supporters will be roundly disappointed in a Hillary foreign policy. We just don't know which it will be.

    [Jul 30, 2016] Why Trump might win

    Notable quotes:
    "... her vote for the Iraq War made me promise her that I would never vote for her again ..."
    "... Our biggest problem here isn't Trump – it's Hillary. She is hugely unpopular - nearly 70% of all voters think she is untrustworthy and dishonest. She represents the old way of politics, not really believing in anything other than what can get you elected. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    ucgsblog , July 29, 2016 at 3:29 pm
    For those who want a peek into the thoughts of a Bernie Sanders voter who is voting for Clinton: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/5-reasons-why-trump-will-_b_11156794.html

    Quite a few aren't. I think most aren't, Moore thinks most are, but numbers, at this point, aren't important, that could change. What is important, is the passion and the arguments:

    I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I gave it to you straight last summer when I told you that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee for president. And now I have even more awful, depressing news for you: Donald J. Trump is going to win in November… Here are the 5 reasons Trump is going to win:

    Midwest Math, or Welcome to Our Rust Belt Brexit. I believe Trump is going to focus much of his attention on the four blue states in the rustbelt of the upper Great Lakes – Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin… it's because he's said (correctly) that the Clintons' support of NAFTA helped to destroy the industrial states of the Upper Midwest. Trump is going to hammer Clinton on this and her support of TPP and other trade policies that have royally screwed the people of these four states. When Trump stood in the shadow of a Ford Motor factory during the Michigan primary, he threatened the corporation that if they did indeed go ahead with their planned closure of that factory and move it to Mexico, he would slap a 35% tariff on any Mexican-built cars shipped back to the United States. It was sweet, sweet music to the ears of the working class of Michigan, and when he tossed in his threat to Apple that he would force them to stop making their iPhones in China and build them here in America, well, hearts swooned and Trump walked away with a big victory that should have gone to the governor next-door, John Kasich…

    The Last Stand of the Angry White Man… There is a sense that the power has slipped out of their hands, that their way of doing things is no longer how things are done. This monster, the "Feminazi,"the thing that as Trump says, "bleeds through her eyes or wherever she bleeds," has conquered us - and now, after having had to endure eight years of a black man telling us what to do, we're supposed to just sit back and take eight years of a woman bossing us around…

    Can we speak honestly, just among ourselves? And before we do, let me state, I actually like Hillary – a lot – and I think she has been given a bad rap she doesn't deserve. But her vote for the Iraq War made me promise her that I would never vote for her againOur biggest problem here isn't Trump – it's Hillary. She is hugely unpopular - nearly 70% of all voters think she is untrustworthy and dishonest. She represents the old way of politics, not really believing in anything other than what can get you elected. That's why she fights against gays getting married one moment, and the next she's officiating a gay marriage… no independent is waking up on November 8th excited to run out and vote for Hillary the way they did the day Obama became president or when Bernie was on the primary ballot. The enthusiasm just isn't there. And because this election is going to come down to just one thing - who drags the most people out of the house and gets them to the polls - Trump right now is in the catbird seat…

    The fire alarm that should be going off is that while the average Bernie backer will drag him/herself to the polls that day to somewhat reluctantly vote for Hillary, it will be what's called a "depressed vote" – meaning the voter doesn't bring five people to vote with her. He doesn't volunteer 10 hours in the month leading up to the election. She never talks in an excited voice when asked why she's voting for Hillary. A depressed voter. Because, when you're young, you have zero tolerance for phonies and BS. Returning to the Clinton/Bush era for them is like suddenly having to pay for music, or using MySpace or carrying around one of those big-ass portable phones. They're not going to vote for Trump; some will vote third party, but many will just stay home…

    the anger that so many have toward a broken political system, millions are going to vote for Trump not because they agree with him, not because they like his bigotry or ego, but just because they can. Just because it will upset the apple cart and make mommy and daddy mad. And in the same way like when you're standing on the edge of Niagara Falls and your mind wonders for a moment what would that feel like to go over that thing, a lot of people are going to love being in the position of puppetmaster and plunking down for Trump just to see what that might look like. Remember back in the '90s when the people of Minnesota elected a professional wrestler as their governor? They didn't do this because they're stupid or thought that Jesse Ventura was some sort of statesman or political intellectual. They did so just because they could. Minnesota is one of the smartest states in the country. It is also filled with people who have a dark sense of humor - and voting for Ventura was their version of a good practical joke on a sick political system. This is going to happen again with Trump.

    [Jul 28, 2016] Each muslim terrorist acts in Europe might add another 5 percent to Trumps vote

    Notable quotes:
    "... If he just avoids a major world war, that will be enough for me. Because I believe the American elite would be quite happy for that to happen – it badly wants Russia taken off the board, and China too if they will not cooperate and learn their place, and such a war would be fought in Europe – again – while America is insulated by distance. Of course Russia would ensure America paid a price, but in the plan, their missiles would not reach their targets owing to the USA's brilliant missile defense. ..."
    "... If this is not America's plan, then the last 5 years' amped-up hatred and deliberate alienation of Russia from the United States, for a generation at least, looks awfully stupid. ..."
    "... For the moment, at least, Trump has pulled into the lead . It remains to be seen if Sanders democrats will forgive Clinton for her unconscionable maneuvering, self-promotion and subordination of the DNC to her cause alone, not to mention what must now be complete disillusionment with the latter organization. The democrats, amazingly, are making the republicans look clean by comparison. ..."
    "... Don't underestimate how stupid they can be. They trashed Afghanistan and Iraq, and were then surprised that Iran became the dominating power in the region (after destroying Iran's two most formidable foes). ..."
    "... The US government can do stupidity, I don't think they plan so well. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    colliemum , July 26, 2016 at 10:29 am
    If you should happen to like to see our Fern's excellent comment on here turned into a 'Letter to the Editor', look no further than here:
    http://www.ukipdaily.com/letters-editor-26th-july-2016/
    Hers is the second of three – the last one by an American friend about the Hillary convention is a hoot!
    marknesop , July 26, 2016 at 10:50 am
    It looks even more visionary in a newspaper format. And the third comment is indeed a cracker. I don't understand why there is not a general revolt in the United States – are Americans seriously going to put up with this complete and brazen hijacking of what was not even a democratic process to begin with? And what next? Will Hillary simply rewrite the Presidential term in office to 'forever'?
    colliemum , July 26, 2016 at 10:58 am
    I don't think Hilary is going to get in.
    In the first place, the now nearly daily muslim terrorist acts in Europe add another 5% each to Trump's vote.
    In the second place, more and more dirt will come out on Hilary and Bill, and more and more people are aware of the underhand dealings in vote counting. It was one thing to keep quiet four years ago when most people couldn't give a toss about Romney, so squeals of voting fraud were not widely reported.
    Now they know, now they are aware, and now, unlike Romney, there's one candidate who's not afraid of saying what most people think.
    I belive Trump will do it.
    What happens after he's in – well, it's gotta be better than Hilary.
    marknesop , July 26, 2016 at 12:40 pm
    If he just avoids a major world war, that will be enough for me. Because I believe the American elite would be quite happy for that to happen – it badly wants Russia taken off the board, and China too if they will not cooperate and learn their place, and such a war would be fought in Europe – again – while America is insulated by distance. Of course Russia would ensure America paid a price, but in the plan, their missiles would not reach their targets owing to the USA's brilliant missile defense.

    If this is not America's plan, then the last 5 years' amped-up hatred and deliberate alienation of Russia from the United States, for a generation at least, looks awfully stupid.

    For the moment, at least, Trump has pulled into the lead . It remains to be seen if Sanders democrats will forgive Clinton for her unconscionable maneuvering, self-promotion and subordination of the DNC to her cause alone, not to mention what must now be complete disillusionment with the latter organization. The democrats, amazingly, are making the republicans look clean by comparison.

    pacific999 , July 26, 2016 at 1:51 pm
    "Of course Russia would ensure America paid a price, but in the plan, their missiles would not reach their targets owing to the USA's brilliant missile defense."

    Ummm..I thought that there is no defense against hundreds of incoming SLBM and ICBM MIRVED warheads and thousands of decoys:
    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-limits-us-missile-defense-12503?page=3

    marknesop , July 26, 2016 at 2:53 pm
    Right – in the plan, not in reality. These are people who do not care about how things unfold, just that they get started unfolding.
    Jeremn , July 27, 2016 at 1:05 am
    Don't underestimate how stupid they can be. They trashed Afghanistan and Iraq, and were then surprised that Iran became the dominating power in the region (after destroying Iran's two most formidable foes).

    The US government can do stupidity, I don't think they plan so well.

    [Jul 28, 2016] 20 years ago, America was very pleased about how the elections had gone in Russia. Now they have Hillary

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile , July 26, 2016 at 9:12 am
    20 лет назад Америке очень нравилось, как проходили выборы в России

    20 years ago, America was very pleased about how the elections had gone in Russia

    But now it is the other way around. At granny Hillary's HQ they have become so hysterical over the topic "Russian is manipulating our elections and pushing for Trump" that even McFaul has become indignant:

    [Jul 28, 2016] Lets bash Russia and Putin at every chance we get

    www.moonofalabama.org
    Zico | Jul 24, 2016 10:42:09 AM | 1
    M of A - Clinton Asserts Putin Influence On Trump - After Taking Russian Bribes

    Off topic but still within context of the West's "lets bash Russia/Putin at every chance we get"..

    Seems the BBC and their assorted groupies just got eggs all over their collective faces after the IOC ruled that Russian athletes can compete in the olympics. The British press are crying foul - dunno if they're afraid of losing to Russian athlete or something.

    This whole doping thing stunk from day one.. All the accusers pretends they never dope before. But then, anything to humiliate Russia and Putin will do. How many American athletes have been caught doping - yet nobody called for a blanket ban on the American Olympic team. The hypocrisy is just beyond stupid!!!

    Watch this space, won't be long before we see a campaign to oust the current OIC chief..lol

    dh | Jul 24, 2016 12:07:52 PM | 7
    okie farmer posted this on the US election thread...

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/23/pers-j23.html

    Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing.

    Only Jedi Knights can stop him.

    fast freddy | Jul 24, 2016 12:10:28 PM | 8
    Clinton/Kaine certainly confident that the MSM will not report.

    For all the money given to the Clinton's it didn't prevent the Ukraine disasters. Of course, Ukraine may not have been a concern among the particular oligarchs who made these bribes.

    h | Jul 24, 2016 1:24:40 PM | 11
    For those who have a Twitter account, checkout #dncleak or #dncleaks on the latest over the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails.

    Here's one -"Hillary Clinton is now blaming the Russians for leaking the emails. Like that makes it any better that you rigged the primary."

    Sanders to Chuck Todd on the leaks -

    Todd: "So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't given you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?"

    Sanders: "No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can to protect working families in this country. And again, Chuc, I know media is not necessarily focused on these things. But what a campaign is about is not Hillary Clinton, it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of this country, blah blah blah..."

    "[...] And I'm going to go around the country discussing them [issues] and making sure Hillary Clinton is elected president."

    So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them.

    UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE!

    His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest.

    I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain neutral.

    Think about his response to Todd. Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are.

    If I were a Bernie supporter I'd be starting a campaign to convince that man to take some serious time off. Go fishing. Go for hikes whatever. Just get away from the bubble and clear your head and soul.

    Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter. And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for!

    From The Hague | Jul 24, 2016 1:30:38 PM | 12
    PERIES: So let's take a look at this article by Paul Krugman. Where is he going with this analysis about the Siberian candidate?

    HUDSON: Well, Krugman has joined the ranks of the neocons, as well as the neoliberals, and they're terrified that they're losing control of the Republican Party. For the last half-century the Republican Party has been pro-Cold War, corporatist. And Trump has actually, is reversing that. Reversing the whole traditional platform. And that really worries the neocons.

    Until his speech, the whole Republican Convention, every speaker had avoided dealing with economic policy issues. No one referred to the party platform, which isn't very good. And it was mostly an attack on Hillary. Chants of "lock her up." And Trump children, aimed to try to humanize him and make him look like a loving man.

    But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders.

    So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear, roll back military spending. We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing American labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don't need foreign military bases and foreign spending to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today's world, the only kind of war we're going to have is atomic war. Nobody's going to invade another country. We're not going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody's even talking about that. So let's be realistic.

    Well, being realistic has driven other people crazy.

    http://www.unz.com/mhudson/trump-policy-will-unravel-traditional-neocons/

    The same used to be true of Iran. This reminds me of a spoof I read years ago where Jesus General writes a letter to Iran requesting that they fix a pothole in his street.

    Posted by: Edward | Jul 24, 2016 1:30:58 PM | 13

    h | Jul 24, 2016 1:39:54 PM | 14
    From Bloomberg - "If the Democrats can show the hidden hand of Russian intelligence agencies, they believe that voter outrage will probably outweigh any embarrassing revelations, a person familiar with the party's thinking said'

    Ha! Fat chance. I'm thinking the American voter is going to start sending Thank You notes to the Kremlin! As usual, their heads are stuck so far up the arse of their donkey they incapable of gauging Main Street sentiment.

    juliania | Jul 24, 2016 1:49:12 PM | 15
    Hold on there, Clintonites - Both I and the World remember seeing Madame Clinton herrself hand ovee to Puting that gigantic red Reset button.

    C'mon, World - you SAW that, right?

    So now, of course - he's resetting EVERYTHING!

    And you, dear lady, you gave it to him!


    I rest my case.

    ALberto | Jul 24, 2016 1:49:20 PM | 16
    July 24, 2016 - You cannot make this stuff up ...

    "During his recent visit to Moscow, US Secretary of State John Kerry voiced several preconditions for US-Russia cooperation in Syria.

    According to Lavrov, Kerry called for the immediate resignation of Syrian President Assad without giving any explanation of his position.

    "They say that we could join our efforts in the fight against terrorism […] but first we need to agree that we remove Assad from power," Lavrov said, speaking at a national youth educational forum."

    source - http://www.globalresearch.ca/john-kerry-demands-regime-change-in-syria-as-a-precondition-for-us-russia-cooperation-lavrov/5537623

    h | Jul 24, 2016 1:58:17 PM | 17
    Sanders calls for Schultz to step down.

    Funny though, Schultz takes her orders from Obama, as the Chairman of the Party, the DNC Board of Directors and team Hillary. Period. If any blame should go around it should splash onto all individuals NOT just Schultz.

    She is buy a symptom of the DNC disease. And yes, she'll take the fall for the team, but make no mistake, the cancer remains and will continue to metastasize.

    h | Jul 24, 2016 1:59:18 PM | 18
    Should read 'but' not 'buy'.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 24, 2016 2:04:11 PM | 19
    @h

    And make no mistake, Sanders knows how the Democratic Party works and supports it anyway.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 24, 2016 2:07:42 PM | 20
    ALberto @16

    Exactly as expected. But that doesn't make it any less onerous.

    juliania | Jul 24, 2016 2:10:32 PM | 21
    Apologies for misspells - 'over' not 'ovee'; Putin, not Puting. Gee whiz. But obviously, that is the problem with US policy - they don't have that blankety-blank reset button any longer. Please give it back!

    hejiminy cricket | Jul 24, 2016 2:11:00 PM | 22
    Yes the reset button with "peregruzka", Russian for "overcharged"

    Clinton: We worked hard to get the right russian word. Do you think we got it right?

    Lavrov: You've got it wrong.

    Sick woman.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2009/03/peregruzka-016614

    From The Hague | Jul 24, 2016 2:13:59 PM | 23
    Neocons/Nato will at least be troubled about Trump's stand on Russia/Putin.

    Maybe they are planning some faits accomplis?

    Relevant dates in this dangerous situation:
    November 8, 2016
    January 20, 2017

    And what is this?:
    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/06/09/germany-preparing-for-war-against-russia.html

    h | Jul 24, 2016 2:21:36 PM | 24
    @19 yeah, and that should give said supporters great pause. I've seen suggestions made that he was running to gain the youth vote so as to deliver them in Nov to Hillary. I'm not convinced by that suggestion BUT if he was a set up, and Wikileak emails can show it, well, all bets are off.

    And why Sanders is only singling out Schultz is disingenuous. Any who have engaged in electoral politics in this country learn quickly the party's hierarchy. It starts with Obama, the DNC's Board of Directors and then Wasserman Schultz in that order. Sanders knows this. Schultz didn't run a rogue party.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 24, 2016 2:28:41 PM | 25
    h @11:
    His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome.
    You are assuming that Sanders is a victim instead of a conspirator.

    Why would anyone give any politician in our corrupt system the benefit of the doubt? Even one that seems to be against 'the system'?

    Why didn't Bernie release more than one year of tax returns?
    Especially since Hillary cited this as a reason not to release the transcripts of her speaches to Goldman Sachs.

    Why didn't Bernie use the emails against Hillary after the State Department Inspector General released their report?
    This official report clearly demonstrated that Hillary had consistently misled the nation about her emails.

    Why didn't Bernie attack Obama's record on Black/Minority affairs?
    Obama's support is part of the reason that Blacks/Minorities were voting for Hillary. Obama never went to Feruson or New York or Baltimore. Obama's weak economic stimulous and austerity policies have been very bad for blacks/minorities. Obama bailed out banks that targeted minorities for toxic loans. Etc.

    Why does Bernie, at 74-years old, care more about Hillary (which he calls a friend of 25 years) and the Democratic Party than his principles?
    AFAICT he got very little for his support (will he get a cabinet position for himself?). He didn't have to endorse Hillary. He doesn't have to speak at the Convention (but he will tonight).

    505thPIR | Jul 24, 2016 2:33:50 PM | 26
    Why wouldn't he try to do this?

    SmoothieX12 | Jul 24, 2016 2:42:26 PM | 27
    Putin is god--it is well-known scientific fact. He actually controls the weather and even Earth's rotation speed. Russians always knew it, now, with the advancement of information technologies (also controlled by Putin--ah yes, he, not Al Gore, invented the internet) decadent West can witness his powers and omnipresence. Remember Katrina? Putin! Remember the water main break in NYT--also Putin. I had a constipation last week--damn Putin. Got rid of constipation and back to normal BMs--Putin's hand was definitely in it. If you look attentively at HRC for 20+ minutes you will see Putin's image surfacing on her face.

    Erelis | Jul 24, 2016 5:19:58 PM | 41
    In an interview Andrew Bacevich spoke about what he saw at various insitute, academic, etc. conferences he attended as an academic which I believe has effected his later known books. He noted among other things, that there was an inability for empathic thinking. He did not mean sympathy, but rather the act of trying to understand the actions of other people. I think the phrase is to treat people as rational actors. As horrific as Hitler was, historians dug into his motivations for example, for his invasion of the Soviet Union.

    So we get with Putin not a rational understanding of what he does and why, but rather cartoon psychological and religious explanations which cannot be argued against as they defy rationality. How can one argue against people calling Putin evil as that person has not invoked a rational argument.

    The propaganda demonization of Putin and the Russians is part of the same playbook republicans and the neocons used to fertilize the field of popular belief for the justification of war and invasion of Iraq to the American people (but now followed by democrats). Every one of those articles is a bit of propaganda manure which will eventually sprout the seeds of conflict and war.

    ToivoS | Jul 24, 2016 7:07:06 PM | 48
    What I find alarming about all of this Putin bashing and Hillary using it in her campaign is that I am seeing many of my acquaintances who identify as liberal/progressive Democrats are becoming more and more anti-Russian. By the time she becomes president there will be a majority of Democrats clamoring for war against Russia. This is something to worry about. Recall that liberal Democrat Truman got us involved in the Korean war and it was liber LBJ that led us to war in Vietnam. I recall very clearly how the liberal press in the US was advocating for and supporting war in Vietnam between 1964 and 1968. The liberalists of all liberal Democrats Hubert Humphrey was leading that charge.

    Democratic Party partisans are losing their common sense in this effort to back Clinton. A year ago I could carry on rational discussion with those I know about how unwise our Ukraine policy is -- today when I try to defend Russia I am accused of backing Trump.

    Akira | Jul 24, 2016 7:09:57 PM | 49
    Hello Comrades,

    Since the stupid secret encryption rings don't work after the last update, I have prepared our usual weekly PUTIN CONSPIRACY SITREP on the web:

    https://4threvolutionarywar.wordpress.com/2016/07/24/14066/


    We are winning! Rub it in!

    ruralito | Jul 24, 2016 7:53:33 PM | 54
    I like a good meme as much as the next guy, but there wasn't any putin-did-it in that Reuters article about the ferry accident in NY.

    brian | Jul 24, 2016 8:35:27 PM | 57
    'But Russia is secretly plotting even more nefarious schemes. Putin is infiltrating Europe. And not only Europe.'

    US regime would never infiltrate europe...its already there!

    Jen | Jul 24, 2016 9:02:42 PM | 59
    All I can say here is ... this is Sheer Comedy Gold.

    Hollywood couldn't make this stuff up.

    Thank you B.

    PS - anyone know what Putin does on the seventh day?

    likklemore | Jul 24, 2016 9:18:34 PM | 60
    @ Jen 59

    PS - anyone know what Putin does on the seventh day?

    He refreshes, reboots his energy and surveys all that he has done; here, there and everywhere on planets known or yet to be discovered.

    Yesterday we had severe thunderstorms. Mr. Putin made mischief.

    dh | Jul 24, 2016 9:45:37 PM | 62
    @60 He really is versatile. No sooner had he finished rigging the Brexit vote than he was off to France in a truck. Then he was spotted in Kabul. This week he has been busy making trouble in Germany and he still finds time to fake HRC's emails. The man must be stopped!

    V. Arnold | Jul 24, 2016 9:53:00 PM | 63
    SmoothieX12 | Jul 24, 2016 2:42:26 PM | 27

    Yes, yes, it's all true; Vladimir Putin, master of the universe; the Whirlwind; omnipotent; everywhere and nowhere all at the same time.
    I'm so glad people are waking up to reality. :-)

    Erelis | Jul 24, 2016 10:23:02 PM | 64
    @ ToivoS 48

    Indeed. Democrats have become hysterical and unhinged in all things regarding Clinton. I have been reading a few Democrat partisan sites. With the DNC blaming Putin/Russians for the release of the DNC emails, the partisans are demanding what amounts to McCarthy era witch hunts, and some strong immediate NATO action against the Russians for the evil act. One supporter had a posting showing how the Russians plan to invade the Baltics with graphics showing the invasion route--good grief. It is curious to see that those not buying the propaganda are drawing comparisons to the witch hunts of the 1950s'.

    When I post or talk to partisan Dems I don't get accused of supporting Trump but called a Putin lackey/stooge.

    @ Relis 44

    Thanks for quote-will use it . You did something readers of anti-Russian/Putin propaganda don't do. Actually listen to or read what Putin says. I am still puzzled even though I shouldn't be when I read descriptions of Putin in the Western media, and then read what he actually said or acted on: two people from two different planets. I was listening to Stephen Cohen, and he said the same thing. Nobody bothers to read what Putin says, forget his actions.

    Putin should hire an agent and get a role on the TV series SHIELD as the new head of HYDRA. And then attend comic-cons giving out autographs.

    Cho Nyawinh | Jul 24, 2016 11:39:29 PM | 67
    49

    Putin, Putin, Putin.

    Now that the NYC Mob has secured the Goldman-Trump-Clinton hat trick in November, after which a 5th Chosen Supreme Court Justice for Life assures a tie-winning Tribal 55% majority of Torahia law in the USA, with not a single Protestant Justice on the bench, and knowing now it's in the bag, fahged abahd et, now the NYC Mob has already begun the takedown of non-Tribal banks like HSBC and 1MDB, following a lull of eight years since the Lehman takedown, after which They precipitated the greatest financial piracy in human history: the wholesale transfer of adulterated synthetic CDO gambling debts, by the private Fed Bank, onto the public US Treasury, ...during which not a single Tribal member was ever indicted, ... but now the arrests are happening fast and furious among their foreign banking competition, as S&P's credit rating arm is holding a gun to Brexit.

    "I can't tell you where all the money went!" Benhamin

    Once the NYC Mob has Trump-Clinton in the WH and the Tribe owns the Executive, then swings the Judicial to 55% Tribal sovereignty, so that the Tribe owns Justice too, then our poor Congress-critters will have to stand and clap for Bibi until the blood literally runs down their arms, and yet still not one of them will dare to stop clapping first, because it would be career and financial suicide to 'vote your conscience' against the Trotskyim.

    You know this will all come to pass in just six months from now, after which Trump-Clinton of The Chosen, Mr. Law-and-Order-Shekinah and Ms We-Came-We-Saw-He-Died-Haw-Haw-Haw, will launch their all-out attack on Russia, over the roads and bridges of Eastern Ukraine, which even now the World Bank is rapidly upgrading to combat capacity for missile launchers, troop carriers and heavy tanks. Right now. Because that's what Tribal juntas do! Look closely at the junta in Kiev that Congress in 2015 grifted $50,000M of your last life savings to, Kiev, traditional home of Ashkenazim who spawned 1998, 2001, 2008 and 2011. They're warlords.

    But the Sheeple are so conditioned to live in fear, and never speak about Those Who Cannot Be Named, that the Sheeple will remain willfully ignorant while the mortgage credit-debt ring is bound through their nose, the school-debt tag punched in their ear, and 'Six-Kinds-of-Stupid' tattoed on their forearms, and their children sent off to fight in foreign wars.

    Tribal historians will completely rewrite the US annals, claiming The West Was Tamed by the Chosen, that the Chosen raised up the American Heathen and taught them to Read and Write and to Pokemon Go, and that there never was an 'American Dream', ...that Xtian Kulaks were just illegal Dreamers in what was always Greater New Zion, the same as Bolshevik Chosen slaved 60,000,000 Christian Russians to death, and destroyed 20,000 churches, then wiped out 1,000 years of Russian history.

    Today there is only the Now, the Dharma of the Chosen:

    "We won, you lost. It's just business, get over it. Now get off my land." שלוש מאות

    Putin had nothing to do with it. He was just another oligarch in Their crosshairs.

    Fort-Russ has the video of ' Putin's full speech ' at St. Petersburg International Economic Forum - 2016 with subtitles, I transcribed the subtitles , if any one else is interested in reading what he actually said on the subject of the US auto-missile defense in Romania and Poland.

    Posted by: jfl | Jul 25, 2016 1:25:28 AM | 70

    V. Arnold | Jul 25, 2016 2:14:00 AM | 71
    jfl | Jul 25, 2016 1:25:28 AM | 70

    Thanks for the links. I distrust almost all media; so, I listen to unedited complete speeches by Pres. Putin whenever possible. His (Putin's) talk at Valdi in 2014 was great;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXh6HgJIPHo

    jfl | Jul 25, 2016 3:23:28 AM | 75
    @71 VA,

    Thanks for the link. I have Putin at the general assembly last year, too, if you're interested. One of my favorites :)

    [Jul 28, 2016] The Republican nominee for president, Donald J. Trump, has chosen this week to unmask himself as a de facto agent of Russian President Vladimir Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Oh, there was a whole series of screechy hysterical articles on what a dangerous loose cannon Trump is. They're preaching to the choir here, but they do not seem to realize that arguing against any sort of change in American policy is arguing for more sameness, which is plainly failing. Maybe the American government loves the Kiev government so much because the American government is so much like ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    yalensis , July 23, 2016 at 3:06 am
    "The Republican nominee for president, Donald J. Trump, has chosen this week to unmask himself as a de facto agent of Russian President Vladimir Putin, a KGB-trained dictator who seeks to rebuild the Soviet empire by undermining the free nations of Europe, marginalizing NATO, and ending America's reign as the world's sole superpower."

    And Goldberg says that like it's a bad thing – hee hee!

    Patient Observer , July 23, 2016 at 6:09 am
    Yes!
    marknesop , July 23, 2016 at 1:57 pm
    Oh, there was a whole series of screechy hysterical articles on what a dangerous loose cannon Trump is. They're preaching to the choir here, but they do not seem to realize that arguing against any sort of change in American policy is arguing for more sameness, which is plainly failing. Maybe the American government loves the Kiev government so much because the American government is so much like the Kiev government.

    [Jul 28, 2016] http://www.ukipdaily.com/letters-editor-26th-july-2016/

    Notable quotes:
    "... That's geopolitical consequence number one. Geopolitical consequence number two is that if we are serious about tackling Islamic terrorism, it means we have to stop using such groups to achieve geopolitical goals. Western elites condemn the ideology that has led to deaths throughout Europe but cheer on (and materially aid) groups with the self-same ideology bringing the self-same carnage to Syria as long as those groups aim to depose Assad. Most Western countries but especially the US and the UK, have long and dishonourable histories of using the most aggressive, most blood-thirsty, most socially regressive Islamic groups to achieve foreign policy objectives. ..."
    "... This, I think, touches on something TPTB and the MSM are also reluctant to confront: the relationships between different ethnic groups as opposed to the relationships of those groups to – for want of a better expression – mainstream society. I see this all the time in London where there are often very significant tensions between the many immigrant communities who've settled here. Anyone who observes that these maybe don't bode well for the future, is dismissed as a xenophobe or racist. ..."
    "... The debacle that is the Democratic Convention is hilarity on crack. My favorite part is where Hillary's campaign manager, a testosterone-free simulacrum by the name of Robbie Mooks, gravely warns us that 'experts' have told them the Russians hacked their emails and are releasing them to help Trump. Cue loud laughter! Let's just ignore their comrade in socialism, Bernie, and point to the billionaire capitalist … Of course, nobody knows who did it, so they might as well make it up. Also, if you're still using 'Robbie' after your 12th birthday, you aren't allowed to hunt with the big dogs, get back under the porch. ..."
    "... Make no mistake. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Chair of the Democratic Party) is an appalling human being, period, full stop. But she did exactly what she was hired to do – get Hillary the nomination. ..."
    "... She was fighting the inevitable so Obama made the phone call to 'thank her for her service' and Hillary gave her a nothing burger job title. ..."
    "... The real story, the stench of corruption, isn't coming from there, thouth. It's coming from the emails that show the collusion between the media and the Dems. Also nothing we didn't know, but nobody in the media will lose their position. You know why? Because that crowd thinks it's a trophy to be in cahoots with these politicians. They think they're helping pull the levers of power, and influencing which levers get pulled. The Debbie Wasserman Schultzs of the world are a dime a dozen, but these people need to become intimately acquainted with lamp posts and strong hemp rope. ..."
    Jul 26, 2016 | www.ukipdaily.com
    Following three letters are of general as well as particular interest. The first is from our contributor Reece Haynes:

    Sir,

    Time and again, the Daily Mail's Comment page laments the decline of the Labour Party because "The Daily Mail has never been a Labour-supporting paper but we recognise the vital importance of a strong opposition to hold the government to account" – or words to that effect. The above is from Friday 22nd July's edition, but a similar message has been written there on several previous occasions.

    My bone of contention is: why don't they seem to consider the idea that UKIP could supplant Labour as that "strong opposition"?

    And what an opposition UKIP would be, instead of those misguided Labourites we have chatting about such important issues like whether this or that organisation is 'diverse enough' to reflect 'multicultural Britain'.

    On a more serious note, I believe the reason for this is that the Daily Mail have a vested interest in keeping the Establishment in government and in opposition because that would keep the status quo, thus allowing the paper to please its mainly anti-Establishment audience with diatribes against our foul immigration policies and other political scandals.

    Also of note is the fact that its owner, Lord Rothermere, is one of those infamous 'non-doms', meaning non-domiciled individuals who don't pay UK tax on foreign incomes. This means keeping the Tories in power with their generous taxation policies is to his advantage. But nevertheless, seeing the same comments about the necessity of the Conservative/Labour duopoly is incessantly frustrating.

    Best regards,

    Reece Haynes

    The next letter, from a reader, raises points which we really ought to debate, and which we've overlooked for too long:

    Sir,

    I think you're right to point out how TPTB are reluctant to acknowledge the very problematic nature of certain interpretations of Islam. I'd attribute this, however, to slightly different causes.

    If we are serious about tackling the extremism that has resulted in these mass killings, then we have to seriously tackle the underlying ideology – Wahabism and its offshoots – and that means seriously tackling friend and ally, Saudi Arabia. It means recognising that Saudi is not a 'friend' of the West, that its funding of the spread of extremist ideology underpins movements like Islamic State. It means recognising that effective measures have to be taken against Saudi Arabia, and that means accepting we're going to lose the Kingdom as the major customer of Western arms industries.

    That's geopolitical consequence number one. Geopolitical consequence number two is that if we are serious about tackling Islamic terrorism, it means we have to stop using such groups to achieve geopolitical goals. Western elites condemn the ideology that has led to deaths throughout Europe but cheer on (and materially aid) groups with the self-same ideology bringing the self-same carnage to Syria as long as those groups aim to depose Assad. Most Western countries but especially the US and the UK, have long and dishonourable histories of using the most aggressive, most blood-thirsty, most socially regressive Islamic groups to achieve foreign policy objectives.

    Geopolitical consequence number three is that if we are serious about tackling terrorism, we'd need to stand with Russia. I've personally never felt more ashamed of the UK than when witnessing the MSM response to atrocities like the Moscow theatre siege, Beslan and the recent downing of the Russian airliner over Sinai. The West has rushed to give safe passage and shelter to those who've carried out acts of terror in Russia – Amnesty International even campaigned on behalf of the guy who later masterminded the Istanbul airport bombing to prevent his extradition to Russia to answer terror charges.

    What are the odds of anything changing?

    One further point I intended to make: in relation to the specifics of the most recent attack in Munich, it seems to me to resemble a US-style school shooting rather than what is understood as a terror attack. The gunman was allegedly the victim of at least two assaults, claimed to have been bullied for 7 years and seemed to have a particular beef with Turks.

    This, I think, touches on something TPTB and the MSM are also reluctant to confront: the relationships between different ethnic groups as opposed to the relationships of those groups to – for want of a better expression – mainstream society. I see this all the time in London where there are often very significant tensions between the many immigrant communities who've settled here. Anyone who observes that these maybe don't bode well for the future, is dismissed as a xenophobe or racist.

    Best regards,

    Fern

    And finally, a brief communication from our contributor in the USA, on the occasion of the Democratic Party Convention which has now started:

    Sir,

    The debacle that is the Democratic Convention is hilarity on crack. My favorite part is where Hillary's campaign manager, a testosterone-free simulacrum by the name of Robbie Mooks, gravely warns us that 'experts' have told them the Russians hacked their emails and are releasing them to help Trump. Cue loud laughter! Let's just ignore their comrade in socialism, Bernie, and point to the billionaire capitalist … Of course, nobody knows who did it, so they might as well make it up. Also, if you're still using 'Robbie' after your 12th birthday, you aren't allowed to hunt with the big dogs, get back under the porch.

    Make no mistake. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Chair of the Democratic Party) is an appalling human being, period, full stop. But she did exactly what she was hired to do – get Hillary the nomination. Everybody knew what was going on from the day boxes of uncounted ballots got shoved in the trunk of a car and driven away by a Democratic operative during the Iowa caucuses. Debbie's problem is that she got caught in such a way that implicated the entire process and everybody in it, so she's the sacrificial goat. To be absolutely clear, one person gets to remove her. The President. And he did. She was fighting the inevitable so Obama made the phone call to 'thank her for her service' and Hillary gave her a nothing burger job title.

    The real story, the stench of corruption, isn't coming from there, thouth. It's coming from the emails that show the collusion between the media and the Dems. Also nothing we didn't know, but nobody in the media will lose their position. You know why? Because that crowd thinks it's a trophy to be in cahoots with these politicians. They think they're helping pull the levers of power, and influencing which levers get pulled. The Debbie Wasserman Schultzs of the world are a dime a dozen, but these people need to become intimately acquainted with lamp posts and strong hemp rope.

    Regards,

    P. Gray

    [Jul 27, 2016] The selection has already been made. Trump isnt supporting Labor, his Make America Work Again schtick was immediately removed.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The selection has already been made. Trump isn't supporting Labor, his 'Make America Work Again' schtick was immediately removed. ..."
    "... The dissassociation is everyone is conditioned to Old School Party Politics Kennedy versus Nixon. That was fifty years ago! We're in a GOOG-FB hyper-focus-group mind-manipulation fractal world! Everything you see, that seems to be real, is illusory repetitive mirrors off one core equation: ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Cho Nyawinh | Jul 25, 2016 4:21:58 AM | 79

    The whole selection is a carefully-staged WWE Smackdown publicity event, not an election at all.

    The selection has already been made. Trump isn't supporting Labor, his 'Make America Work Again' schtick was immediately removed. The Takers grow queasy at the word 'work'. They have plenty of people in SEAsia who work for them. Right now, I can get India(n) engineers for $12 an hour that I can list as $125 an hour, and bill out after O&P at $275 an hour. India(n) engineers with Burj Dubai experience on ultra high rise! The Takers have no intent of restoring the American Dream.

    Trump isn't supporting any roll-back of NATO or reduction in P2A-R2P-PNAC. His main plank is to Make America Secure Again. Make America Strong. Kick Some Muzzie Ass. Let's Roll. And the reason he's pledging that, is the same reason Sanders carved out the Left, ...so that Hillary can EXPAND her Centrist-Right capture even further to the Right. Trump is placing a pick for her 3-pointer!

    Bernie took the Left, so Hillary didn't have to appear weak to her base group. And Trump will move further Right to give her more room to pick up delegates. Then BB-D and Milo-the-Gay will explode the Rabbinicals / Evangelists with repeated cognitive-dissonant LGBTF references. Watch. "Milo-The-Gay calls for 'refugee' status for world's Islamic gays." Ka-boom! the John Birchers!

    The dissassociation is everyone is conditioned to Old School Party Politics Kennedy versus Nixon. That was fifty years ago! We're in a GOOG-FB hyper-focus-group mind-manipulation fractal world! Everything you see, that seems to be real, is illusory repetitive mirrors off one core equation:

    Zn = (Zn-1)^2 + C, where (Zn-1)^2 are Trump-Clinton Janus faces of the same ZioQEnBankim, + C, and where C is The Chosen's massive Corruption of the US political, judicial and financial process, begun under Bush-Cheney and capped with Citizens United and Clinton Cash 501(c)3 Grand Larceny.

    [Jul 26, 2016] 'Is this journalism' CBS News just fell into its own puddle of drool for Michelle Obama

    twitchy.com

    twitchy.com

    Sara Miller @Millerita

    Good lord, CBS. At least try to hide that erection. :-)

    [Jul 25, 2016] Sanders responce to Wikileaks reminds me of battered wife syndrome

    Notable quotes:
    "... So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them. ..."
    "... His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest. ..."
    "... Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are. ..."
    "... Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter. ..."
    "... And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for! ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    For those who have a Twitter account, checkout #dncleak or #dncleaks on the latest over the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails.

    Here's one -"Hillary Clinton is now blaming the Russians for leaking the emails. Like that makes it any better that you rigged the primary."

    Sanders to Chuck Todd on the leaks -

    Todd: "So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't given you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?"

    Sanders: "No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can to protect working families in this country. And again, Chuc, I know media is not necessarily focused on these things. But what a campaign is about is not Hillary Clinton, it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of this country, blah blah blah..."

    "[...] And I'm going to go around the country discussing them [issues] and making sure Hillary Clinton is elected president."

    So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them.

    UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE!

    His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest.

    I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain neutral.

    Think about his response to Todd. Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are.

    If I were a Bernie supporter I'd be starting a campaign to convince that man to take some serious time off. Go fishing. Go for hikes whatever. Just get away from the bubble and clear your head and soul.

    Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter.

    And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for!

    Posted by: h | Jul 24, 2016 1:24:40 PM | 11

    [Jul 25, 2016] Why Trumps bump in the polls is more significant than ever

    Notable quotes:
    "... Well that isn't surprising. Hillary Clinton is a loser and a weak candidate ..."
    "... I think Trump will win because the e-mail scandal has destroyed whatever credibility Hillary Clinton had. Sanders would beat Trump by a landslide, Elizabeth Warren would too. But Hillary is doomed. ..."
    "... Polls are nonsense; particularly this far out in an unconventional election. The pollsters themselves are scratching their heads as to how to properly frame the poll questions and establish the correct survey demographics. It's all new territory for them ..."
    "... Three of the four latest polls that showed Trump ahead of Clinton were conducted via telephone. So, maybe the latest polling boost for Trump isn't about increasing popularity but about emboldened supporters ..."
    "... "also a few Scalias". There are worse things than Scalias. Like Hillarys. ..."
    "... I think Hillary is far more dangerous. She wants war with Russia, Syria, etc ..."
    "... Hilary is a poor candidate and Obama shifted the world in a significantly amoral direction. ..."
    "... Nate predicts a trump win now, and for good reason. Clinton's numbers will only continue to drop with each new email leak, State Department report, Clinton Foundation pay to play allegation, and lie from her own mouth reinforcing to the majority of the electorate why they distrust and dislike her. ..."
    "... Sorry liberal apologists, this is not an ordinary "post convention bump". The polls indicate that 3/4 of Americans do not believe that their country is headed in the right direction. Trump is a protest vote. ..."
    "... As repugnant as some of you may find Trump's brash personality and idiotic rhetoric to be, many view him as refreshing. Most American are tired of the "establishment" and would prefer anybody to another corrupt / dishonest / smug Bush or Clinton in the White House. They have also grown tired of a neutered society and a political correctness that has quashed individuality and freedom of speech. ..."
    "... Trump has built an empire and employed people. By contrast, Clinton policies have (i) caused the subprime housing crisis, (ii) exported jobs to Mexico via NAFTA, (iv) destroyed the US educational system with no child left behind, and (iv) have caused numerous foreign policy blunders. Ms. Clinton has systematically failed at everthing that she has done. More would have been accomplished by doing the opposite. ..."
    "... Hillary is toast. ..."
    "... Since Cruz dropped out of the primaries, the mainstream media has been engaged in a non-stop assault on Trump, fought with the kind of raw brutality last seen in the battle of Stalingrad. The Washington Post runs at least four anti-Trump opinion pieces every day. (Yes, almost 30 per week.) Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. Hillary has spent big money on advertising in the last month, and Trump has spent nothing. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. The Republican poobahs refused to attend the convention. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. Ted Cruz detonated a suicide bomb at the convention. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. ..."
    "... Also, as crazy as Trump is, he didn't alienate his base with his VP pick. Instead, he sought to appease the far right of his party with Mike Pence. Meanwhile, Hillary has sought to move the Green Party's polling numbers into the double digits by picking a running mate who is opposed to abortion, presided over executions, supported a coal-fired power plant, and supports the TPP. The arrogance displayed by Hillary in picking Kaine makes Trump look humble. ..."
    "... DinoMight, Leftist here again. Kain is far right on what matters - Money. Pro TPP and wants to let banks be less regulated. Also, Trump is being pounded negatively by the MSM nearly as much as Sanders was denigrated or ignored. MSM, owned by Murdock and other large corporations want Clinton. She's the money man. Trump may pull this off due to low demo turn out and objection to Clinton big $$$$$. ..."
    "... As was seen with Brexit....and the death of Bruce Lee ..the Guardian is about to learn a harsh lesson it will refuse to believe is real. ..."
    "... Trump will win in November because of the simple reason of whom his opponent is. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    Bifocal , 2016-07-26 01:18:55
    I think elections reinforce discontent narratives against incumbents, and politicians wont contradict wide spread sentiments that they don't agree with, but they instead look for some way to neutralise them.

    Hillary has two problems, as a democrat linked to Obama she is effectively the incumbent here. Obama ran on hope and change, but provided very little change in peoples lives. Without the change part, second time around its difficult to inspire hope.

    This was the lesson of Brexit, the incumbents (Remain) were unable to offer any real change, but their opposition (Leave) where offering real change, and therefore Hope!

    So you have Clinton effectively offering people who are crying out for change, no change, and therefore little control of their lives, and therefore little hope.

    And you've got Trump offering much change, an opportunity to take back control, and therefore much hope!

    The extent to which Trumps message will resonate with voters will determine who wins. How many people get left behind by Globalisation?...In the West look at Britain, look at Europe, look at America....I'd say most, mainly because one size doesn't fit all.

    latheatre , 2016-07-26 00:43:42
    These polls are completely skewed. CNN's poll included NO ONE UNDER 35 years old.

    Last week's sample by Reuters was 78% white. The electorate in 2012 was 72% white and given demographic changes, the electorate will be even less white this time around, while Trump's share of non-white vote will be even smaller than Romney's was.

    Kickthismobout , 2016-07-26 00:31:43
    If this boofon topped buffoon gets in WW3 here we come.
    Sam3456 Kickthismobout , 2016-07-26 00:43:05
    Meh. Clinton is actually more of a hawk that Trump. He is actually an isolationist. Clinton has voted for more war and is for more aggressive use of the military than Trump would be.

    I fear Trump would be a problem on other fronts but as far as involving us in more war and negotiating bad trade agreements Hillary is to be feared more than Trump.

    MrMustard Magoo , 2016-07-26 00:28:42
    Smug limousine liberals and money printing rent seekers with no clothes swanning about. La dee da aren't you so pretty. As John Stewart said we're not allowed to have a country. So it's yours? Whose is it? I think it's a question that needs answering.
    Barclay Reynolds , 2016-07-25 23:43:47
    Trumps going to win! Sanders people will not vote. Young will not vote.
    Trump 52-48
    Clinton is branded crooked and e mails , no matter what just shows many this.
    Carlisle William , 2016-07-25 22:51:13
    Well that isn't surprising. Hillary Clinton is a loser and a weak candidate
    Terrence D. Zarnick Carlisle William , 2016-07-25 22:52:06
    Of course..perfect and predicable response...everyone else are losers. Typical.
    Carlisle William Terrence D. Zarnick , 2016-07-25 22:53:41
    Predictable response? Hillary Clinton is objectively the weaker Democratic candidate this year who always lost against nearly all Republican nominees except for Trump who even then, she is starting to lose now.
    Camelier , 2016-07-25 22:36:10
    I think Trump will win because the e-mail scandal has destroyed whatever credibility Hillary Clinton had. Sanders would beat Trump by a landslide, Elizabeth Warren would too. But Hillary is doomed.

    Hillary might win if the non-whites come out to vote in unprecedented numbers but that is unlikely. Trump's supporters are more motivated. The white working class will swing to Trump because Hillary predicatably played cowardly and refused her chance to nominate Sanders or Warren for the VP slot, choosing instead a boring fellow who is big on free trade.

    The only consolation is that Trump is no Hitler and the US president will be arrested and jailed the moment he breaks the law. May even be executed. The Americans are very very very tough on issues like that.

    woodyTX , 2016-07-25 22:25:39
    Polls are nonsense; particularly this far out in an unconventional election. The pollsters themselves are scratching their heads as to how to properly frame the poll questions and establish the correct survey demographics. It's all new territory for them

    The headline to this story is very certain reading "Why Trump's bump in the polls IS more significant than ever" (meant to catch your eye) but in the very next sentence the words start backpeddling to "his rise in the polls COULD be different".

    So which is it Guardian ?

    It is also stated in the article " Three of the four latest polls that showed Trump ahead of Clinton were conducted via telephone. So, maybe the latest polling boost for Trump isn't about increasing popularity but about emboldened supporters ".......could it be that these calls went to land lines, which are skewed very much towards older voters? Young folks are more cell phone / smart phone oriented. In that case it's capturing the older white Fox News crowd with a heavy implicit bias...doubling down on nonsense at this point.

    Camelier woodyTX , 2016-07-25 22:39:18
    "Polls are nonsense"

    In the last presidential lection the polls by Nate Silver got the result exactly. This year in Canada Nanos Polls got the general lection result accurate to 0,5 percent.

    In Uk elections, typically the polls prove accurate enough.

    You are an illiterate dolt.

    Terrence D. Zarnick Camelier , 2016-07-25 23:00:09
    Nate also predicted Trump would NOT be the Republican nominee. Nate was wrong.
    ponott Camelier , 2016-07-25 23:10:06
    "In Uk elections, typically the polls prove accurate enough".

    Actually in the last two polls, the general election and the referendum, the polls have been hopelessly wrong as wrong therefore as you calling woodyTX an "illiterate doit", whatever a doit is.

    doublreed , 2016-07-25 22:22:20
    Trump better have a person at every voting precinct watching those Deibold machines. Clinton got quite good at stealing, misdirecting, shredding and generally restricting votes in a handful of key states. When there was a paper trail, Sanders won 53% - 49%. When no paper trail, Clinton 65% to Sanders' 35%. These elections are quite rigged.
    Alfredo Elgue , 2016-07-25 22:17:45
    I believe that in usa is going to happen something similar with the Brexit. All the polls show a victory of Clinton, and at the end we finish with a triumph of Trump.
    The pollsters are doing and are done a very bad work in the last polls.
    I ask myself, who pay them...
    Carl123 Alfredo Elgue , 2016-07-25 22:30:47
    Late Brexit polls were very close, tipping back and forth between narrow victory for Remain and Leave - which was accurate.
    Jurgen Gross , 2016-07-25 22:09:05
    Congrats to the Guardian: you did your best
    to prevent the rightful Sanders nomination.
    Archeologist1956 , 2016-07-25 21:53:31
    Its clear Trump will win.We can handle a reality TV star
    We cannot handle the corrupt Clinton Machine, nor a corrupt Democratic party.
    They overplayed their hand.
    rebel7 , 2016-07-25 21:49:25
    Within my circle of friends we pretty much agree:

    1. Trump is an idiot and an embarrassment.
    2. Hillary is a liar.
    3. The "up-side" to a Trump presidency is 4 years of entertainment. He does after all have multiple years of the Apprentice on his resume.
    4. There is no "up-side" to a Clinton presidency.
    5. The "down-side" to a Trump presidency is chaos at the top levels of government.
    6. The "down-side" to a Clinton presidency is another Arab-Israeli war and likely US troops committed and dying somewhere in order to make Clinton "look" tough and gritty.

    So we'll take the entertainment. Will be four years of a Rodney Dangerfield show played out live with an unwitting lead actor.

    Yoda00 rebel7 , 2016-07-25 21:54:29
    Entertainment, sure. But, also a few Scalias in the supreme court.
    rebel7 Yoda00 , 2016-07-25 21:57:01
    "also a few Scalias". There are worse things than Scalias. Like Hillarys.
    Archeologist1956 Timelooper , 2016-07-25 21:54:14
    I think Hillary is far more dangerous. She wants war with Russia, Syria, etc
    MagajinGiwa , 2016-07-25 21:33:08
    I don't believe polls when there's a vested interest, like the Brexit ones. Yet I believe Trump will be the next president of the US.
    Hilary is a poor candidate and Obama shifted the world in a significantly amoral direction.
    Many will dismiss this, but a huge chunk of voters feel it is important. I'm one such.
    Berkeley2013 , 2016-07-25 21:22:09
    The media has pretty much discredited itself over the years by seldom doing the complex research necessary to report current events and hiring journalists with the education, intelligence, and ethics to communicate realities to the readers.

    The result is that even with the internet version of the newspapers, few really take their reporting and recommendations seriously.

    The public just decides for itself knowing that whether it is spin on felonious Clinton, Distracted Sanders ("We are sick of your e-mails"), Benito Trump, or Gift-Accepting Little Don Kaine the media will not represent anything fairly and inaccurately.

    Even heaven doesn't know who is going to win the presidency this year, which is compelling in its own way.

    dnjake , 2016-07-25 21:16:52
    These polls are very bad news for those who want to believe that Hillary Clinton has already won the election. The size of the bump is far less important then the fact that there was one. Much of the media believes that the Republican's convention performance drastically diminished their chances in November. It is likely that everyone will have to wait until the votes are counted in November to know how this election plays out. But, these polls are very bad news for those who dream of establishing the idea that Donald Trump is outside the political mainstream and that there is something wrong with anyone who votes for him.
    CardiffBlackLabel , 2016-07-25 21:03:29
    Obamas presidency is ending in a disaster. Foreign policy failure and a divided and violent domestic society. All the while he seems to revel in playing the joker and appearing like the cool uncle at a wedding.

    This all benefit Trump

    BG Davis , 2016-07-25 20:30:19
    "Three of the four latest polls that showed Trump ahead of Clinton were conducted via telephone."
    Who the hell responds to a phone survey? People with a brain just hang up on them.
    Instead of cherry-picked polls to justify this "story" how about the facts that matter?
    http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
    Has Trump gained? Yes.
    Is he leading "the polls?" No. Unless you leave out the polls that show Clinton leading.
    pulltheotheronehard , 2016-07-25 19:59:12
    Why did Hillary have the DNC sabotage Bernie? She didn't need to. She's her own worst enemy. Now many Bernie backers won't vote for her.

    I'll never vote for Trump. Usually I vote for a candidate who promises to stop the war on drugs because such a stance entails other views I find congenial

    BG Davis vaman , 2016-07-25 20:33:21
    You are right about the US, but it's hard to share your optimism. Rich enclaves like La Jolla and Carmel and Santa Barbara are full of educated bigots, fearful people who take their instructions from the likes of Rush Limbaugh. (One rich idiot told me that Obama was going to raise property taxes.) And the DNC emails - plus the tone-deaf response - make it harder for Clinton than it was already.
    rebel7 BG Davis , 2016-07-25 20:50:55
    "make it harder for Clinton than it was already."

    Most of Clinton's "troubles" appear mostly self-inflicted.

    jacknbox , 2016-07-25 19:56:40
    Trump or Brexit will never happen in an undemocratic country. A democracy controlled by a "progressive" and "compassionate" elite through PC triple speak is not a democracy. The fears and insecurities of people need to be addressed and not dismissed or scoffed at. Trump will win in Nov. because he is addressing them while Hillary is not. Hillary's issues are all very old like wealth redistribution, various rights, gun control, etc. etc. the same as those of Fidel Castro and as old too.
    pjalexandr , 2016-07-25 19:53:46
    Superdelegates have moments left to spare the world a trump presidency by nominating Sanders instead of Clinton.

    Nate predicts a trump win now, and for good reason. Clinton's numbers will only continue to drop with each new email leak, State Department report, Clinton Foundation pay to play allegation, and lie from her own mouth reinforcing to the majority of the electorate why they distrust and dislike her.

    Nominate Clinton and head over the cliff to a trump presidency.
    Nominate Sanders and save the white house for the Democrats with the influx of Independent and disenfranchised Democratic voters who will never vote for Clinton.

    Terrence D. Zarnick pjalexandr , 2016-07-25 21:21:09
    Not necessarily true. Double edged sword. Trump and the GOP will attack Bernie "Socialist" Sanders relentlessly. Even disenfranchised Democrats and Independents will not sacrifice the country to the likes of Trump. There's too much as stake. The Dems have four months to turn this around and show the American people that Trump is full of sh*t...his tax plan would make himself even reach and save his estate billions by doing away with inheritance tax. He's not fit be be president per his own party even Governor Chris Christie said this. Trump and the GOP will do everything to distract the people away from the real issues...their policies and ideology is corrupt and bankrupt. Trump like the Leave Campaign in the UK has no game plan. Just hollow words and GOP tax policies that have time and time again been proven wrong. What George H.W. Bush called voodoo economics. The GOP have controlled both Houses of Congress for 4 years now...and DONE absolutely nothing to move the country forward.
    NimbyDolittle , 2016-07-25 19:46:14
    Sorry liberal apologists, this is not an ordinary "post convention bump". The polls indicate that 3/4 of Americans do not believe that their country is headed in the right direction. Trump is a protest vote.

    As repugnant as some of you may find Trump's brash personality and idiotic rhetoric to be, many view him as refreshing. Most American are tired of the "establishment" and would prefer anybody to another corrupt / dishonest / smug Bush or Clinton in the White House. They have also grown tired of a neutered society and a political correctness that has quashed individuality and freedom of speech.

    Trump has built an empire and employed people. By contrast, Clinton policies have (i) caused the subprime housing crisis, (ii) exported jobs to Mexico via NAFTA, (iv) destroyed the US educational system with no child left behind, and (iv) have caused numerous foreign policy blunders. Ms. Clinton has systematically failed at everthing that she has done. More would have been accomplished by doing the opposite.

    simpledino , 2016-07-25 19:32:18
    The "back-and-forthing" involved in these polls is grimly hilarious. I don't put a lot of stock in anything taken before Labor Day, but all the same, just try to imagine the picture of the average voter conjured up by time-lapsed poll results: "I think I'll vote for Hillary .... well, maybe I'll vote for Trump ... no, make that Hillary .... dang it all, I'm a-goin' for Trump! ... uh, maybe not ............" Do people just decide who to vote for based on whose face they last saw on their television screen? What the hell is up with that? Or is there a better way to construe the see-sawing results than my rather unflattering construction? If there is, I would be interested in hearing it because I don't like sounding so ungenerous towards my fellow Americans.

    In any case, I'll continue to hope for the best -- i.e. that the majority of us reject the fake populism of Donald Trump.

    JT1117 , 2016-07-25 19:23:42
    Hillary is toast.

    Since Cruz dropped out of the primaries, the mainstream media has been engaged in a non-stop assault on Trump, fought with the kind of raw brutality last seen in the battle of Stalingrad. The Washington Post runs at least four anti-Trump opinion pieces every day. (Yes, almost 30 per week.) Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. Hillary has spent big money on advertising in the last month, and Trump has spent nothing. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. The Republican poobahs refused to attend the convention. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. Ted Cruz detonated a suicide bomb at the convention. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve.

    Also, as crazy as Trump is, he didn't alienate his base with his VP pick. Instead, he sought to appease the far right of his party with Mike Pence. Meanwhile, Hillary has sought to move the Green Party's polling numbers into the double digits by picking a running mate who is opposed to abortion, presided over executions, supported a coal-fired power plant, and supports the TPP. The arrogance displayed by Hillary in picking Kaine makes Trump look humble.

    ButtChocolate simpledino , 2016-07-25 21:35:13
    Trump's handling of the media is interesting. I consider it to be one of his greatest talents. It is undeniable that the majority of pundits (on both the left and the right) dislike Trump. He's getting attacked from all sides whether it is the traditional pro-democrat pundits to even a lot of the traditional republican ones (especially ones who support things like free trade and what not, traditional republican platforms)

    However, Trump himself gets a ton of air time, deservedly so I might add. When he shows up on TV, ratings go up. People want to see him on TV, people want to see his interviews. He doesn't need to pay for ads when there are tons and tons of reporters who want to interview him! He is earning his own air time!

    doublreed -> simpledino , 2016-07-25 22:37:39
    DinoMight, Leftist here again. Kain is far right on what matters - Money. Pro TPP and wants to let banks be less regulated. Also, Trump is being pounded negatively by the MSM nearly as much as Sanders was denigrated or ignored. MSM, owned by Murdock and other large corporations want Clinton. She's the money man. Trump may pull this off due to low demo turn out and objection to Clinton big $$$$$.
    HenneyAndPizza , 2016-07-25 19:17:34
    As was seen with Brexit....and the death of Bruce Lee ..the Guardian is about to learn a harsh lesson it will refuse to believe is real.

    Trump will win in November because of the simple reason of whom his opponent is.

    If Trump is the new Nixon, then Clinton is the new Rosemary Wood

    SteveofCaley -> HenneyAndPizza , 2016-07-25 19:21:12
    Waterboard that metaphor!
    eagueAilill , 2016-07-25 19:03:58
    I've heard some people recently commenting that they are going to vote for Trump not because they particularly like Trump but rather because they actively dislike Hillary. As in the case of president Obama there are many who cannot get their heads around that someone other than a white man could be president. Sanders was a breath of fresh air but the political machine that is the Democratic party had already chosen Hillary. Sadly, it's a contest that will be about which candidate is the lessor of two weevils.
    MrSaxon1 , 2016-07-25 18:42:50
    Well, to base an article on a speculation that Trump's post-convention bump will be like no other is a bit silly. Best to wait until the end of the Democratic Party's convention before jumping to any conclusions.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Bernie Sanders Gets Booed When He Asks Delegates to Elect Hillary Clinton

    www.legitgov.org
    July 26, 2016

    Bernie Sanders Gets Booed When He Asks Delegates to Elect Hillary Clinton | 25 July 2016 |The crowd of delegates in the convention center ballroom didn't come for unity: They came for Bernie Sanders. Sanders, the Vermont senator whose bid to beat back Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination fell short, took the stage this afternoon to speak to his delegates before he'll take a bigger stage in a few hours-at the Democratic National Convention on its opening night, in a bid to promote unity in the party as it gears up to face Republican Donald Trump in the fall. The packed ballroom cheered and chanted as Sanders recounted the successes of his campaign...But when he finally got around to speaking about the woman who will actually be the Democratic nominee, the crowd soured on their hero.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Pelosi, Members of California Delegation Booed at DNC Breakfast

    www.truthrevolt.org

    During a California delegation breakfast at the opening of the DNC Monday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues were practically booed off the stage by enraged members of their state's delegation. Roll Call reports:

    Members of the delegation repeatedly disrupted the lineup of speakers, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, with protestations against Clinton and cheers for her erstwhile primary rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

    But whenever a speaker talked about uniting to elect Clinton in November, the crowd balked. They booed Rep. Michael M. Honda. And chanted, "Bernie, Bernie, Bernie!" during Rep. Barbara Lee's address.

    Pelosi tried to unify the room by emphasizing the commonalities in the room rather than the divisions. "The differences that we have are not so great compared to the chasm between us and Republicans," she said.

    But the crowd wasn't having it. When a "Bernie" sign was thrust in Pelosi's face on stage, she remained calm, saying, "I don't consider it a discourtesy even if it is intended as one." [...]

    With one final call for unity, and rallying calls to take back the House and the Senate, Pelosi walked off stage to more "Bernie" chants.

    Perhaps in their arrogance establishment Democrats actually expected delegates to swallow whole the lies they have been selling all this time.

    [Jul 25, 2016] How Clinton And Her Shallow-Brained Media Do Trumps Bidding

    Notable quotes:
    "... The "dark speech" theme was obviously a canned response by the Clinton campaign. ..."
    "... independent media ..."
    "... You know that's a common problem with the 1% oriented inner party and their outer party wannabes. They 'have nothing meaningful to offer the electorate in a positive sense'. ..."
    "... The Don has benefitted not only from his worldwide brand prior to entering the race, but also from what came before him. A pretty large Paulite mobilisation in 2008, followed by an at times clinical insurgency into the party rank and file in 2012 created an atmosphere just perfect for Trump to follow in behind. ..."
    "... The Paulite insurgency which in great detail engineered massive primary caucus delegate victories (see Minnesota) against the popular vote were so effective that the RNC changed the voting rules. And so, the 2016 primary delegates would be bound to the popular vote. ..."
    "... I am not sure that this revolution is what Good Dr Ron had in mind, but as an outsider looking in it's not hard to tell that The Don has aimed a couple of clever soundbites in regards to foreign policy squarely at the Paulites...even though you don't need to be too anti-war entice votes from Hilary. ..."
    "... The RNC imploded. Because of Paul they lost a switch and lever crucial to event rigged - whenever Trump tweets 'RIGGED' that a war chant aimed at all conscious human beings. ..."
    "... Trump raises much less money than Clinton. He simply does not need as much as she does. He can spend more time on real campaigning than Clinton who must hurry from one fund raiser to the next one. Meanwhile Clinton's negative campaigning against Trump reinforces his message. ..."
    "... Good one - yes, the mass corporate press really is scripted, and really they all read from the same script. ..."
    "... I look at politics through what is called "Deep Politics" which to me means politics viewed as it is rather than through the lens of American Exceptionalism." The oligarchs have fallen out among themselves at the very time that they achieved absolute control over our society. Part of all the differences are about "personal" rivalries among the aristocracy, another and part is about ethnic and social rivalries, and finally there are several different ideologies at work here. This explains the drift we have seen during the Obama years. ..."
    "... In the current system American politicians are power brokers who arrange deals and they tend to have very little personal power. Thus Obama's FP seems to be utterly rudderless and full of constant zig-zags. ..."
    "... Trump, in my view, saw that the disaffected factions had nowhere to go and were more nationalist and not as global in their views and believed he could Marshall those then inchoate forces into a movement. Trump was also, unlike most oligarchs, in touch with the yeoman class who do the heavy lifting in our society and are and have been ignored by the major factions as being irrelevant. Now Trump is heading the first genuine populist movement since FDR ..."
    "... I have it from a source I trust that Trump is fully aware of some of the skullduggery of the back ops cadre which explains his alliance with Alex Jones and his posse. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Clinton's negative campaign against Trump, and the media leashed to her messages, are doing Trump a huge favor. Unless they can break away from their limited framework, stop their unintended advertising for Trump's campaign, they will propel him to victory.

    Here is an example: Networks on Trump: A 'Dark Speech' From a 'Vengeful' 'Demagogue' - Newsbuster

    The three networks on Thursday night immediately derided Donald Trump's "dark speech" as one coming from a "vengeful" "demagogue."

    The "dark speech" theme was obviously a canned response by the Clinton campaign. Her independent media (not) dutifully repeated it over and over. But that negative "dark speech" theme, supposed to condemn Trump, only makes his point.

    (Isn't it amazing how Putin can compel all U.S. media to parrot the very same message?)

    Cont. reading: How Clinton And Her Shallow-Brained Media Do Trump's Bidding

    Posted by b at 04:44 AM | Comments (58)

    anon | Jul 25, 2016 7:18:04 AM | 10

    @4, Colin 'The Clintonistas can only go negative, because they have nothing meaningful to offer the electorate in a positive sense.'

    You know that's a common problem with the 1% oriented inner party and their outer party wannabes. They 'have nothing meaningful to offer the electorate in a positive sense'. That's exactly the 'problem' here in Thailand. The Democrat Party here, which is in about the same position as there, adopted the 'strategy' of boycotting elections. Not even running. They knew they had not a snowball's chance in South Thailand of winning.

    The 'solution' to their problem here was ... military coup and dictatorship. Turn back the clock to the middle ages and see how that works out. The thing about dictatorships is that they make 'society' stupid and cowardly. All the state functionaries identify with the dictator and in every situation ask themselves 'what would the dictator do?' and then they do it. They are at once even more irrational and brutal than the dictator himself ... or than the dictator himself after his advisors have cajoled and pleaded or the plutocrats have threatened him ... because they are deathly afraid of incurring the dictator's wrath for being 'lax'.

    And at the same time they'd like to stand out as dictatoresque men of action themselves ... just like the d-man himself. Maybe they can be d-men someday. Society is degenerating, and the pace has picked up in the past couple of months on the way to the dictator's referendum on his waaaay over the top charter, aka constitution, for Thailand. They arrested and charged two 8 year-old girls the other day who appropriated some important papers they'd hung up, because they put there orders on pink paper and the girls thought the paper was beautiful.

    Anyway, Trump is analogous to Thaksin, not to put too fine a point on it, at least he's talkin' the talk. The Democrats have nothing to offer ordinary

    jfl | Jul 25, 2016 7:28:03 AM | 12

    Looks like the corporate media all got the memo concerning Trump's "dark" acceptance speech:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoG0Q_oXEAAJlgV.jpg

    @7 ms, 'It is the time for nationalists and globalists to have a political war'

    I think its time for corporatists and humanists to have a war. I know that hard-right - libertarians - conceive of the government as the arch, evil corporation, but in fact that is because it is run by the arch. evil transnational corporations. The TTP / TTIP embody that corporate manifest. They want to take decision-making out of the hands of human beings and put it in the hands of the TNCs, because as slave 'owners' or 'managers' of corporations their livelihoods are completely dependent on the 'well-being', bottom line anyway, of those TNCs.

    The real problem with government is that it is absentee-owned, we the people have taken a permanent vacation, and the corporations have usurped our place. So the battle is to seize control of our governments and to geld the TNCs.

    There is much more overlap in our immediate goals than in our conception of how the world works, but the key word there is immediate. We have enough common ground there to form a coherent, goal directed, expeditionary-force, to battle the corporatists from the left and the globalists from the right, though we retire to separate tents with our fellows to plan the struggles of tomorrow, once the immediate battle has been closed and won.

    MadMax2 | Jul 25, 2016 7:53:05 AM | 13
    @jfl 5
    No, he cant lose vs Hilary. Impossible... as the outside observer (so more tuned to receive US foreign policy banter)

    The Don has benefitted not only from his worldwide brand prior to entering the race, but also from what came before him. A pretty large Paulite mobilisation in 2008, followed by an at times clinical insurgency into the party rank and file in 2012 created an atmosphere just perfect for Trump to follow in behind.

    For how fortunate the republican climate was/is for The Don, it was equally balanced by how unforgiving it was to Cruz. The RNC shot stooge Cruz in the back 4 years ago.

    The Paulite insurgency which in great detail engineered massive primary caucus delegate victories (see Minnesota) against the popular vote were so effective that the RNC changed the voting rules. And so, the 2016 primary delegates would be bound to the popular vote.

    An unfathomable lack of foresight right there, but also gives you an idea of how shitscared Stooge Romney was of the Paul faithful, whose leader had been subject to media blackout by much of the MSM and passed off as a cuck wherever else he was mentioned. Romney couldn't have him hijacking the 2012 RNC.

    Delegates now bound by popular vote instead of the caucus based system which encourages grass roots involvement is a perfect platform for...well..a populist.

    I am not sure that this revolution is what Good Dr Ron had in mind, but as an outsider looking in it's not hard to tell that The Don has aimed a couple of clever soundbites in regards to foreign policy squarely at the Paulites...even though you don't need to be too anti-war entice votes from Hilary.

    The Dems will have their reformation in 2020 - but I don't think they'll be feeling The Bern as much as the RNC is feeling Dr Ron's Pay-It-Forward Prescription.

    The RNC imploded. Because of Paul they lost a switch and lever crucial to event rigged - whenever Trump tweets 'RIGGED' that a war chant aimed at all conscious human beings.

    At least with Emperor Trump libertarians also get their wish of minimal government. Something to smile about I guess.

    Mike Maloney | Jul 25, 2016 7:57:34 AM | 15

    MadMax2 | Jul 25, 2016 7:55:53 AM | 14

    ^*crucial to event rigging /a>
    For all of Hillary's weaknesses and venality it is going to be next to impossible for Trump to beat her as long as he labors under a gender gap of historic proportions . After Hillary is elected, expect even more and larger U.S. wars. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Doomsday Clock will likely tick two minutes to midnight, something it hasn't done since 1953 at the height of the Cold War.
    Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 25, 2016 10:28:53 AM | 24
    Excellent run-down on the way Visionless Twerps emphasize their lack of vision by resorting to one-word slogans as a substitute for POLICIES, b.

    This observation sums up Hillary's dilemna with superb and delicious clarity:

    Trump raises much less money than Clinton. He simply does not need as much as she does. He can spend more time on real campaigning than Clinton who must hurry from one fund raiser to the next one. Meanwhile Clinton's negative campaigning against Trump reinforces his message.

    If she keeps believing her own bullshit (fingers crossed), and she slides in the polls, it's not hard to imagine that she'll have to put the Putin excuse on the back-burner and swing a wrecking ball through Team Clinton in retribution for her own dumbfuckery.

    With Right-wing Cranks it's ALWAYS somebody else's fault when a half-baked scheme goes belly-up.

    TG | Jul 25, 2016 10:30:14 AM | 25
    Good one - yes, the mass corporate press really is scripted, and really they all read from the same script.

    I guess they decided that 'racist' and 'fascist' were starting to lose their shock value due to overuse, and they decided to try 'dark' for a while.

    If I was a talented hacker I would love to intercept the marching orders that the media get and replace the official cuss-word of the day with something like 'ontological', and see how many media outlets blindly use the word even though it makes no sense at all…

    I can dream...

    I think perhaps the worst thing that Bill Clinton did to this country - worse than NAFTA, worse than repealing Glass-Steagall, or bailing out the big banks that made bad loans to Mexico etc.etc., was allowing the media to consolidate.

    I think the biggest priority for anyone who wants his country to stop going down the drain, would be to break up the big media monopolies, prevent news organizations from owning or being owned by any other business, and blocking foreign nationals from controlling US media outlets. IMHO.

    likklemore | Jul 25, 2016 10:54:45 AM | 27
    Bravo b. But you've been too kind with your description:

    "The New York Times journalist tweeted" [..] The journos' shallow-brained reaction is a main ingredient of it"

    Imho, "journalist" joined the Dodos decades ago. What we now have are Stenos., Cut and Pasters at corporate media.

    May I use your apt descriptor "shallow-brained"? Yes, shallow-brain Stenos. No exercise of brain cells required.


    "Oh my, we need to separate the adverts, do you have a ready piece you'd like us to print? Send it over."

    On Election day, the turnout to vote may be as low as 30%.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    @ Mike Maloney 15

    For all of Hillary's weakness and venality it is going to be next to impossible for Trump to beat her…[..]"

    btw, I .do. not. have. a. vote.

    but
    May I suggest
    You underestimate the utter public disgust for the Clinton dynasty. Take any segment - from the low-informed to independents- they are tired and wish to see the backs of Clintons.

    Michael Moore sees even progressives will stay at home. A low turnout favours Trump.

    And do you not think the emails, ones from the DNC and HRC private servers, will keep on giving?

    At the link, do scroll up to "Wow" read the DNCLeak email. Donna Brazile says there are more coming….

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/24/2016-livewire-democrats-disarray-eve-hillary-clintons-coronation-convention-philadelphia/

    Democrats in Disarray UPDATE 10:25 P.M. ET

    Hillary Clinton, in an interview with 60 Minutes, says: "I don't know anything about these emails. I haven't followed it. But I'm very proud of the campaign I ran. And I'm very proud of the campaign that Sen. Sanders ran."
    When asked by 60 minutes if it would have been "improper" for anyone inside the DNC to favor one candidate over another, Hillary Clinton responds: "Again, I don't have any information about this. So I can't answer specifically. We ran our campaign. We ran hard. We worked to have as many successes as possible. We're very proud we got{.}

    ~ ~ ~

    as always HRC admits to " knowing nothing about it " and "is sometimes confused."

    HRC, the next president with Bill the first spouse?

    Is there some real estate for sale on Pluto?

    Banger | Jul 25, 2016 10:56:01 AM | 28
    I look at politics through what is called "Deep Politics" which to me means politics viewed as it is rather than through the lens of American Exceptionalism." The oligarchs have fallen out among themselves at the very time that they achieved absolute control over our society. Part of all the differences are about "personal" rivalries among the aristocracy, another and part is about ethnic and social rivalries, and finally there are several different ideologies at work here. This explains the drift we have seen during the Obama years.

    In the current system American politicians are power brokers who arrange deals and they tend to have very little personal power. Thus Obama's FP seems to be utterly rudderless and full of constant zig-zags.

    The main faction which includes Soros and his gang have the advantage of controlling the major propaganda organs and they support the Clintons. Trump, in my view, saw that the disaffected factions had nowhere to go and were more nationalist and not as global in their views and believed he could Marshall those then inchoate forces into a movement. Trump was also, unlike most oligarchs, in touch with the yeoman class who do the heavy lifting in our society and are and have been ignored by the major factions as being irrelevant. Now Trump is heading the first genuine populist movement since FDR though he is much closer to Mussolini in style and substance except for the imperial ambitions.

    Even if Trump wins that does not mean the dominant faction is dead because as long as the muscle part of the faction, mainly the black op faction remains in the globalist corner, they will still be able to assert themselves. Trump, if he wants to have free rein must purge some of these people and make some deals with the rest of we will see major instability. I have it from a source I trust that Trump is fully aware of some of the skullduggery of the back ops cadre which explains his alliance with Alex Jones and his posse.

    The "issues" here are irrelevant. This is about a struggle for power and if it is a close election the race will come down to who can control the ballot. American elections are noonger honest so who controls the count controls the election.

    One little caveat here. During the 00 ballot counting period in Florida while I was working on a top secret project one of the senior people on the project who was ex-military told me his sources in the military told him that if Gore won there would be a military coup. I believe the Supreme Court was aware of this and threw the election to Bush. I think we are seeing the most important election of our lifetime and no matter who wins we will see even more unraveling of the USA.

    kafkananda | Jul 25, 2016 10:58:01 AM | 29
    This is exactly the analysis that Scott Adams, the Dilbert comic strip creator, has been following for over a year. Understanding Trump as a 'Master Persuader' and relying on his training as a hypnotist, he was one of the first to say Trump was on his way to a landslide win, not just the Republican nomination. Check out his twitter feed "@ScottAdamsSays" for his latest thoughts.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Donald Trump bounces into the lead

    www.legitgov.org
    July 25, 2016

    Donald Trump bounces into the lead | 25 July 2016 | The bounce is back. Donald Trump comes out of his convention ahead of Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House, topping her 44% to 39% in a four-way matchup including Gary Johnson (9%) and Jill Stein (3%) and by three points in a two-way head-to-head, 48% to 45%. That latter finding represents a 6-point convention bounce for Trump, which are traditionally measured in two-way matchups. There hasn't been a significant post-convention bounce in CNN's polling since 2000.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Sanders response to Wikileaks: betrayal of supporters or battered wife syndrome

    Notable quotes:
    "... So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them. ..."
    "... His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest. ..."
    "... I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain neutral. ..."
    "... Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are. ..."
    "... Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter. ..."
    "... And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for! ..."
    "... AFAICT he got very little for his support (will he get a cabinet position for himself?). He didn't have to endorse Hillary. He doesn't have to speak at the Convention (but he will tonight). ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    For those who have a Twitter account, checkout #dncleak or #dncleaks on the latest over the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails.

    Here's one -"Hillary Clinton is now blaming the Russians for leaking the emails. Like that makes it any better that you rigged the primary."

    Sanders to Chuck Todd on the leaks -

    Todd: "So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't given you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?"

    Sanders: "No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can to protect working families in this country. And again, Chuc, I know media is not necessarily focused on these things. But what a campaign is about is not Hillary Clinton, it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of this country, blah blah blah..."

    "[...] And I'm going to go around the country discussing them [issues] and making sure Hillary Clinton is elected president."

    So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them.

    UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE!

    His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest.

    I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain neutral.

    Think about his response to Todd. Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are.

    If I were a Bernie supporter I'd be starting a campaign to convince that man to take some serious time off. Go fishing. Go for hikes whatever. Just get away from the bubble and clear your head and soul.

    Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter.

    And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for!

    Posted by: h | Jul 24, 2016 1:24:40 PM | 11

    Jackrabbit | Jul 24, 2016 2:28:41 PM | 25

    h @11:

    His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome.
    You are assuming that Sanders is a victim instead of a conspirator.

    Why would anyone give any politician in our corrupt system the benefit of the doubt? Even one that seems to be against 'the system'?

    Why didn't Bernie release more than one year of tax returns?

    Especially since Hillary cited this as a reason not to release the transcripts of her speaches to Goldman Sachs.

    Why didn't Bernie use the emails against Hillary after the State Department Inspector General released their report?

    This official report clearly demonstrated that Hillary had consistently misled the nation about her emails.

    Why didn't Bernie attack Obama's record on Black/Minority affairs?

    Obama's support is part of the reason that Blacks/Minorities were voting for Hillary. Obama never went to Feruson or New York or Baltimore. Obama's weak economic stimulous and austerity policies have been very bad for blacks/minorities. Obama bailed out banks that targeted minorities for toxic loans. Etc.

    Why does Bernie, at 74-years old, care more about Hillary (which he calls a friend of 25 years) and the Democratic Party than his principles?

    AFAICT he got very little for his support (will he get a cabinet position for himself?). He didn't have to endorse Hillary. He doesn't have to speak at the Convention (but he will tonight).

    [Jul 25, 2016] Trump is too smart and proud to box himself in with false promises

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump, unlike most politicians, isn't a pitiful, cowardly liar who'd sell his soul, his mother and his best friend for a fistful of cash. You're probably confusing him with Tony Bliar, Bush II and 'Mr Magoo without the good intentions' - John W Howard, a creepy sell-out with no presence, personality or moral compass. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    But don't expect anything much in the way of 'keeping promises' post-election. "What, those were promises? I was just putting on a show, and you _loved_ it."
    Posted by: fairleft | Jul 25, 2016 12:28:47 PM | 42

    You wish...

    Trump, unlike most politicians, isn't a pitiful, cowardly liar who'd sell his soul, his mother and his best friend for a fistful of cash. You're probably confusing him with Tony Bliar, Bush II and 'Mr Magoo without the good intentions' - John W Howard, a creepy sell-out with no presence, personality or moral compass.

    After one of his early promise-laden election victories, he had the gall to dismiss a press query about several of his broken promises thus:

    "Uhh, they were non-core promises."

    Trump's too smart and proud to box himself in with false promises. If he's flogging a vague idea it'll be vague BEFORE the election, not afterwards.

    Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 25, 2016 3:56:39 PM | 59

    [Jul 25, 2016] Trump favorite Foreign Policy guy is Zionist for Yinon Plan for Greater Israel John Bolton. That can't be good.

    www.moonofalabama.org

    Remember Obama railed against "stupid wars". I assumed that he was referring to the destruction of Iraq. Since then, Obama has engaged the USA in more stupid wars than any president in history.

    Now we have Trump - America First. Also opposed to stupid wars. But his favorite Foreign Policy guy is Zionist for Yinon Plan for Greater Israel John Bolton. That can't be good.

    BUT Trump is not saber rattling straight out of the box like the Hell Bitch is doing.

    Posted by: fast freddy | Jul 25, 2016 3:42:55 PM | 55

    [Jul 25, 2016] Manafort says the Trump campaign is about law and order and that dark themes, absurdly, only elevate Trump as the peace bringer

    Notable quotes:
    "... If you want to understand the Trump campaign team and Paul Manafort then read Franklin Foer's outstanding article in Slate magazine (28 April 2016) entitled "The Quiet American" . It'll blow your socks off. Manafort is selling Trump to the American people as a clean skin product, a break from insider corruption. It's a lie but it's enough to defeat Hillary. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    damien | Jul 25, 2016 9:30:13 AM | 20

    Trump is an egotist but I don't think he's that smart. I think his media successes are due to his curent campaign director Paul Manafort, who takes over from Roger Stone, a long time Trump ally and Republican Party trickster. Previously Manafort ran a PR firm that catered to every dictator imaginable (it was joked about in Washington as 'The Torturers' Lobby').

    Manafort and Stone formed a company in 1980 that ran the election campaigns for a generation of Republicans and held cartel-like control over the Republican primaries. As one consultant put it: "They managed all of the major campaigns. Atwater took Bush; Black ran Dole; Stone handled Jack Kemp. A congressional staffer joked to a reporter from Time, 'Why have primaries for the nomination? Why not have the candidates go over to Black, Manafort and Stone and argue it out?'"

    If you want to understand the Trump campaign team and Paul Manafort then read Franklin Foer's outstanding article in Slate magazine (28 April 2016) entitled "The Quiet American". It'll blow your socks off. Manafort is selling Trump to the American people as a clean skin product, a break from insider corruption. It's a lie but it's enough to defeat Hillary.

    Manafort says the Trump campaign is about law and order and that dark themes, absurdly, only elevate Trump as the peace bringer.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Trump is a natural leader. He is a boor, but he is a natural leader

    "... Barack Obama = CIA creation to be a rubber stamp. He was never a leader. Early on, he'd clearly indicated that the job of the President is not to lead, but to pass or veto bills from Congress. This narrow interpretation allowed him to screw us good. He and his dupes explained that we got screwed because of meany republicans and especially b/c "his hands were tied". ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    fast freddy | Jul 25, 2016 9:16:01 AM | 19

    Barack Obama = CIA creation to be a rubber stamp. He was never a leader. Early on, he'd clearly indicated that the job of the President is not to lead, but to pass or veto bills from Congress. This narrow interpretation allowed him to screw us good. He and his dupes explained that we got screwed because of meany republicans and especially b/c "his hands were tied".

    So many lies. One of my favorites: "The government cannot create jobs."

    Trump, OTOH, is a natural leader. He is a boor, but he is a natural leader. When Congress sets about to screw the commons, the remedy is "The Bully Pulpit".

    Explain on TV the nature of the situation to the people. Watch Congress capitulate when you call the bastards out individually.

    The last guy that did that was JFK.

    [Jul 25, 2016] The Pence pick will not do Trump any good

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is favored mostly because he is an anti-establishment figure (and part of his mutterings about Mexicans and Muslims are there just to get him that cred, though other readings are possible..), because he is the first to run on American decline and reversing it, because of the discourse about jobs, NAFTA, other countries not paying their way, China and trade, a certain isolationism, etc. and because he sneers at the instituted estates (incl. the media.) ..."
    "... Many ppl will ignore it of course in their new-leader enthusiasm (see Sanders!) but others not. It also signals an alarming precedent for any future nominations (were he to become Prez.) Trump's interest - as he must know - is in sharpening divisions and not 'normalizing' himself. ..."
    "... I listened to Trump's convention speech. It sounded like it sprung from analysis of focus groups where you chew over data blah blah and go on to create 'sceintific' opinion clusters and focus on the things ppl agree on. Not the best. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Noirette | Jul 24, 2016 10:12:07 AM | 93

    Trump is favored mostly because he is an anti-establishment figure (and part of his mutterings about Mexicans and Muslims are there just to get him that cred, though other readings are possible..), because he is the first to run on American decline and reversing it, because of the discourse about jobs, NAFTA, other countries not paying their way, China and trade, a certain isolationism, etc. and because he sneers at the instituted estates (incl. the media.)

    According to the standard copy-book, he should have picked another anti-est. (or only marginally connected) person, even someone unknown or utterly outrageous. Or done something nutty, such as run a contest for the spot on the intertubes, after saying he contacted Bernie and the Bern refused so now what? ;)

    The Pence choice looks like it is an outcome of the usual slice/n/dice calculations (Pence will bring in his home state, Cruz voters will like Pence, or whatever..), imposed by the Repubs. to 'normalize' Trump, bring his candidacy 'into the fold.' It looks like a deal was made, and Trump had not the mojo to resist. Pence and Trump are not natural allies, and imho will soon be at odds. OK one can argue that there is only one figure here, Maestro Trump, and all the sattelites around are not important. Yet, this move imho puts his candidacy into question.

    Many ppl will ignore it of course in their new-leader enthusiasm (see Sanders!) but others not. It also signals an alarming precedent for any future nominations (were he to become Prez.) Trump's interest - as he must know - is in sharpening divisions and not 'normalizing' himself.

    I listened to Trump's convention speech. It sounded like it sprung from analysis of focus groups where you chew over data blah blah and go on to create 'sceintific' opinion clusters and focus on the things ppl agree on. Not the best.

    He can maybe still win, on the numbers, imho. Facing one of the most hated pols ever… Depends on vote-rigging etc. as, for now, it looks like a close? race. Presumably Trump will now bring out major guns against Killary.

    [Jul 25, 2016] German corporations donate to Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... According to recent figures, the BASF PAC has distributed $399,000 in donations. The lion's share of this money, a good 72 percent, flowed to the Republicans. This is not surprising, writes Die Welt. In previous election years, BASF, Allianz and Bayer had supported the Republicans. ..."
    www.wsws.org

    In a guest editorial reprinted from the Los Angeles Times, the FAZ writes of a possible military coup in the oldest democracy in the world. Under the headline, "If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the US," journalist James Kirchick develops a scenario in which President Trump gives the military an illegal command, which it refuses to carry it out.

    The article ends with the following: "Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a danger to America and the world. Voters must stop him before the military has to."

    German corporations with operations in the US reacted somewhat differently. As Die Welt reports, notable large concerns from Germany gave more than two-thirds of their election donations to the Republicans, and thus to Trump; above all BASF, Allianz, Siemens and Deutsche Bank.

    Since US law prevents American or foreign companies from making direct donations to candidates, campaign funding takes place via so-called Political Action Committees (PACs). This is a legal construct allowing the circumvention of both the strict limit on donations as well as the ban on corporate donations. Via so-called super PACs, hundreds of millions of dollars flow into campaign advertising.

    According to recent figures, the BASF PAC has distributed $399,000 in donations. The lion's share of this money, a good 72 percent, flowed to the Republicans. This is not surprising, writes Die Welt. In previous election years, BASF, Allianz and Bayer had supported the Republicans.

    According to Die Welt, in this election campaign the chemical and pharmaceutical group Bayer sent 80 percent of its donations to benefit the Republicans. At financial services company Allianz it was 72 percent.

    Deutsche Bank, on the other hand, changed political camps. The paper writes: "While Deutsche Bank donated comparatively little, only $37,000, it is remarkable that 86 percent of this money was distributed to the Republican camp." Such a clear tendency could not be seen in any other German company.

    That Deutsche Bank sympathies with the Republicans is new. In 2006 and 2008, the bank had clearly tended toward the Democrats. The change of side was not surprising, "since Deutsche Bank is the largest lender to Donald Trump." For the renovation of a hotel in Washington, Trump borrowed $170 million from Deutsche Bank.

    [Jul 25, 2016] If you think Trump is a liar, then everything he says is bullshit. But I see his remarks over a long time are consistent

    www.moonofalabama.org

    From The Hague | Jul 23, 2016 6:21:41 PM | 38

    @37 jfl
    If you think Trump is a liar, then everything he says is bullshit.
    But I see his remarks over a long time are consistent.

    And in sequel on #32
    William Engdahl has to explain a lot.
    In his "A Century of War" he describes how the US industry was crippled in the 50's and 60's.
    And how the protestors were demonised.

    p. 119
    Riots were deliberately incited in industrial cities like Newark, Boston, Oakland and Philadelphia by government-backed 'insurgents', such as Tom Hayden. The goal of this operation was to break the power of established industrial trade unions in the northern cities by labeling them racist.

    p. 120
    The newly created U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity weakened the political voice of traditional American labor and the influential urban constituency machines. The targeted white blue-collar industrial operatives, only a decade earlier hailed as the lifeblood of American industry, were suddenly labeled 'reactionary' and 'racist' by the powerful liberal media. These workers were mostly fearful and confused as they saw their entire social fabric collapsing in the wake of the disinvestment policy of the powerful banks.

    http://www.takeoverworld.info/pdf/Engdahl__Century_of_War_book.pdf


    Hey William, did you read about Trump's ideas to bring back jobs to the USA?
    (and do you recognize something?)

    And William, did you understand his remarks about that Mexican Wall (on American Soil).
    (preventing illegal immigration, ALSO because he wants higher minimum wages (impossible with illegal immigrants))

    [Jul 25, 2016] Trump Policy Will Unravel Traditional Neocons: he is the only one who wanted to roll back NATO spending as well all military spending in general

    Notable quotes:
    "... But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders. ..."
    "... So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear, roll back military spending. We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing American labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don't need foreign military bases and foreign spending to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today's world, the only kind of war we're going to have is atomic war. Nobody's going to invade another country. We're not going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody's even talking about that. So let's be realistic. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    PERIES: So let's take a look at this article by Paul Krugman. Where is he going with this analysis about the Siberian candidate?

    HUDSON: Well, Krugman has joined the ranks of the neocons, as well as the neoliberals, and they're terrified that they're losing control of the Republican Party. For the last half-century the Republican Party has been pro-Cold War, corporatist. And Trump has actually, is reversing that. Reversing the whole traditional platform. And that really worries the neocons.

    Until his speech, the whole Republican Convention, every speaker had avoided dealing with economic policy issues. No one referred to the party platform, which isn't very good. And it was mostly an attack on Hillary. Chants of "lock her up." And Trump children, aimed to try to humanize him and make him look like a loving man.

    But finally came Trump's speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he's making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he's not destroying the party, he's building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders.

    So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear, roll back military spending. We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing American labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don't need foreign military bases and foreign spending to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today's world, the only kind of war we're going to have is atomic war. Nobody's going to invade another country. We're not going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody's even talking about that. So let's be realistic.

    Well, being realistic has driven other people crazy.

    http://www.unz.com/mhudson/trump-policy-will-unravel-traditional-neocons/

    Posted by: From The Hague | Jul 24, 2016 1:30:38 PM | 12

    [Jul 24, 2016] 200PM Water Cooler 7-22-2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... Transcript of Trump's acceptance speech as delivered [ Vox ]. I watched for deviations; there were few, and generally they improved the text. ..."
    "... and Vox doesn't engage with the footnotes ..."
    "... Key omissions: No assault on big banks, nothing on the minimum wage, nothing on Social Security. In other words, Trump is appealing the local oligarchs in his off-Beltway coalition, and not appealing to the (white) working class on economic grounds; neoliberalism wins with the Republicans, as with Democrats. ..."
    "... I'm old enough to remember the Bush administration, when many of today's young liberal wonks were just coming up, and the blogosphere developed a very detailed critique of the Bush administration's fascist tendencies, based on his expansion of executive power under the doctrine of the unitary executive, and his destruction of the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law generally through his program of warrantless surveillance ( "sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception" ). ..."
    "... As soon as Obama was elected, those same liberal wonks dropped the critique of fascist powers in the executive like the hot potato it was, even as Obama proceeded to rationalize and consolidate everything Bush did (and had signaled his intent to do so, in July ..."
    "... sometimes the wolf is a wolf ..."
    naked capitalism
    Conventions

    Headlines on the newspaper rack when I went to get coffee this morning, both above the fold and spanning the page: "'I am your voice.' - Trump" (USA Today) and "'I will fight for you' - Trump" (Bangor Daily News). Smart speechwriting; 15 and 20 characters respectively, so the quotes are made for huuuge headline type. And call me crazy - I'll get to the details below - but is it possible that there are voters who feel they have no voice, and that nobody's fighting for them? I can't think why, but the morning paper dropped outside every hotel room door in America seems to think so. As does my local paper.

    Transcript of Trump's acceptance speech as delivered [ Vox ]. I watched for deviations; there were few, and generally they improved the text. For example, Clinton's legacy of (a) "death, destruction and weakness" in the written speech became (b) "death, destruction, terrorism, and weakness" as delivered. (Modulo "weakness," since Clinton can't really be held accountable for a process of imperial collapse, I hate it when Trump's right ). It's funny to watch the quotes propagate through the press, since anybody using variant (a) is writing off the written transcript, and anybody using variant (b) is reporting in something closer to real time. Perhaps the variants are introduced for that purpose?

    Transcript of Trump's acceptance speech as written [ Donald J. Trump ]. Cheekily, there are 282 footnotes. This is actually both clever by the Trump campaign, and important as a yardstick for the allegiances of the political class. Why? Fact-checking. Here's Vox: "Trump says: 'Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this administration's rollback of criminal enforcement.' In fact:… Ruling: Baseless" [Vox staff, Vox ]. The wee problem here is that Trump backs up that claim with material at footnotes 19, 20, 21 and 22, and Vox doesn't engage with the footnotes . So, despite the faux judiciousness of "Ruling," the article doesn't engage with Trump's material at all. As one might expect, given this useful post by Corey Robin , the wonks at Vox are ritually enacting the forms of scholarship, whiile emptying them of content. (Troll prophylactic: I'm not saying Trump's claim is correct; I'm saying that Vox makes its tendentiousness really obvious when it fails to engage with it.) I don't have time to look at all the other fact checking out there - and I don't expect anything either presumptive candidate says to survive a fact-checking process anyhow - but I would bet they, too, fail to engage with Trump's footnotes.

    "Word cloud analysis of Donald Trump's acceptance speech" [ Constitution Center ].

    "Trump's speech was a significant moment for an impulsive entertainer and savvy media manipulator now striving to look presidential to a wide audience. He cleared the bar handily Thursday, showing the political force he could become when he reins in his most bombastic rhetoric and sticks to his populist-infused message" [ US News ].

    Anyhow, I watched the speech. Key omissions: No assault on big banks, nothing on the minimum wage, nothing on Social Security. In other words, Trump is appealing the local oligarchs in his off-Beltway coalition, and not appealing to the (white) working class on economic grounds; neoliberalism wins with the Republicans, as with Democrats.

    (That is, liberals are correct to point to the dogwhistles, but evil to airbrush the policies they pursued, together with the Republicans, which present the working class with a Sophie's Choice between rejecting "law and order" dogwhistles while also rejecting some minimal gestures toward their economic interests.) Here are some random - really random - screen shots, with commentary under this:

    stage

    This is the stage, all Trumped up. Cult of personality in full swing, along with Gilded Age decor complete with digital gilding (I don't think that's physical signage). Sure, the burnished logo looks like something you'd see on the Las Vegas strip, but then an America run by the FIRE sector is a casino . And so the 2016 election brings another moment of bracing clarity.

    balloon

    This is the balloon drop, which was excellent - lots and lots of balloons, like bubbles in a really frothy glass of champers - proof that the Trump staff can actual deliver competent advance work, though whether the campaign can scale up to the full campaign trail is an open question. There were also fireworks outside. I would like to know who chose the closing music: "All Right Now" (Free Bad Company ) followed by "You Can't Always Get What You Want" (Rolling Stones). But you get what you need?

    barron

    And this is a shot of Barron Trump not, apparently, getting what he needs. I'm including it because there wasn't a moment he was on the stage when he didn't look downcast, even when looking up at the balloons. A rarely human moment, contrasted with Melania Trump's weaponized graciousness . Sad.

    "In his most important speech ever, Trump echoes Richard Nixon" [Dan Balz, WaPo ]. "In Nixon's time, it was a call for the 'Silent Majority' to rise up and take back the country. Trump spoke to the "forgotten men and women" who he said no longer have a voice in a rigged political system run by 'censors' and 'cynics."

    * * *

    UPDATE Lambert here: I rarely mention the F-word, if only because I don't want to start a trash fire. That said - [throwing a flag at my own Godwin's Law violation] - I'm going to go there. Here's why I'm suspicious of liberal goodthinker claims that Trump is a fascist: I'm old enough to remember the Bush administration, when many of today's young liberal wonks were just coming up, and the blogosphere developed a very detailed critique of the Bush administration's fascist tendencies, based on his expansion of executive power under the doctrine of the unitary executive, and his destruction of the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law generally through his program of warrantless surveillance ( "sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception" ).

    Well… As soon as Obama was elected, those same liberal wonks dropped the critique of fascist powers in the executive like the hot potato it was, even as Obama proceeded to rationalize and consolidate everything Bush did (and had signaled his intent to do so, in July 2008, by voting to give corporations retroactive immunity for Bush's program of warrantless surveillance). These same wonks might also be usefully asked what sort of State adopts a "disposition matrix" and uses it to assassinate its own citizens, and what sort of State orchestrates a 17-city paramilitary crackdown on non-violent direct actions. Or what sort of State sets up Homan Center (for example).

    Now, I know this reasoning exhibits the genetic fallacy, and the grim moral of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is that sometimes the wolf is a wolf , but if there's any serious analysis on this topic, I'd love to see it, because I trust the young and youngish wonks in the political class about as far as I can throw a piano. A concert grand piano.

    Take for example youngish James Fallows ( from April ), on the unsavory history of "America First":

    But the term "America First" has a specific and nasty history, mainly because of the America First movement that essentially advocated accommodating Nazi interests on the eve of World War II. There's a list of terms you're wiser to avoid, no matter how deserving the underlying idea might be. "Separate but equal," in the United States. "Cultural Revolution" or "Great Leap Forward" if you're in China. "Final solution," anywhere. In the realm of foreign policy, America First is one of these. You can make the point without using the phrase.

    To begin with, never mind that Democrat Dick Gephardt - thanks for destroying Howard Dean in Iowa 2004, Dick! - ran for office in the 1980s using the same phrase ; apparently, in Fallows mind, that's not inoculation enough. The real issue - as once again Corey Robin points out - that Fallows is rather like a cargo cult historian: Invoking the form, while lacking the substance. That's because - follow me closely here - this is not the 1940s. If fascism is "the merger of state and corporate power" , have not both Democrats and Repblicans already arrived at that point? Further, on what grounds are we to make the Sophie's Choice between the merger of state and corporation at the national level, a la Trump ("Make America great again) and the surrender of national sovereignty to corporations at the international level, a la Clinton and Tim Kaine's "gold standard" TPP and its ISDS system? This is 2016, not 1940.

    I'd welcome reader thoughts and meditations on this topic. But I'm gonna be ruthless on drive-bys and me-toos.

    [Jul 24, 2016] A Post-Convention Correction

    Notable quotes:
    "... Camille Paglia made the best argument against Hillary: she's incompetent. She couldn't even stave off an FBI investigation into her emails; she's lucky that AG Lynch was in the bag. ..."
    "... Trump simply does not care, in the least, if he gets 90% covered in excrement, so long as his detractors get covered 95+%. If he is slightly, barely less-caked-in-filth at the finish line, he wins, and that is the only thing that matters to him. It is simply never a "mistake" for Trump to make speech choices that cake him in yet more filth, so long as he causes even more filth to adhere to his only real opponent … especially if his "mistakes" cause cultural elites like you to give him even-more-mountains of free publicity poring over those "mistakes". ..."
    "... I liked that he called HC out on her ineptitude and transgressions and hope that he continues to do so to keep her on the defensive. If you happen to think Trump's screaming delivery was bad (I did but as a fellow native NYer, I get it) just wait until we are subjected to the screeching, robotic monotone of Broom Hilda next week. ..."
    "... The key point is, Trump held fast to all the points on which he disagrees with the previous GOP consensus–and got the audience to cheer along with his "heresies." ..."
    "... He is running as an anti-free trade, anti-immigration, anti-foreign intervention, non-social-issue-conservative–and getting the Pence-style conservatives to go along with it. Movement conservatism is dead–Ted Cruz is "rotting-flesh Reaganism" in Rusty Reno's hideously accurate phrase. If it wasn't for the fact that Trump is the messenger, this would be a very good message. ..."
    "... Regarding the vile Hillary Clinton's ethics and "temperament": https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4u367e/wikileaks_release_19252_from_the_dnc_start/d5mflj8 ..."
    The American Conservative
    Siarlys Jenkins , July 22, 2016 at 7:57 pm
    George Will once wrote that Thomas Paine had written the single most effective political pamphlet in history. 'Nuff said on that point.

    Hillary Clinton does live in her own kind of bubble, but she is not incompetent. She is razor sharp competent, at doing the wrong things. The best argument I've heard for supporting Trump is that he's not competent to do as much damage as she is.

    Rod, the fact that he yelled a lot in a well-written speech does not tell us much about how his mind works. It just tells us that his speaking style differs from your preferences…

    Nope, it tells us a lot about how his mind works. He can't stay on point, he can't stay any course because he can't pick one in the first place, he can't focus, he can't adhere to any consistent set of principles. He blabs different things every day because he thinks different things every day. His mind is a mess, and for that matter, so is his business record.

    Jesse, July 22, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    "Cicero or not, people liked the speech. Has there ever been a greater disconnect between pundits and the American public?

    75% of viewers in a CNN poll like the speech. CNN who are no fans of Trump.

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/07/22/cnn-probably-regrets-polling-viewers-trumps-rnc-speech-well-wow-368574 "

    In the same type of poll from last time around, 79% of people liked Mitt Romney's acceptance speech in 2012. Shockingly, outside of political junkies, the people watching political conventions mostly already like the candidate.

    "Jesse this election is probably going to be settled by people ion the rust belt and Florida. It doesn't matter if people in places like Oregon and Delaware think things are going just great."

    Let's see here – let's go to the average, all from Pollster.com. I've just given Clinton Illinois and Trump Indiana.

    And in all those states, Trump barely gets above 40. Hillary Clinton just had her worst week + Trump just had his rollout at the RNC and he still can't get above 40.

    I don't think Clinton has this thing locked, but I do think that on Election Day, a lot of Trump supporters will be feeling like Pauline Kael, in that there is a Silent Majority in America, but it's not Nixon's Silent Majority, but a new Silent Majority of white collar secular social liberals + minorities.

    Panicked Panglosses, July 22, 2016 at 9:10 pm
    Love it. Having helped turn the country into a moral cesspool, an economic basketcase, and a frothing-at-the-mouth interventionist Goliath fighting and killing in multiple countries for over a decade now, the New York Times has the nerve to chide Trump for his "dark vision"!!!!

    We're not supposed to know that things are so screwed up, you see. The Emperor is fully clothed and all's right in this, the best of all possible worlds.

    If the NYT people and other elites didn't want to be treated with contempt they shouldn't have behaved contemptibly. If they feel revulsion at Trump's "dark vision", they shouldn't have so darkened the world.

    [NFR: No Trump fan here, as you know, but boy, do you ever have a point here. When I read the Times site most days, and see the things they consider signs of progress, I feel us sinking further into the mire. - RD]

    tz, July 22, 2016 at 9:13 pm
    The polls said 56% were more likely to vote for him and 75% liked the speech.

    This is the second article that shows even AmConMag's authors are out of touch with the base.

    We aren't looking for elites, or their high-church criticism. What you heard only maybe 5% would see and agree with.

    Do you also similarly rate the problem with the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader cheers that they might not be perfect grammar or might not be properly making the point?

    fenster, July 22, 2016 at 9:53 pm
    Who wins political debates is not a matter of the Oxford style. It is a question of who advances his candidacy.

    The question of the quality of Trump's speech is not a question of whether you think it went on too long, wasn't as crisp as the written version, or that he yelled. It is a question of whether it advanced his candidacy.

    From the numbers I have seen that seems to be the case. Rhetoric is, brutally, a function of accomplishing aims.

    relstprof, July 23, 2016 at 1:20 am
    Edward Hamilton writes: "But if Trump has even a few percent of such voters hidden from current polling, and the current polls are otherwise accurate, I think that we might witness a unprecedented alliance of low-attention rural and young voters who combine to push Trump over the top."

    A couple rejoinders. By all accounts, Trump has no ground game or GoTV organization. So one would have to count on these disaffected youths finding the willpower to register and show up when they're needed without any help. A tall order. Trump's support so far has been non-first time voters, i.e. Republicans and some Democrats - his voters skew older.

    Then they need to show up in OH, VA, FL, and NV or NH. The national percentage points really don't matter in this case. They have to show up in these states like a tsunami (maybe WI and IA too, depending on how you do the swing-state math). The Democrats have viable machines in OH, VA, and FL. Another tall order, when Clinton's GoTV is swinging into action. What's the old saying? "In war, logistics is everything." The easier path for Trump at this stage is to try and convince registered Democrats to vote for him.

    But your description of this potential voting demographic is spot on, imho. This who they are.

    Outrider, July 23, 2016 at 4:10 am
    Hillary Clinton just had her worst week

    If history is any guide, Mrs. Clinton's "worst week" is always before her. She can't help it, and those around her can't fix it, because it's who she is.

    Pity poor Kaine, who seemed like a nice enough guy, soon to bear the Clinton taint – and already a source of anger and division as Clinton consolidates her stranglehold on the party by smashing the youthful, hopeful Sanders people.

    Elijah, July 23, 2016 at 7:49 am
    "They want their buttons pushed and he did that very very well."

    Absolutely. And the talking heads saying "things aren't that bad", "crime is down", "the economy is recovering" just don't get it. Those things may even be true in a national sense, but they are not felt on a local level.

    FWIW in evangelical country, Trump isn't the first choice of most. But faced with the known entity that is Hillary, and her toxic identity politics, I think a lot of them are prepared to take a flier with Trump.

    Camille Paglia made the best argument against Hillary: she's incompetent. She couldn't even stave off an FBI investigation into her emails; she's lucky that AG Lynch was in the bag.

    JLF, July 23, 2016 at 10:19 am
    In reading (and rereading) the comments above, I think i've begun to understand Karl Rove's point back in 2004 when he famously claimed that Republicans have no need for reality; they create their own reality and the world must adjust to it. This election underscores his point and makes the further point that Democrats are no less wedded to their reality.

    That one is more in sync with "real reality" – whatever that means in an age when half the population dismisses scientific evidence, scorns the lessons history teaches (if they are even aware of history's lessons) and fervently thinks the lack of will alone is the cause of the ruin they see – will probably determine how effective the administration that takes office in January will become. I never thought Trump would get this far, and though I have always had low expectations of my fellow voters, I have become increasingly discouraged by their proud lack of information, let alone knowledge, and their attraction to the "strong man" form of leadership, a form of leadership that has caused ruin for Germany and Italy in the last century, not to mention South American dictatorships of the right and left then and now.

    vj, July 23, 2016 at 11:13 am
    Trump's speech was ideal in tone and perfect in the amount of impromptu additions he made on the spot, which enlivened the speech and made it a living, breathing, passionate presentation instead of merely a typically stilted prepared speech that never digresses at all but sticks slavishly to a text. The speech cohered extremely well–for those able to follow Trump's train of thought, which is unusually Mercurial and thus requires more mental vitality, flexibility and integrated thinking than Mr. Dreher is accustomed to practicing.
    dan, July 23, 2016 at 6:46 pm
    "And yet, Trump is getting 0% (yes 0) of the black vote."

    Not to say Trump is the answer, but for some reason blacks keep voting near 100 percent for politicians who have a vested interest in their failure.

    I think the window is open for Trump to make the hardest play a Republican has made for black votes in a long time. No establishment candidate can make a serious or remotely compelling case to have any interest in Black America at this point. His school choice idea is very compelling to black Americans whose children are generally stuck in failing schools. He seems to be the only candidate who recognizes the astronomical murder rates in urban centers.

    As I said, the trick is doing this while being the "law and order" candidate. How does one do that given what "law and order" means to so many blacks. He might be able to temper that by taking a libertarian page out of Rand Paul's book and talking about silly laws and discriminatory sentencing. He could weigh in on cases like Eric Garner (stupid law led to his death)…find ways to be legitimately critical of how the system is anti-black in its practical results. Most whites, even conservative whites, would be receptive to this if its not wrapped up in the brainwash PC lingo of "anti-discrimination" and BLM. Let's be honest, those are political organizations which (their leadership) LOVE to see a black man get killed by a white man, because it serves their cause.

    Does Trump care about black kids in urban areas? Can he communicate it? Does he have the courage to communicate it? If so he has an opportunity. The footage of black mothers whose children didn't get selected at the charter school lotteries are POWERFUL and HEART RENDING. Can Trump deliver the message of tragedy affecting black youth with the passion of Chief Flynn?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7MAO7McNKE
    (go to about 1:15)

    Trump should HAMMER on this point until November. It should be his primary issue. It would go a long way toward breaking the accusation that he is running an identity politics campaign and I think he could make a meaningful dent in the black vote.

    bharper, July 22, 2016 at 3:11 pm
    I watched the speech with my college-age grand-daughter. She was so enthused at times that she jumped up and clapped. She said, "He talks to ordinary people with respect."

    I thought the speech was effective, but too long. His shouting didn't bother me. It shows that he is not a politician. The speech was tailored to his style- short declarative sentences. I think it helped him.

    Roger II, July 22, 2016 at 3:36 pm
    The Washington Post posted the speech as given, with Trump's ad-libs in bold. There weren't that many of them. The speech he gave was probably 90% identical to the speech as written. Many of the ad-libs were just adding things like "really" to the end of a sentence. He did add a whole paragraph about NATO.

    [NFR: I wonder if Trump's inability to deliver a speech with any kind of rhythm and cadence and direction made it seem far more scattered than it appeared on paper. - RD]

    K. W. Jeter, July 22, 2016 at 3:49 pm
    Per MikeCLT:

    Although it may be a sad commentary on the US population if patriotism and primary loyalty to one's countrymen is now considered a white thing.

    That "primary loyalty to one's countrymen" is the sin described as nativism , which anti-white SJW types have determined to be one of the particular evils of white people. In that sense, the SJW's and white identitarians such as Elrond are in agreement that it is indeed a "white thing." Except that Elrond - and perhaps you and others - don't consider it evil.

    Darth Thulhu, July 22, 2016 at 5:41 pm
    Rod wrote:

    after last night, watching him screw up the most important speech of his life with his inability to stay focused, I am much less confident in his ability to make the sale to the American people

    You sincerely asked, in another thread, how someone could possibly call you a "cultural liberal" even if you were a theological conservative and a social conservative.

    Re-read the italicized sentence above, because that is how someone can call you a painfully-unself-aware "cultural liberal".

    You (incorrectly) assume, even after Trump has thoroughly annihilated all of your prior expectations, that you just obviously know "what makes a good political speech" better than Trump does. Thus, you blithely assert the Self-Evident Truth that Trump clearly screwed his speech up.

    1. No, you don't know better.
    2. Trump did not screw his speech up.
    3. Trump getting your hackles to rise and your knee to jerk and your mouth to open to reflexively slam him for "doing it wrong" is part of the point
    4. You are (once again) doing Trump's bidding by giving him yet more free publicity to (incorrectly) lecture the world on how he "obviously did it wrong". He simply could not pay you to write more effective press for him.
    5. You reflexively write "cultural elite" prose against Trump for free, but not only does Trump not care about your critique … he privately basks and gloriously wallows in it. Just as much as Trump revelled in National Review's self-immolating condemnation of his campaign in February, he invites any and all merely-procedural sneering about his convention today.
    6. Trump simply does not care, in the least, if he gets 90% covered in excrement, so long as his detractors get covered 95+%. If he is slightly, barely less-caked-in-filth at the finish line, he wins, and that is the only thing that matters to him. It is simply never a "mistake" for Trump to make speech choices that cake him in yet more filth, so long as he causes even more filth to adhere to his only real opponent … especially if his "mistakes" cause cultural elites like you to give him even-more-mountains of free publicity poring over those "mistakes".

    Once again: "Why doubt that Trump can make a Mexico that loathes Trump pay for Trump's wall? Every week, Trump makes a media that loathes Trump pay for Trump's campaign."

    [NFR: Um, what? If expecting rhetorical coherence makes one a cultural liberal, then there's no difference between Alan Alda and William F. Buckley. - RD]

    Ralph, July 22, 2016 at 5:47 pm
    I find myself wondering if we are in the shallows before the Trump Tsunami crashes ashore. I just returned from visiting my sister and brother-in-law, who live in a red Southern state. They are fairly affluent, and both work hard for it. They are incredibly generous with their resources, not merely when it comes to their three children (all in their twenties now), in whom they have tried to instill a traditional work ethic and Christian virtue, but with all manner of friends and acquaintances. They open their home to friends and travelers, take meals to cancer strugglers, and have a strong sense of goodness. And they are silent supporters of Donald J. Trump. Not too silent, as I found out while we watched and talked about the RNC this past week! Although they certainly know who they can and can not discuss him in front of. Not worth the static and trauma of bringing Trump's name up in front of their liberal friends. They are decidedly not from Appalachia, they are the "silent majority," and I think the RNC this past week, and the many speeches, especially Trump's, have "sealed the deal." I suspect there are many like them.
    DG, July 22, 2016 at 5:49 pm
    Although I hate this word, I can't think of a better one to use here: Trump gave this speech with a good dose of "swagger", as if he was riding on a wave of realization that, "Holy sh!t, I can win this!" Admittedly, I'm still on the fence as to whether or not I can vote for him.

    I liked that he called HC out on her ineptitude and transgressions and hope that he continues to do so to keep her on the defensive. If you happen to think Trump's screaming delivery was bad (I did but as a fellow native NYer, I get it) just wait until we are subjected to the screeching, robotic monotone of Broom Hilda next week.

    Chris Atwood, July 22, 2016 at 6:34 pm
    I'm also surprised that no one has mentioned Matthew Sheffield's very sharp analysis elsewhere on TAC. The key point is, Trump held fast to all the points on which he disagrees with the previous GOP consensus–and got the audience to cheer along with his "heresies."

    He is running as an anti-free trade, anti-immigration, anti-foreign intervention, non-social-issue-conservative–and getting the Pence-style conservatives to go along with it. Movement conservatism is dead–Ted Cruz is "rotting-flesh Reaganism" in Rusty Reno's hideously accurate phrase. If it wasn't for the fact that Trump is the messenger, this would be a very good message.

    Elrond, July 22, 2016 at 7:13 pm
    Regarding the vile Hillary Clinton's ethics and "temperament": https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4u367e/wikileaks_release_19252_from_the_dnc_start/d5mflj8

    [Jul 24, 2016] Check Your Amnesia, Dude On the Vox Generation of Punditry (Updated) - Crooked Timber

    Notable quotes:
    "... When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don't think we are a very good messenger. ..."
    "... Trump is just saying true things that we are not supposed to say outloud, like no one takes the American gov. talk on human rights seriously anymore, and no one, no one is going to start a nuclear war over Latvia. That's why people are only denying what trump said in the most general terms, rather than saying directly that we'd go to war with Russia over Lativa, because we're not going to. ..."
    "... "We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons - including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. … His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons-including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox." (presentation to Congress) ..."
    "... The point being, as irresponsible foreign policy statements go, this (one hopes) will be the standard by which political actors -actual or aspirational- will be judged for quite sometime. ..."
    "... Reagan and Thatcher's warmongering was so terrifying for much of the world it reinvented the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament which had once been seen to be decisively defeated by the Labour right. They held unprecedented rallies and even had the organising power to great the Glastonbury Festival as we know it. ..."
    "... Reagan's belligerence could have easily triggered a nuclear war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident ..."
    "... Whenever I hear this kind of stuff-with all the faux-seriousness and operatic gnashing of teeth, the pompous heavy breathing, the weird identification with America's global mission (as Tim Barker mused on Twitter, does Bouie seriously think the "end of US hegemony would be more dangerous than nuking a small post colonial state?")-I wonder, whom are they performing for? Each other? Themselves? Political elites? ..."
    "... It's about time we recognize the triumph of liberalism/neoliberalism in America, past hegemony into dominance. ..."
    "... liberal imperialism is gonna kill a lot of people. Again. ..."
    "... Bob @33 yep. enter Hillary http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/democrats-will-learn-all-the-wrong-lessons-from-brush-with-bernie-20160609 ..."
    "... So none of this is about NATO or about whether Trump really said something scary. Asteele is right, of course, and no one is going to start a nuclear war over Latvia, but Trump being Trump I'd say that he told the truth in this case by accident. But if Trump gains in the polls and starts to win, all of these pundits will reverse themselves. By the end of the campaign, they'll be saying how great it is to have a straight talker in the White House. The truth, much less historical comparisons about the truth, is irrelevant. ..."
    "... Voila: the Donald wins, the US imperialism defeated, the world saved. I'll give it a 40% chance… Otherwise, we're all dead within the next 4 years… ..."
    "... By what possible criteria could he be considered worse than the psychos, narcissists, nutjobs, crooks and lunatics that the Americans have been in the habit of voting in as their President since about 1960? Look at JFK (subsequently canonised) and his wild and reckless decision to literally bring the world close to nuclear Armageddon because of his unilateral decree that the sovereign state of Cuba was not to be allowed nuclear weapons (imagine how we would feel about Castro if he unilaterally decreed that the United States was 'not to be allowed' nuclear weapons, had invaded the United States to overthrow its legal government, and then blockaded the US for over 50 years to protest against the US' many human rights violations, as well as attempting to assassinate all of its leaders. But when the US does the same to Cuba, we all think its perfectly reasonable). ..."
    "... The TV series 'Altered Statesmen', which is worth checking out, posited that Kennedy was a drug addict (amphetamines) and that this contributed to his reckless behaviour over Cuba. ..."
    "... Then we have Barack Obama, and it has to be said, compared to the others, he looks good. He is, as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, a perfectly competent and sane imperial administrator. His policies in no way deviate from the main contours of American foreign policy as they have existed since about 1949 and in no way from American domestic foreign policy since 1981. He is no better, morally, than his predecessors, but he is less nuts. But he is unequivocally the best (except maybe Lyndon Johnson in terms only of his domestic policy), and he ain't that great. ..."
    "... There are good reasons to loathe Trump. But the liberal commentariat go out of their way to find bad reasons. The objective fact is we heard harder and more aggressive arguments against the invasion of Iraq in the Republican debates than we heard in the Democrats' debates (and that includes Sanders). In his last speech, Trump went out of his way to condemn Hilary/Obama's annihilation of Libya. It is not clear what Trump would do vis a vis Syria, but he is right to point out that Syria is now a disaster area and that Obama/Clinton share some of the blame. Trump condemned TPP: will Hilary? ..."
    "... Those who argue that they can see Trump causing world war 3 are right, but surely one can also imagine Hilary Clinton causing it? She is a hawk: indeed, far more of a hawk than Obama. ..."
    "... Trump attacks Nato (an organization which, as has been said, exists to solve the problems caused by its own existence). Good. So what's the big deal? It is hard not to see a connection between this hysteria over Trump, and the concurrent hysteria the liberal commentariate are having in the UK over Corbyn. And in both cases, denial of the obvious: the neo-liberal consensus as we have known it since 1979 (1981 in the US) is breaking down. What replaces it might be worse. But it is definitely breaking down, and Clinton's attempts to piece it together again will not work. ..."
    "... "The rally was because of the recent economic crisis that struck Latvia in 2009 and made more than almost 70% of the Latvian population either poor or unemployed." ..."
    "... Trump is only saying what Patrick Buchanan has been saying for years. And the latter was a Presidential candidate, though not a real contender. ..."
    "... The real effect will be further down the line, in 10 years. Now that someone has put the Buchananite end-the-Empire stuff into the mainstream, it will be taken up and brought forward by serious people. ..."
    "... 30 years ago nobody thought the UK's membership of the EEC (as was) was ever going to be put in question again. Nobody really thought that 20 years ago either. But 10 years ago it was a distant possibility, and then it all slides away in the final few years and months. ..."
    "... Those people believed we could win a nuclear war. I think there are people in the State Department today who believe that we can fight a war with Russia without having it quickly turn into a nuclear war. ..."
    "... I am scared because I think Hillary believes the (a) Russia will not resist an invasion by NATO land forces AND that they will not launch their missiles before they are overwhelmed. This really, really scares me. Honest to Dog, they were thinking in terms of a dozen of our cities being obliterated, maybe eight or ten million casualties, heck, just a flesh wound. I don't have the references to the Field Manuals, but it was official, settled doctrine in the Department of Defense that is was possible to fight and win a nuclear war, and the people who claimed the Russian General Staff were lunatics for thinking so were fringe elements at best. ..."
    "... Truman – nuclear weapons and invasion of Korea 1950. Kennedy – Bay of Pigs – numerous assassinations/support for dictators across the globe. Johnson – massive escalation of US troops in Viet Nam. Staunch cold warrior. ..."
    "... The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction provided the 'stability' during the cold war. Is there a crazier notion than 'we can win' a full-scale nuclear conflagration? That's what passed for normal from 1945 to 1992, more or less. Both the US and Russia deserve credit for stepping back from that brink. ..."
    "... The fiction that Democrats are somehow more humane and caring than the rest of the planet is very much open to question. Indeed, the historical record offers plenty of evidence to the contrary, at least as damning as HRC's giddy recollections of killing Libyans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y ..."
    "... I don't expect HRC to attack Russia for the same reason that I don't expect Russia to attack Europe: MAD is still in effect. I don't think that people are really that crazy. That said, NATO pledging full defense of small countries on Russia's border is inherently destabilizing and leads to stances like Daragh's at @85, in which we have to make crystal clear that we are promising to do something that it would be insane to do, and the crystal clearness of this insane promise is the best guarantee of stability. ..."
    "... Indeed, I was referring to Clinton's foreign and military policies. By the standards of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, which seem reasonable to me, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war crime, and those who supported it in a significant way, such as being in the U.S. Senate and voting for it, being accomplices, are war criminals. Clinton's excuse is that she was fed bad intelligence, but I don't believe she is that stupid or incompetent. Absent a war-crimes trial, we must guess, but my guess is that she calculated that if the war turned out badly, it would be Bush's war, and if it turned out well (politically, I mean) she would have been in on it. That is, she voted for the violent or deaths or other serious harm of several hundred thousand innocent people in order to secure a political advantage. In my view this makes her a war criminal and I won't vote for or otherwise support such a person. Her subsequent career seems to confirm my guess. Insofar as she shows emotion about slaughter, she seems to enjoy it, as witness her crowing about Qaddafi. ..."
    "... In regard to Ukraine, my take on what happened there was that the existing situation, in which Ukraine was a more or less neutral state, tolerated by its neighbors, was unsatisfactory to some important people in the US. As long as Ukraine followed more or less democratic forms, the large Russian population there would tend to keep it neutral, so a violent coup against the elected government was fomented, obviating that problem. I'd guess the targets of the exercise were the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, and the chance of putting NATO forces and weapons next to southern Russia. Putin's response was to play black: he took just what he needed, to wit, a couple of eastern provinces and Crimea, and left the rest. A gangster, no doubt, but a rational one. I don't see this sequence of events as relating strongly to the Baltic states. I suppose if NATO built huge bases there it might make the Russians nervous, but to my knowledge that isn't planned. God knows, though - people could be that stupid, I suppose, considering the pair the major parties have presented us with. ..."
    "... The thing is, there's absolutely nothing terrifying about Trump. In fact, he's a quintessential American hero; and not just that: he's a quintessential non-violent American hero, unlike, say, Bonnie and Clyde. Has always been, for as long as I remember. In fact, stating that Trump is terrifying is outright unAmerican and treasonous. ..."
    "... What nonsense. There is no 'Russian expansionism'. South Ossetia is begging to be accepted – the RF won't take it. Similar story with Donetsk and Lugansk, whom Putin personally asked in 2014 NOT to hold the referendum for independence. And these are regions that really-really want to join the RF; what the hell would they do with the Baltic republics, where most people don't even want it? This is simply a whole 100% imaginary issue; you people are completely brainwashed… ..."
    "... The neocon in a dress who supported the Iraq debacle and enjoyed it so much that she played a key role in American regime change in Libya, and still wants kill more brown people through more violent regime change in Syria is far and away the safer, saner candidate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y ..."
    crookedtimber.org
    Last night, Donald Trump shocked the world, or at least the pundit class, when the New York Times published a wide-ranging interview Trump had given the paper on the subject of foreign policy.

    ... ... ...

    But he also said some things that were true. Like this:

    When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don't think we are a very good messenger.
    And while the article makes a muchness of Trump's refusal to pressure Turkey over its response to the failed coup, the fact is that Obama hasn't done anything concrete on that score either (as the article acknowledges). Nor did Obama do much about the coup in Egypt or Honduras. To the contrary, in fact.

    But that wasn't the focus of last night's chatter on Twitter. Instead, the pundits and experts were keen to establish the absolutely unprecedented nature of Trump's irresponsibility: his recklessness when it came to NATO , his adventurism, his sheer reveling in being the Bad Boy of US Foreign Policy: this, it was agreed, was new.

    In a tweet that got passed around by a lot of journalists, Peter Singer, senior fellow at the New America Foundation (who's written a lot of books on US foreign policy), had this to say:

    It is the most irresponsible foreign policy statement by a presidential nominee of any party in my lifetime. https://t.co/V3C6nbp5wu


    - Peter W. Singer (@peterwsinger) July 21, 2016
    Hmm, let's see. [click to continue…]

    P O'Neill 07.21.16 at 8:03 pm

    It's been a weird couple of months. Not so long ago, this rising generation of pundits were in agreement that there was a dinosaur foreign policy blob in fancy buildings between Dupont Circle and K Street whose first instinct was to drag the USA into unwinnable wars. Yet the Blob and the New Pundits are in complete agreement that (1) the main problem in Turkey is Mt Erdogan and (2) Trump is unprecedented. Just one among many examples: this tweet, which relies on unnamed NATO foreign minister using apocalyptic language that this same group would ridicule in other contexts. From all Trump's awfulness, is his reticence about a Baltic war the worst thing?

    Asteele 07.21.16 at 8:28 pm

    Trump is just saying true things that we are not supposed to say outloud, like no one takes the American gov. talk on human rights seriously anymore, and no one, no one is going to start a nuclear war over Latvia. That's why people are only denying what trump said in the most general terms, rather than saying directly that we'd go to war with Russia over Lativa, because we're not going to.

    b9n10nt 07.21.16 at 8:44 pm

    09/18/2002, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense (before Congress)

    "We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons - including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. … His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons-including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox." (presentation to Congress)

    The point being, as irresponsible foreign policy statements go, this (one hopes) will be the standard by which political actors -actual or aspirational- will be judged for quite sometime.

    Placeholder 07.21.16 at 9:28 pm

    Reagan and Thatcher's warmongering was so terrifying for much of the world it reinvented the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament which had once been seen to be decisively defeated by the Labour right. They held unprecedented rallies and even had the organising power to great the Glastonbury Festival as we know it.

    The New Zealand Labour party swept back to power in the 1980s when they promised that its territory will never be used for production, storage and transmission of nuclear material. When the US just wouldn't tell them if their subs had nukes on them they simply banned them. To this day the policy has made New Zealand a nuclear-free territory.

    Really though Trump is just saying what Europeans, the craven complicity of the warmongering media bosses aside, actually believe so…. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33072093

    PS Turkey is suspending its membership of the ECHR, or as I phrase it OUTRAGE AS MIDDLE EASTERN DICTATOR DOES THING THERESA MAY HAS ALWAYS SAID SHE'LL DO

    Donald Johnson 07.21.16 at 10:57 pm

    Reagan's belligerence could have easily triggered a nuclear war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident

    Yes, it's Wikipedia, but I've read similar things elsewhere. I didn't realize there were people who would still defend the rhetoric of fighting and winning a nuclear war.

    max 07.21.16 at 11:47 pm

    I'll admit that I find it hard to take this ahistorical high dudgeon of the pundit class seriously.

    ZOMG yes!

    Whenever I hear this kind of stuff-with all the faux-seriousness and operatic gnashing of teeth, the pompous heavy breathing, the weird identification with America's global mission (as Tim Barker mused on Twitter, does Bouie seriously think the "end of US hegemony would be more dangerous than nuking a small post colonial state?")-I wonder, whom are they performing for? Each other? Themselves? Political elites?

    Quite. Also endorse entire post. I would also point out that Kevin Drum kicked off some of the hyperventilating and he ought to know better. (But then he's from Orange county, center of some seriously intense Cold War hatred of the Russians.)

    heckblazer 07.21.16 at 11:56 pm

    If Trump is right when he said "When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don't think we are a very good messenger," it's by complete accident given his reasoning. What he said right before that in the interview was:

    "We have tremendous problems when we have policemen being shot in the streets, when you have riots, when you have Ferguson. When you have Baltimore. When you have all of the things that are happening in this country – we have other problems and I think we have to focus on those problems."

    He doesn't think police shootings delegitimize American criticisms of Edrogan, he thinks protests against police shootings delegitimize American criticisms of Edrogan.

    Anarcissie 07.21.16 at 11:59 pm

    In regard to the 'Which one is worse?' conversation, which I've been seeing a lot of lately, some have pointed out that Trump hasn't actually gotten anyone killed - yet - either as a principal actor or as an accomplice.

    I was unaware, as implied in #1, that Russia had been bothering the Baltic States. The only thing I have seen about them in the news in the last few years was that the US was 'bolstering' its military presence there, absent any mentioned provocation. This seemed to comprise the addition of a few thousand troops, hardly much of a counterweight to the Russian army. I figured, after having failed with Georgia/Abkhazia/Ossetia, Ukraine/Crimea, and Syria, the US had to do something to show Putin a thing or two. What's up?

    bob mcmanus 07.22.16 at 12:21 am

    It's about time we recognize the triumph of liberalism/neoliberalism in America, past hegemony into dominance. And ahistorical moralism, with a side order of apocalyptic and missionary imperialism, is what the petty bourgeois do, and Vox, Bouie, and the feminists at Slate and Jezebel are just parts of the latest iteration. It shouldn't be that hard to recognize Comstock and Carrie Nation and John Harvey Kellogg under the bicycle helmets and tattoos.

    Trump's gonna get smashed. Same relevance and interest as maybe WJ Bryan or Henry Wallace. End of an era. But this is not good news, cause liberal imperialism is gonna kill a lot of people. Again.

    T 07.22.16 at 12:47 am

    Bob @33
    yep.
    enter Hillary
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/democrats-will-learn-all-the-wrong-lessons-from-brush-with-bernie-20160609

    Rich Puchalsky 07.22.16 at 1:14 am

    I seriously take issue with this post. I don't think the attitude of the press has anything to do with amnesia or lack of historical knowledge. It's just that it's cool right now for them to be against Trump. If it were cool to be for Trump, they'd reverse positions in a dime.

    Let's look at the microcosm of CT threads for an example. When Trump started getting popular, some people here wrote the same kinds of things in reference to his statements about protestors - had any Presidential candidate asked so barbarously towards protest? So I thought for less than a minute and came up with a couple of examples from both the Bush and Obama administrations of protestors being arrested for wearing the wrong T-shirt, of laws being made to make it even easier to arrest people, of cops brutalizing protesters much more severely than (to my knowledge) any anti-Trump protestor has been brutalized without any official reaction, and so on. People didn't have amnesia about all of this: it happened within the last decade.

    And they didn't care, because they weren't really interested in historical comparisons, much less an abstract right to protest. It was all about whether it was being done by their side or the other side. I got treated to a long explanation of why Obama needed to crack down on protestors because someone somewhere was scary.

    So none of this is about NATO or about whether Trump really said something scary. Asteele is right, of course, and no one is going to start a nuclear war over Latvia, but Trump being Trump I'd say that he told the truth in this case by accident. But if Trump gains in the polls and starts to win, all of these pundits will reverse themselves. By the end of the campaign, they'll be saying how great it is to have a straight talker in the White House. The truth, much less historical comparisons about the truth, is irrelevant.

    Donald Johnson 07.22.16 at 4:28 am

    I thought it was sort of a truism that politics attracts sociopaths. You can google it and find articles like this–

    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-startling-accuracy-of-referring-to-politicians-as-psychopaths/260517/#

    Trump seems like an exceptionally inept sociopath– what is horrifying about him is that millions find his openly and unashamedly narcisstic personality attractive. Politicians usually try to fake humility, but Trump can't be bothered and for whatever reason this seems to be working for him.

    Ze K 07.22.16 at 6:27 am

    "Trump's gonna get smashed."

    Well, here's my hopeful scenario, two parts:

    1. no one bothers coming to vote for Hillary, because no one likes her. This much is obvious, but also:
    2. no one bothers coming to vote against Trump, because he can't win anyway.

    Voila: the Donald wins, the US imperialism defeated, the world saved. I'll give it a 40% chance… Otherwise, we're all dead within the next 4 years…

    Hidari 07.22.16 at 6:44 am

    Looking at it from outside, I simply don't understand all this horror and hatred of Trump. Perhaps we should create (or adapt) a new phrase for it. 'Trump-Derangement-Syndrome' a mental disease (like so many other similar mental illnesses) disproportionately suffered by white middle class males who have well-paid positions in the corporate media.

    Now: don't get me wrong: Trump is awful. He is probably (morally) a bad person, although I've never met him so what would I know. It is possible that he is a 'sociopath' although that phrase tends to have a somewhat elastic meaning in 'liberal' political discourse.

    But there are a number of points to be made here.

    1: By what possible criteria could he be considered worse than the psychos, narcissists, nutjobs, crooks and lunatics that the Americans have been in the habit of voting in as their President since about 1960? Look at JFK (subsequently canonised) and his wild and reckless decision to literally bring the world close to nuclear Armageddon because of his unilateral decree that the sovereign state of Cuba was not to be allowed nuclear weapons (imagine how we would feel about Castro if he unilaterally decreed that the United States was 'not to be allowed' nuclear weapons, had invaded the United States to overthrow its legal government, and then blockaded the US for over 50 years to protest against the US' many human rights violations, as well as attempting to assassinate all of its leaders. But when the US does the same to Cuba, we all think its perfectly reasonable).

    The TV series 'Altered Statesmen', which is worth checking out, posited that Kennedy was a drug addict (amphetamines) and that this contributed to his reckless behaviour over Cuba.

    Then we had Lyndon Johnson, who, although his domestic policies were good (better than Kennedy's), invaded Vietnam, and was relatively keen to start a nuclear war over Vietnamese resistance to his belligerence.

    Then we had Nixon. 'Nuff said.

    Then we had Carter, like all of them, a believer in a sky God who doesn't exist, who brought religious fundamentalism to the White House (thanks Jimmy!) and who was also a a believer in UFOs.

    Then Ronald Reagan. Where to start? A man who (apparently) had Alzheimer's Disease for much of his second term (although the liberal commentariat helped to deceive the American public about this). The times of whose meetings were planned (apparently) by an astrologer. A man who openly hoped for an alien invasion to unite the 'peoples of Earth'.

    Then we had Slick Willie, who, although nominally sane, has at least the same aura of sleaze about him as Trump does.

    Then George Bush, the first real, 'hardcore' religious fundamentalist in the White House, a religious extremist who apparently invaded Iraq (amongst other reasons) because of the Biblical prophecies of Gog and Magog.

    Then we have Barack Obama, and it has to be said, compared to the others, he looks good. He is, as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, a perfectly competent and sane imperial administrator. His policies in no way deviate from the main contours of American foreign policy as they have existed since about 1949 and in no way from American domestic foreign policy since 1981. He is no better, morally, than his predecessors, but he is less nuts. But he is unequivocally the best (except maybe Lyndon Johnson in terms only of his domestic policy), and he ain't that great.

    2; By what possible criteria is Trump worse than the other Republican candidates?

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/eliot-weinberger/they-could-have-picked

    3: There are good reasons to loathe Trump. But the liberal commentariat go out of their way to find bad reasons. The objective fact is we heard harder and more aggressive arguments against the invasion of Iraq in the Republican debates than we heard in the Democrats' debates (and that includes Sanders). In his last speech, Trump went out of his way to condemn Hilary/Obama's annihilation of Libya. It is not clear what Trump would do vis a vis Syria, but he is right to point out that Syria is now a disaster area and that Obama/Clinton share some of the blame. Trump condemned TPP: will Hilary?

    Those who argue that they can see Trump causing world war 3 are right, but surely one can also imagine Hilary Clinton causing it? She is a hawk: indeed, far more of a hawk than Obama.

    Trump attacks Nato (an organization which, as has been said, exists to solve the problems caused by its own existence). Good. So what's the big deal? It is hard not to see a connection between this hysteria over Trump, and the concurrent hysteria the liberal commentariate are having in the UK over Corbyn. And in both cases, denial of the obvious: the neo-liberal consensus as we have known it since 1979 (1981 in the US) is breaking down. What replaces it might be worse. But it is definitely breaking down, and Clinton's attempts to piece it together again will not work.

    53

    Ze K 07.22.16 at 7:42 am

    "Gosh, do you think that people in other countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union (and didn't like it) might be a little nervous?"

    Yes, most people in the Baltic republics definitely are a little nervous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Riga_riot
    "The rally was because of the recent economic crisis that struck Latvia in 2009 and made more than almost 70% of the Latvian population either poor or unemployed."

    Should, next time, large majorities there demand quitting the EU and NATO, and integrating (or, god forbid, joining) with the Russian Federation, German troops being deployed there will certainly come handy: they know the terrain…

    Alex K--- 07.22.16 at 8:47 am

    If they are well-read in history and good at querying JStor, why are they ignorant of relevant facts from the recent US past? Perhaps it takes too much time and effort to check broad assertions such as "it has never happened before" even if one has access to all the research databases in the world? If it's true, and the columnist does not have the background in history to come up with instant counterexamples, "ask an expert" seems to be the only sensible approach left unless the writer is willing to compromise his integrity to make his dubious point.

    Trump's suggestion that US protection for NATO members be conditioned on those members' fulfilling unspecified obligations towards "us" (the US?) did sound like something completely new coming from a US presidential candidate. That NATO members are free-riding on the American military buildup and should be made to pay up is an old hobby horse of Trump's. But suggesting the US should or might renege on its treaty obligations is a novelty.

    No, I don't think Putin is going to invade Latvia – he has learned his lesson in Eastern Ukraine. However, Russia might still be able to pull Latvia to its side in the big game. If Trump's view prevailed in DC, Latvian voters would start asking themselves, "Why do we need NATO if they won't protect us? Why do we need the EU if they're out to flood us with refugees?"

    On the other hand, Trump's unpredictability might give him an advantage against Putin.

    60

    bruce wilder 07.22.16 at 9:17 am

    The thing is, the U.S. shouldn't be offering security guarantees to countries on Russia's doorstep. The U.S. is overextended and some scheme of multilateral arrangements, suitable to a multipolar world ought to be on the agenda.

    There is an out-of-the-mouth-of-babes quality lurking in Trump's stream of consciousness, as the OP points out. Of course you can always question the context (and in his disjointed ramblings that can be hard to pin down) and everything he says is quickly contradicted, but he isn't the one trapped by conventional nonsense. He has his own nonsense.

    61

    J-D 07.22.16 at 9:29 am

    Ze K 07.22.16 at 7:42 am

    Should, next time, large majorities there demand quitting the EU and NATO, and integrating (or, god forbid, joining) with the Russian Federation, German troops being deployed there will certainly come handy: they know the terrain…

    If large majorities in Latvia (or any of the Baltic states) demand quitting the EU and NATO and integrating or joining with the Russian Federation, pinch yourself and wake up.

    63

    casmilus 07.22.16 at 9:36 am

    Trump is only saying what Patrick Buchanan has been saying for years. And the latter was a Presidential candidate, though not a real contender.

    The real effect will be further down the line, in 10 years. Now that someone has put the Buchananite end-the-Empire stuff into the mainstream, it will be taken up and brought forward by serious people.

    30 years ago nobody thought the UK's membership of the EEC (as was) was ever going to be put in question again. Nobody really thought that 20 years ago either. But 10 years ago it was a distant possibility, and then it all slides away in the final few years and months.

    64

    Ze K 07.22.16 at 10:15 am

    "pinch yourself and wake up"

    Why, because some anglophone commenter from down-under can't believe it's possible? Tsk. Oh well, thanks for your suggestion, and rest assured that it'll get all the attention it deserves…

    casmilus 07.22.16 at 11:45 am

    @68

    The First Czechoslovak Republic had lots of treaties and allies, until it needed them.

    Procopius 07.22.16 at 1:12 pm

    Reading the comments, I find myself wondering when these people were born. I especially was baffled by Daragh at #1. You are wrong. The official, and widely publicised, policy of the United States government and its Department of Defense was that it was perfectly possible to win a nuclear war. True, we might take as many as 80 million immediate casualties, with many more to die from radiation and fallout later, but we could survive. You betcha. Do you know who Curtis Le May was? I served in the Air Force from 1955 – 1959, and then in the Army from 1965 – 1982. I remember.

    Those people believed we could win a nuclear war. I think there are people in the State Department today who believe that we can fight a war with Russia without having it quickly turn into a nuclear war.

    I am scared because I think Hillary believes the (a) Russia will not resist an invasion by NATO land forces AND that they will not launch their missiles before they are overwhelmed. This really, really scares me. Honest to Dog, they were thinking in terms of a dozen of our cities being obliterated, maybe eight or ten million casualties, heck, just a flesh wound. I don't have the references to the Field Manuals, but it was official, settled doctrine in the Department of Defense that is was possible to fight and win a nuclear war, and the people who claimed the Russian General Staff were lunatics for thinking so were fringe elements at best.

    kidneystones 07.22.16 at 1:53 pm

    FDR allows 527 heavy bombers of the US Eighth Air Force to drop 1, 247 tons of high explosives on Dresden on January 14 and 15 of 1945 'fierce winds fueled the resulting fire-storm'. (Six Months in 1945, p. 97) That's after the Brits had already firebombed the civilian target on the night of February 13.

    FDR allows Curtis Le May to deploy new 'miracle' weapon' napalm against Japanese civilian targets in 60 Japanese cities. The March raid on Tokyo killed 100,000. FDR 'raised no objections when informed of incendiary attacks on Japan (Targeting Civilians in War, p. 132)

    Truman – nuclear weapons and invasion of Korea 1950.
    Kennedy – Bay of Pigs – numerous assassinations/support for dictators across the globe.
    Johnson – massive escalation of US troops in Viet Nam. Staunch cold warrior.

    A number of us served during the cold war. Procopius @ 78 is right.

    The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction provided the 'stability' during the cold war. Is there a crazier notion than 'we can win' a full-scale nuclear conflagration? That's what passed for normal from 1945 to 1992, more or less. Both the US and Russia deserve credit for stepping back from that brink.

    Partisan blinders prevent some from recognizing that war/torture/state terror/and meddling in the affairs of allies and enemies alike has long been part of the policies not just of both parties in the US, but of many governments around the globe, including that of the UK.

    The fiction that Democrats are somehow more humane and caring than the rest of the planet is very much open to question. Indeed, the historical record offers plenty of evidence to the contrary, at least as damning as HRC's giddy recollections of killing Libyans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

    Rich Puchalsky 07.22.16 at 2:05 pm

    I don't expect HRC to attack Russia for the same reason that I don't expect Russia to attack Europe: MAD is still in effect. I don't think that people are really that crazy. That said, NATO pledging full defense of small countries on Russia's border is inherently destabilizing and leads to stances like Daragh's at @85, in which we have to make crystal clear that we are promising to do something that it would be insane to do, and the crystal clearness of this insane promise is the best guarantee of stability.

    Ze K 07.22.16 at 2:20 pm

    "The fiction that Democrats are somehow more humane and caring than the rest of the planet is very much open to question. Indeed, the historical record offers plenty of evidence to the contrary…"

    Well, Democrats and Republicans are, of course the same thing, and the attraction of Trump is that he appears to be neither.

    But yes, it is true, although it's probably a mere coincidence, that the administrations led by Democratic presidents appear to be more dangerous, in terms of provoking a nuclear war. The Kennedy admin is, obviously, beyond the pale. The Clinton admin bombed Serbia, Russia's close ally, from high altitudes with no military purpose, killing thousands of people and hitting the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. The Pristina incident almost resulted in a direct armed confrontation. Obama's admin is responsible for the coup in Ukraine and its consequences, as well as the incredibly aggressive propaganda campaign, and all the recent escalations, all well-known. Compare this with Bush II admin's careful handling of the '08 crisis in Georgia and '01 incident with Chinese plane collision…

    Anarcissie 07.22.16 at 2:38 pm

    Howard Frant 07.22.16 at 7:05 am @ 54:

    'I have no idea what you're saying here. You've been seeing a lot of people asking whether Trump or Clinton is worse? Truly, is there no limit to the stupidity of the intellectual left?

    Most of my conversational parters, in Real Life or online, are not what I would call 'intellectuals' and many of them are not leftists in the bourgeois intellectual leftist sense. I read CT as I used to read the New York Review of Books, to find out what the bourgeoisie are up to. I hope my terms will be understood, but if not, it doesn't matter; I'm sure you get the general idea.

    Indeed, I was referring to Clinton's foreign and military policies. By the standards of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, which seem reasonable to me, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war crime, and those who supported it in a significant way, such as being in the U.S. Senate and voting for it, being accomplices, are war criminals. Clinton's excuse is that she was fed bad intelligence, but I don't believe she is that stupid or incompetent. Absent a war-crimes trial, we must guess, but my guess is that she calculated that if the war turned out badly, it would be Bush's war, and if it turned out well (politically, I mean) she would have been in on it. That is, she voted for the violent or deaths or other serious harm of several hundred thousand innocent people in order to secure a political advantage. In my view this makes her a war criminal and I won't vote for or otherwise support such a person. Her subsequent career seems to confirm my guess. Insofar as she shows emotion about slaughter, she seems to enjoy it, as witness her crowing about Qaddafi.

    'It's easy not to get anyone killed if you never spend any time in international politics. Very hard otherwise, either by commission or by omission.'

    Or, as Stalin is said to have said, 'If you kill one man, it's murder. If you kill a million men, it's a statistic.' I see that kind of thinking as a problem as well as a joke, and I'm not going to go along with it. How do you deal with it? Don't you find it somewhat problematical?

    In regard to Ukraine, my take on what happened there was that the existing situation, in which Ukraine was a more or less neutral state, tolerated by its neighbors, was unsatisfactory to some important people in the US. As long as Ukraine followed more or less democratic forms, the large Russian population there would tend to keep it neutral, so a violent coup against the elected government was fomented, obviating that problem. I'd guess the targets of the exercise were the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, and the chance of putting NATO forces and weapons next to southern Russia. Putin's response was to play black: he took just what he needed, to wit, a couple of eastern provinces and Crimea, and left the rest. A gangster, no doubt, but a rational one. I don't see this sequence of events as relating strongly to the Baltic states. I suppose if NATO built huge bases there it might make the Russians nervous, but to my knowledge that isn't planned. God knows, though - people could be that stupid, I suppose, considering the pair the major parties have presented us with.

    105

    Ze K 07.22.16 at 2:45 pm

    "I'm sorry you can't accept that the Ukrainians are a separate nation from the Russians"

    What's this all about? Are you replying to voices inside your head? In that case, you don't need to type your replies…

    Ze K 07.22.16 at 3:00 pm

    The thing is, there's absolutely nothing terrifying about Trump. In fact, he's a quintessential American hero; and not just that: he's a quintessential non-violent American hero, unlike, say, Bonnie and Clyde. Has always been, for as long as I remember. In fact, stating that Trump is terrifying is outright unAmerican and treasonous. Yessiree Bob!

    Anarcissie 07.22.16 at 3:14 pm

    Daragh 07.22.16 at 2:52 pm @ 108 -
    I know only what I read in the media, so I don't really, really know what happened in Ukraine, but I do know there was a violent coup against an elected government, apparently supported by the US - no one seems to disagree with that part - and the rest seems to organize itself around that event pretty well. I was also impressed by the torrent of propaganda that promptly issued forth at that time, which always makes me suspect advanced preparation. If you are in contact with any of those people, I suggest that in the view of us outerworld cranks their work in this area has not been up to the best standards of the art. Agreed, it's a tough case.

    The strategic difference between having major NATO installations in Turkey and having them in the north and east of Ukraine ought to be obvious.

    Ze K 07.22.16 at 5:07 pm

    "If ever something was going to green light Russian expansionism, that would certainly do it, I'd imagine."

    What nonsense. There is no 'Russian expansionism'. South Ossetia is begging to be accepted – the RF won't take it. Similar story with Donetsk and Lugansk, whom Putin personally asked in 2014 NOT to hold the referendum for independence. And these are regions that really-really want to join the RF; what the hell would they do with the Baltic republics, where most people don't even want it? This is simply a whole 100% imaginary issue; you people are completely brainwashed…

    kidneystones 07.22.16 at 12:55 pm

    @ 73 I agree!

    The neocon in a dress who supported the Iraq debacle and enjoyed it so much that she played a key role in American regime change in Libya, and still wants kill more brown people through more violent regime change in Syria is far and away the safer, saner candidate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

    [Jul 24, 2016] The Full Text Of Donald Trumps 2016 RNC Drafted Speech

    Notable quotes:
    "... The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents, is that our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America with respect. This will all change in 2017. ..."
    "... The American People will come first once again. My plan will begin with safety at home – which means safe neighborhoods, secure borders, and protection from terrorism. There can be no prosperity without law and order. On the economy, I will outline reforms to add millions of new jobs and trillions in new wealth that can be used to rebuild America. ..."
    "... Big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because they know she will keep our rigged system in place. They are throwing money at her because they have total control over everything she does. She is their puppet, and they pull the strings. ..."
    "... That is why Hillary Clinton's message is that things will never change. My message is that things have to change – and they have to change right now. Every day I wake up determined to deliver for the people I have met all across this nation that have been neglected, ignored, and abandoned. ..."
    "... I have visited the laid-off factory workers, and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair trade deals. These are the forgotten men and women of our country. People who work hard but no longer have a voice. ..."
    "... I have embraced crying mothers who have lost their children because our politicians put their personal agendas before the national good. I have no patience for injustice, no tolerance for government incompetence, no sympathy for leaders who fail their citizens. ..."
    "... And when a Secretary of State illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence – I know that corruption has reached a level like never before. ..."
    "... When the FBI Director says that the Secretary of State was "extremely careless" and "negligent," in handling our classified secrets, I also know that these terms are minor compared to what she actually did. They were just used to save her from facing justice for her terrible crimes. ..."
    "... In fact, her single greatest accomplishment may be committing such an egregious crime and getting away with it – especially when others have paid so dearly. When that same Secretary of State rakes in millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers I know the time for action has come. ..."
    "... We must have the best intelligence gathering operation in the world. We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Instead, we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terror. ..."
    "... We are going to build a great border wall to stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the violence, and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities. I have been honored to receive the endorsement of America's Border Patrol Agents, and will work directly with them to protect the integrity of our lawful immigration system. ..."
    "... On January 21st of 2017, the day after I take the oath of office, Americans will finally wake up in a country where the laws of the United States are enforced. We are going to be considerate and compassionate to everyone. ..."
    "... But my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens. My plan is the exact opposite of the radical and dangerous immigration policy of Hillary Clinton. Americans want relief from uncontrolled immigration. Communities want relief. ..."
    "... Remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, one of the worst economic deals ever made by our country. ..."
    "... My opponent, on the other hand, has supported virtually every trade agreement that has been destroying our middle class. She supported NAFTA, and she supported China's entrance into the World Trade Organization – another one of her husband's colossal mistakes. ..."
    "... She supported the job killing trade deal with South Korea. She has supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP will not only destroy our manufacturing, but it will make America subject to the rulings of foreign governments. I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers, or that diminishes our freedom and independence. Instead, I will make individual deals with individual countries. ..."
    "... My opponent would rather protect education bureaucrats than serve American children. We will repeal and replace disastrous Obamacare. You will be able to choose your own doctor again. And we will fix TSA at the airports! We will completely rebuild our depleted military, and the countries that we protect, at a massive loss, will be asked to pay their fair share. We will take care of our great Veterans like they have never been taken care of before. My opponent dismissed the VA scandal as being not widespread – one more sign of how out of touch she really is. We are going to ask every Department Head in government to provide a list of wasteful spending projects that we can eliminate in my first 100 days. The politicians have talked about it, I'm going to do it. We are also going to appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court who will uphold our laws and our Constitution. ..."
    thefederalist.com

    ... ... ...

    Not only have our citizens endured domestic disaster, but they have lived through one international humiliation after another. We all remember the images of our sailors being forced to their knees by their Iranian captors at gunpoint.

    This was just prior to the signing of the Iran deal, which gave back to Iran $150 billion and gave us nothing – it will go down in history as one of the worst deals ever made. Another humiliation came when president Obama drew a red line in Syria – and the whole world knew it meant nothing.

    In Libya, our consulate – the symbol of American prestige around the globe – was brought down in flames. America is far less safe – and the world is far less stable – than when Obama made the decision to put Hillary Clinton in charge of America's foreign policy.

    I am certain it is a decision he truly regrets. Her bad instincts and her bad judgment – something pointed out by Bernie Sanders – are what caused the disasters unfolding today. Let's review the record. In 2009, pre-Hillary, ISIS was not even on the map.

    Libya was cooperating. Egypt was peaceful. Iraq was seeing a reduction in violence. Iran was being choked by sanctions. Syria was under control. After four years of Hillary Clinton, what do we have? ISIS has spread across the region, and the world. Libya is in ruins, and our Ambassador and his staff were left helpless to die at the hands of savage killers. Egypt was turned over to the radical Muslim brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control. Iraq is in chaos.

    Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons. Syria is engulfed in a civil war and a refugee crisis that now threatens the West. After fifteen years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before.

    This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness.

    But Hillary Clinton's legacy does not have to be America's legacy. The problems we face now – poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad – will last only as long as we continue relying on the same politicians who created them. A change in leadership is required to change these outcomes. Tonight, I will share with you my plan of action for America.

    The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents, is that our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America with respect. This will all change in 2017.

    The American People will come first once again. My plan will begin with safety at home – which means safe neighborhoods, secure borders, and protection from terrorism. There can be no prosperity without law and order. On the economy, I will outline reforms to add millions of new jobs and trillions in new wealth that can be used to rebuild America.

    A number of these reforms that I will outline tonight will be opposed by some of our nation's most powerful special interests. That is because these interests have rigged our political and economic system for their exclusive benefit.

    Big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because they know she will keep our rigged system in place. They are throwing money at her because they have total control over everything she does. She is their puppet, and they pull the strings.

    That is why Hillary Clinton's message is that things will never change. My message is that things have to change – and they have to change right now. Every day I wake up determined to deliver for the people I have met all across this nation that have been neglected, ignored, and abandoned.

    I have visited the laid-off factory workers, and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair trade deals. These are the forgotten men and women of our country. People who work hard but no longer have a voice.

    I AM YOUR VOICE.

    I have embraced crying mothers who have lost their children because our politicians put their personal agendas before the national good. I have no patience for injustice, no tolerance for government incompetence, no sympathy for leaders who fail their citizens.

    When innocent people suffer, because our political system lacks the will, or the courage, or the basic decency to enforce our laws – or worse still, has sold out to some corporate lobbyist for cash – I am not able to look the other way.

    And when a Secretary of State illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence – I know that corruption has reached a level like never before.

    When the FBI Director says that the Secretary of State was "extremely careless" and "negligent," in handling our classified secrets, I also know that these terms are minor compared to what she actually did. They were just used to save her from facing justice for her terrible crimes.

    In fact, her single greatest accomplishment may be committing such an egregious crime and getting away with it – especially when others have paid so dearly. When that same Secretary of State rakes in millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers I know the time for action has come.

    I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that cannot defend themselves. Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. I have seen firsthand how the system is rigged against our citizens, just like it was rigged against Bernie Sanders – he never had a chance.

    But his supporters will join our movement, because we will fix his biggest issue: trade. Millions of Democrats will join our movement because we are going to fix the system so it works for all Americans. In this cause, I am proud to have at my side the next Vice President of the United States: Governor Mike Pence of Indiana.

    We will bring the same economic success to America that Mike brought to Indiana. He is a man of character and accomplishment. He is the right man for the job. The first task for our new Administration will be to liberate our citizens from the crime and terrorism and lawlessness that threatens their communities.

    ... ... ...

    We must have the best intelligence gathering operation in the world. We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Instead, we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terror.

    This includes working with our greatest ally in the region, the State of Israel. Lastly, we must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.

    My opponent has called for a radical 550% increase in Syrian refugees on top of existing massive refugee flows coming into our country under President Obama. She proposes this despite the fact that there's no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from. I only want to admit individuals into our country who will support our values and love our people.

    Anyone who endorses violence, hatred or oppression is not welcome in our country and never will be.

    Decades of record immigration have produced lower wages and higher unemployment for our citizens, especially for African-American and Latino workers. We are going to have an immigration system that works, but one that works for the American people.

    On Monday, we heard from three parents whose children were killed by illegal immigrants Mary Ann Mendoza, Sabine Durden, and Jamiel Shaw. They are just three brave representatives of many thousands. Of all my travels in this country, nothing has affected me more deeply than the time I have spent with the mothers and fathers who have lost their children to violence spilling across our border.

    These families have no special interests to represent them. There are no demonstrators to protest on their behalf. My opponent will never meet with them, or share in their pain. Instead, my opponent wants Sanctuary Cities. But where was sanctuary for Kate Steinle? Where was Sanctuary for the children of Mary Ann, Sabine and Jamiel? Where was sanctuary for all the other Americans who have been so brutally murdered, and who have suffered so horribly?

    These wounded American families have been alone. But they are alone no longer. Tonight, this candidate and this whole nation stand in their corner to support them, to send them our love, and to pledge in their honor that we will save countless more families from suffering the same awful fate.

    We are going to build a great border wall to stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the violence, and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities. I have been honored to receive the endorsement of America's Border Patrol Agents, and will work directly with them to protect the integrity of our lawful immigration system.

    By ending catch-and-release on the border, we will stop the cycle of human smuggling and violence. Illegal border crossings will go down. Peace will be restored. By enforcing the rules for the millions who overstay their visas, our laws will finally receive the respect they deserve.

    Tonight, I want every American whose demands for immigration security have been denied – and every politician who has denied them – to listen very closely to the words I am about to say.

    On January 21st of 2017, the day after I take the oath of office, Americans will finally wake up in a country where the laws of the United States are enforced. We are going to be considerate and compassionate to everyone.

    But my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens. My plan is the exact opposite of the radical and dangerous immigration policy of Hillary Clinton. Americans want relief from uncontrolled immigration. Communities want relief.

    Yet Hillary Clinton is proposing mass amnesty, mass immigration, and mass lawlessness. Her plan will overwhelm your schools and hospitals, further reduce your jobs and wages, and make it harder for recent immigrants to escape from poverty.

    I have a different vision for our workers. It begins with a new, fair trade policy that protects our jobs and stands up to countries that cheat. It's been a signature message of my campaign from day one, and it will be a signature feature of my presidency from the moment I take the oath of office.

    I have made billions of dollars in business making deals – now I'm going to make our country rich again. I am going to turn our bad trade agreements into great ones. America has lost nearly-one third of its manufacturing jobs since 1997, following the enactment of disastrous trade deals supported by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    Remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, one of the worst economic deals ever made by our country.

    Never again.

    I am going to bring our jobs back to Ohio and to America – and I am not going to let companies move to other countries, firing their employees along the way, without consequences.

    My opponent, on the other hand, has supported virtually every trade agreement that has been destroying our middle class. She supported NAFTA, and she supported China's entrance into the World Trade Organization – another one of her husband's colossal mistakes.

    She supported the job killing trade deal with South Korea. She has supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP will not only destroy our manufacturing, but it will make America subject to the rulings of foreign governments. I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers, or that diminishes our freedom and independence. Instead, I will make individual deals with individual countries.

    No longer will we enter into these massive deals, with many countries, that are thousands of pages long – and which no one from our country even reads or understands. We are going to enforce all trade violations, including through the use of taxes and tariffs, against any country that cheats.

    This includes stopping China's outrageous theft of intellectual property, along with their illegal product dumping, and their devastating currency manipulation. Our horrible trade agreements with China and many others, will be totally renegotiated. That includes renegotiating NAFTA to get a much better deal for America – and we'll walk away if we don't get the deal that we want. We are going to start building and making things again.

    Next comes the reform of our tax laws, regulations and energy rules. While Hillary Clinton plans a massive tax increase, I have proposed the largest tax reduction of any candidate who has declared for the presidential race this year – Democrat or Republican. Middle-income Americans will experience profound relief, and taxes will be simplified for everyone.

    America is one of the highest-taxed nations in the world. Reducing taxes will cause new companies and new jobs to come roaring back into our country. Then we are going to deal with the issue of regulation, one of the greatest job-killers of them all. Excessive regulation is costing our country as much as $2 trillion a year, and we will end it. We are going to lift the restrictions on the production of American energy. This will produce more than $20 trillion in job creating economic activity over the next four decades.

    My opponent, on the other hand, wants to put the great miners and steel workers of our country out of work – that will never happen when I am President. With these new economic policies, trillions of dollars will start flowing into our country.

    This new wealth will improve the quality of life for all Americans – We will build the roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, and the railways of tomorrow. This, in turn, will create millions more jobs. We will rescue kids from failing schools by helping their parents send them to a safe school of their choice.

    My opponent would rather protect education bureaucrats than serve American children. We will repeal and replace disastrous Obamacare. You will be able to choose your own doctor again. And we will fix TSA at the airports! We will completely rebuild our depleted military, and the countries that we protect, at a massive loss, will be asked to pay their fair share.

    We will take care of our great Veterans like they have never been taken care of before. My opponent dismissed the VA scandal as being not widespread – one more sign of how out of touch she really is. We are going to ask every Department Head in government to provide a list of wasteful spending projects that we can eliminate in my first 100 days. The politicians have talked about it, I'm going to do it. We are also going to appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court who will uphold our laws and our Constitution.

    The replacement for Justice Scalia will be a person of similar views and principles. This will be one of the most important issues decided by this election. My opponent wants to essentially abolish the 2nd amendment. I, on the other hand, received the early and strong endorsement of the National Rifle Association and will protect the right of all Americans to keep their families safe.

    ... ... ...

    [Jul 24, 2016] How Trump vs. Clinton could reshape the electoral map - The Washington Post

    Notable quotes:
    "... If turnout in the primaries has been any indicator, Trump has energized not only the base but attracted independents and Democrats, while the Dem turnout has been dismal. With Obama gone, it's anyone's guess if African-Americans and Hispanics will vote in large numbers. ..."
    "... The truth is that Trump supporters cut across all socioeconomic and racial demographics. The media is just angry they are losing their ability to tell everyone who to vote for. ..."
    "... Someone who has gamed the system is a good bet for being able to change the system. That is Trump's appeal. ..."
    "... Clinton is owned by the system. ..."
    www.washingtonpost.com

    Snowbird101, 3/22/2016 11:04 PM EDT

    A lot of Trump bashing because of the Media and worried Democrats. However: Donald Trump did not steal your money.
    Donald Trump did not raise your taxes.
    Donald Trump did not raise the price of food.
    Trump is not stirring a race war.
    Trump did not leave any US soldiers in Benghazi to be slaughtered and desecrated by Muslims.
    Trump did not send the US Navy to fight for Syrian Al-Qaeda.
    Trump did not arm ISIS and systematically exterminate Christians throughout the Middle East.
    Trump did not betray Israel.
    Trump did not provide financing and technology to Iran's nuclear weapons program.
    Trump did not give our military secrets to China.
    Trump did not remove our nuclear missile shield in Poland at the behest of Russia.
    Trump did not shrivel our military, and betray our veterans.
    Under Obama, a large percentage of us are on public welfare programs like food stamps, section 8 housing, and SSI, because of low wages.
    Health insurance is unaffordable (mine is $450/month… contrast this to my $24/month auto insurance from Insurance Panda… or my $11/month life insurance).
    Two thirds of young adults have student loans to which they cannot pay back due to lack of good jobs in the community.
    Trump didn't do that.
    Trump did not cripple our economy.
    Trump did not increase our debt to 20 trillion dollars.
    Trump did not ruin our credit, twice.
    Trump did not double African American unemployment.
    Trump did not increase welfare to a record level for eight years.
    Trump did not sign a law making it legal to execute, and imprison Americans.
    Trump did not set free all of the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.
    Trump did not steal your rights, violate US Constitutional law, or commit treason, hundreds of times.
    Trump is being ripped apart in the news, non-stop. Whereas, Barrack Hussein, Hillary Clinton and the criminals occupying our government, are not being touched. The media is the Democratic Party.
    Save your culture. Stop listening to them.

    Tex9260, 3/26/2016 6:47 AM EDT [Edited]

    Trump will get 75% of the Bernie Supporters. They have in a lot of ways the same message....The game is rigged by special interest. Americans are tired of all the quid-pro-quo. I can't wait for the FBI to recommend a criminal indictment recommendation for Hillary, and watch the Justice Department ignore it. Taking money from countries with horrific human rights violations, especially while she was Secretary of State. Of the $500 million the Clinton Foundation raised last year, only .10 of every dollar actually goes to charities. The rest is administrative costs for the foundation. Leaving Americans to die in Libya, and lying to the nation in front of flag draped coffins of the Ambassador and the others, to facilitating the sell of most of our Uranium to Russia, to line her pockets. 500 million $$ to Solindra (Solar company that went belly up in 2 years). That was Nancy Pelosis' brother in law. I'm looking forward to the parade of women that will speak out on Bill, and how the lengths Hillary went to destroy them (Let's not forget-Jeffery Epstein and orgy island and those underage girls). Hillary has said she wanted open boarders, and all the cost's: processing, increased education expense, healthcare costs, Welfare, increased crime and it's costs, lower wages, etc., all being paid for by John -Q taxpayer, when that money should be spent on America and it's citizens in one form or another. Hillary has no accomplishments other than making us less safe. She only made things more perilous while SOS. No accomplishments, and used her positions to enrich herself with America's money, and is a pathelogical liar. No Thanks. At least Trump speaks what to many of the things the country already thinks and wish would happen, if the government actually had it's citizens in their best interests.

    Brent E, 3/21/2016 3:40 PM EDT

    Clinton the chronic liar calling others' language ugly, what a laugh. Perhaps Hillary forgot how ugly lies are when she came under sniper fire...

    pmk123, 3/21/2016 3:24 PM EDT

    If turnout in the primaries has been any indicator, Trump has energized not only the base but attracted independents and Democrats, while the Dem turnout has been dismal. With Obama gone, it's anyone's guess if African-Americans and Hispanics will vote in large numbers. If they are dispirited because of a flawed candidate who is a screaming robot, this group could very well sit out the general election. So, the Dems better not get too cocky.

    joesopinion, 3/21/2016 5:58 AM EDT

    Tired of reporters racist comments about Trump supporters being white and uneducated. It is becoming as abrasive as the N word. Why don't you just call us White Trash.

    The truth is that Trump supporters cut across all socioeconomic and racial demographics. The media is just angry they are losing their ability to tell everyone who to vote for.

    lolly52, 3/21/2016 6:25 AM EDT

    I went thru the login procedure just to post to you! I agree. The media and the donor class need to wake up. We are not buying their lies any more.

    lolly52, 3/21/2016 7:58 AM EDT

    Someone who has gamed the system is a good bet for being able to change the system. That is Trump's appeal.

    Clinton is owned by the system.

    Kasich believes in the Republican Establishment's view of the system. He has spent his life playing by those rules.

    Cruz's wife worked for the CFR. No single entity hates America more than the CFR.

    I like Bernie's anti-establishment stance, but his position on illegal immigration does not appeal to me.

    Snowbird101, 3/20/2016 10:16 PM EDT

    "There's no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border"
    -Barack Obama IN 2006
    "The Audacity of Hope"

    "The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century"
    -Barack Obama IN 2006
    "The Audacity of Hope

    "If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy... It also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans."
    -Barack Obama IN 2006
    "The Audacity of Hope"

    The above is what Trump has been saying and is being called Racist. Doesn't make sense.

    [Jul 24, 2016] Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Plans Don't Make A Lot of Sense

    Notable quotes:
    "... "On the one hand he says something that sounds good to non-interventionists…On the other hand he says something like 'Obama went in there and bombed Libya and just walked away.'" ..."
    Apr 29, 2016 | sputniknews.com

    Following Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump's exploratory foreign policy speech on Wednesday, political analyst Daniel McAdams speaks with Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear to discuss what, exactly, the candidate's worldview encompasses.

    "It is clear that in Washington he has aligned himself with foreign policy advisors that are not the usual neocons. So that's good news, to a degree. That's why you have so much gnashing of the teeth in Washington," McAdams, of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, tells Loud & Clear, referring to billionaire Donald Trump.

    "On the other hand, the people that he does have around him are realists, to a degree, but that is not super satisfying to a non-interventionist and an anti-war person because realists…lack the philosophy…of avoiding war and avoiding entangling alliance."

    "…The specific plans that he outlined a) were not very well hashed out, and b) they don't make a lot of sense," says McAdams.

    While Trump does recognize the failure of Washington's insistence on pursuing a Cold War-era strategy, the candidate does not see American imperialism as part of the problem.

    One example is his opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement.

    "This groveling to Israel, this blind condemnation of the Iran nuclear deal…I don't get his beef and I don't think he gets his beef. It just makes him sound good, it makes him sound tough."

    On the issue of the Iraq and Syria, the Republican frontrunner seemed to offer contradictory positions.

    "This is where I think he's either very clever or fairly goofy," McAdams says.

    "On the one hand he says something that sounds good to non-interventionists…On the other hand he says something like 'Obama went in there and bombed Libya and just walked away.'"

    "That's the whole point," states McAdams. "Not walking away means staying in and doing nation building. So he doesn't understand what caused the problem. He also promises to use military force to contain radical Islam, and he talks about 'Why are we not bombing Libya right now?'"

    Trump also spoke of restoring the military superiority of America, the country with the largest military budget in the world, shortly after stating that he would pursue peace.

    "Rebuild our military from what? We spend more than most of the rest of the world combined. We have an enormous military, we're involved in over 120 countries," McAdams says.

    "What he means by 'rebuild' the military is keep Washington and its environs extraordinarily rich," he adds, describing the military-industrial complex, which Trump appears to support.

    He did, however, offer a surprisingly insightful take on US-Russia relations.

    "Here's what he said exactly. 'We should seek common ground based on shared interest with Russia.' He said he'd, 'Make a deal that's good for us and good for Russia.' That sounds terrific. If he follows through with that I think we should be very optimistic."

    See also

    [Jul 23, 2016] Exacerbate the Split in the Ruling Class

    Notable quotes:
    "... Leaping from this incident to the Iranian nuclear agreement that has essentially decreased the likelihood of Iran ever building nuclear weapons, Trump continued his litany of lies by portraying the agreement as virtual surrender to unnamed dark forces. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's campaign promises more of the same corporatist politics in the service of the Goldman-Sachs of the nation. The primary difference may be found in her social stances, which are more liberal and tolerant than those expressed by Trump's ticket. ..."
    "... In short, we are witnessing a serious split in the US ruling class. Both elements recognize capitalism is in crisis and has been for decades. The two main solutions to this crisis as represented by the campaigns will not solve this crisis, because it is essentially unsolvable. ..."
    "... Militarily, there is also a split between the rulers. Neither Trump's combination of fear-ridden America First bluster nor the corporate world order represented by Clinton's campaign will prevent war or terrorism. Both will guarantee the continued waste of monies that the permanent war economy is. Both will also guarantee the continued domination of the US economy by the war industry. Donald Trump knows this and so does Hilary Clinton. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    More importantly, however, was his take on history, which went no further back then 2008, at best. By pretending that history began when Barack Obama was elected president, all the decades of jobs being sent overseas because corporations want cheap labor became the fault of more recent free trade agreements. While these agreements certainly expedited the desire/need of the capitalist overlords to go for the cheap labor, this process was taking place before such agreements were passed. Furthermore, Trump and his businesses benefited from them and he did nothing to oppose them then. In short, it is how monopoly capitalism works: capital goes to where it can accumulate greater profits, utilizing the military and "free" trade to cajole and force its will on nations and peoples around the world.

    Continuing his litany of America wronged, Trump referred to the Iran nuclear agreement. He related the FoxNews version of some US sailors being held by Iranian military after their ship sailed into Iranian waters. According to this version, the sailors were humiliated hostages who were wrongly held. In actuality, the sailors were treated well and were in the wrong. Their captain surely knew this when he sailed where he sailed. Leaping from this incident to the Iranian nuclear agreement that has essentially decreased the likelihood of Iran ever building nuclear weapons, Trump continued his litany of lies by portraying the agreement as virtual surrender to unnamed dark forces.

    Of course, the presence of "dark" forces and the threat they represent to Trump and his followers are essential to understanding his appeal. Indeed, the local Gannett broadsheet here in Vermont, introduced Trump's acceptance speech in the next day's paper with this quote from the speech "safety will be restored." I first noted this emphasis on safety while listening to an argument between a young anti-Trump protester and an even younger Trump supporter at the end of a Vermont anti-Trump action. Besides the obvious fact that his proposed policies based on fear, hate, and US triumphalism are no more likely to restore safety than Clinton's policies of brinksmanship and subterfuge, this statement begs the question about whose safety Mr. Trump is referring to.

    ... ... ...

    While Trump pretends that his millennialist rhetoric will bring the US back to a time my father grew up in-when father knew best and was whiter than Ivory Snow soap, Hillary Clinton's campaign promises more of the same corporatist politics in the service of the Goldman-Sachs of the nation. The primary difference may be found in her social stances, which are more liberal and tolerant than those expressed by Trump's ticket.

    In short, we are witnessing a serious split in the US ruling class. Both elements recognize capitalism is in crisis and has been for decades. The two main solutions to this crisis as represented by the campaigns will not solve this crisis, because it is essentially unsolvable. Trump's approach hopes to move the capitalist economy back to a time before World War One, when production of goods was almost as important as the financial manipulation of monies for profit and national economies were the primary and dominant macro economy. Clinton's approach would continue the trend of the last few decades that has seen capital move beyond national boundaries to create what Lenin called "the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves." This latter phenomenon is what the so-called free trade agreements are about. Trump's belief that he can buck this trend runs counter to history, although he seems to think that he is beyond history, except for that which he makes.

    Militarily, there is also a split between the rulers. Neither Trump's combination of fear-ridden America First bluster nor the corporate world order represented by Clinton's campaign will prevent war or terrorism. Both will guarantee the continued waste of monies that the permanent war economy is. Both will also guarantee the continued domination of the US economy by the war industry. Donald Trump knows this and so does Hilary Clinton.

    [Jul 23, 2016] Clinton achieves the impossible by Robert Waldmann

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think this is about the dumbest thing a politician has done since her husband nominated Lloyd Bentson secretary of the Treasury (OK the stuff he did with Lewinsky wasn't too smart either but this Clinton wasn't as tempted this time). ..."
    July 22, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    I was fairly certain that if Clinton were elected president and the Democrats were to win a majority in the Senate, that they would lose that majority in 2018.

    I think that Hillary Clinton may have proven me wrong and found the only way to prevent that - by causing the Democrats to lose the majority in 2017.

    I think this is about the dumbest thing a politician has done since her husband nominated Lloyd Bentson secretary of the Treasury (OK the stuff he did with Lewinsky wasn't too smart either but this Clinton wasn't as tempted this time).

    [Jul 22, 2016] Is What Michelle Obama Said a True Statement? by Gaius Publius

    Notable quotes:
    "... If anything, the whole plagiarism scandal reflects somewhat poorly on Michelle Obama. One reason Obama's words were able to play so well at the RNC was that in the lifted passages, Obama was speaking using the conservative language of "bootstrapping." Obama's sentence, that "the only limit" to one's achievements is the height of one's goal and the "willingness to work" toward it, is the Republican story about America. It's the story of personal responsibility, in which the U.S. is overflowing with opportunity, and anyone who fails to succeed in such a land of abundance must simply not be trying hard enough. ..."
    "... People on the left are supposed to know that it is a cruel lie to tell people that all they need to do is work hard. There are plenty of people with dreams who work very hard indeed but get nothing, because the American economy is fundamentally skewed and unfair. This rhetoric, about "hard work" being the only thing needed for the pursuit of prosperity, is an insult to every tomato-picker and hotel cleaner in the country. It's a fact that those who work the hardest in this country, those come home from work exhausted and who break their backs to feed their families, are almost always rewarded the least. ..."
    "... This is, of course, the myth of "meritocracy" that Thomas Frank has exposed with scalpel-like precision in his latest book Listen, Liberal . It's clear that the Democratic Party, at its core, believes with Michelle (and Barack) Obama the comfortable and self-serving lie that no individual has anyone to blame but herself if she fails to achieve high goals. She should just have reached higher; she should just have worked harder. ..."
    "... It's not only a lie, it's a "cruel lie," as Nimni says. So why is she, Michelle Obama, telling it? Clearly it serves her interests, her husband's interests, her party's interests, to tell the "rich person's lie," that his or her achievement came from his or her own efforts. To call most people's success a product of luck (right color, right gender, right country, right neighborhood, right schools, right set of un-birth-damaged brain cells) or worse, inheritance (right parents), identifies the fundamental unfairness of our supposed "meritocratic" system of allocating wealth and undercuts the "goodness," if you look at it writ large, of predatory capitalism. By that measure, neither the very wealthy themselves (Charles Koch, Jamie Dimon) nor those who serve them (Barack Obama et al ) are "good" in any moral sense. ..."
    naked capitalism
    Is What Michelle Obama Said a True Statement?

    Consider for a second the bare statement - "the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them" (Obama's version). Is this true? Is it true that if you dream big enough and work hard enough, the "limit to the height of your achievements" disappears?

    Obviously not. As a young high school graduate, working summers in a General Motors assembly plant to earn college money, I saw hundreds of men and women, many the lowest of the low, the sweepers, for example, whose lives mark "lie" to that statement. The next time you stay in a hotel, look at the woman who cleans your room and ask if she's where she is because she won't work hard. Most people like these are trapped, the way billions are trapped around the world, working in powerless service to others for the scraps those others allow them?

    Oren Nimni: Obama's statement "is an insult to every tomato-picker and hotel cleaner in the country"

    The fact that Michelle Obama's statement is blatantly false (and that a woman of color in the United States said it) is revealing. Current Affairs writer Oren Nimni on that (emphasis in original):

    If anything, the whole plagiarism scandal reflects somewhat poorly on Michelle Obama. One reason Obama's words were able to play so well at the RNC was that in the lifted passages, Obama was speaking using the conservative language of "bootstrapping." Obama's sentence, that "the only limit" to one's achievements is the height of one's goal and the "willingness to work" toward it, is the Republican story about America. It's the story of personal responsibility, in which the U.S. is overflowing with opportunity, and anyone who fails to succeed in such a land of abundance must simply not be trying hard enough.

    People on the left are supposed to know that it is a cruel lie to tell people that all they need to do is work hard. There are plenty of people with dreams who work very hard indeed but get nothing, because the American economy is fundamentally skewed and unfair. This rhetoric, about "hard work" being the only thing needed for the pursuit of prosperity, is an insult to every tomato-picker and hotel cleaner in the country. It's a fact that those who work the hardest in this country, those come home from work exhausted and who break their backs to feed their families, are almost always rewarded the least.

    Far from embarrassing Melania Trump and the GOP, then, it should be deeply humiliating for Democrats that their rhetoric is so bloodless and hollow that it can easily be spoken word-for-word in front of a gang of crazed racists. Instead of asking "why is Melania Trump using Michelle Obama's words?" we might think to ask "why is Michelle Obama using the right-wing rhetoric of self-reliance?"

    This is, of course, the myth of "meritocracy" that Thomas Frank has exposed with scalpel-like precision in his latest book Listen, Liberal. It's clear that the Democratic Party, at its core, believes with Michelle (and Barack) Obama the comfortable and self-serving lie that no individual has anyone to blame but herself if she fails to achieve high goals. She should just have reached higher; she should just have worked harder.

    It's not only a lie, it's a "cruel lie," as Nimni says. So why is she, Michelle Obama, telling it? Clearly it serves her interests, her husband's interests, her party's interests, to tell the "rich person's lie," that his or her achievement came from his or her own efforts. To call most people's success a product of luck (right color, right gender, right country, right neighborhood, right schools, right set of un-birth-damaged brain cells) or worse, inheritance (right parents), identifies the fundamental unfairness of our supposed "meritocratic" system of allocating wealth and undercuts the "goodness," if you look at it writ large, of predatory capitalism. By that measure, neither the very wealthy themselves (Charles Koch, Jamie Dimon) nor those who serve them (Barack Obama et al) are "good" in any moral sense.

    (The idea of the supposed "goodness" of the successful capitalist, by the way, his supposed "greater morality," goes all the way back to the 18th Century attempt of the wealthy to counter the 17th Century bleakness of Protestant predestination. How could people, especially the very rich, know whether they are among the "elect" or the damned? God gives them wealth as a sign of his plans for them, just as God gives them morally deficient poverty-wage workers to take advantage of.)

    [Jul 22, 2016] Guardian still promoting Killary and denigrating Trump: Hes a disaster: Trump still faces a party divided on conventions final night

    Completely toothless, baseless article and very weak comments. Trump, at least in part, is paleoconservatives and he signify change of the course: less interventionalist wars, less color revolutions, rejection of Neoconservatism with some checks of dual citizenship holders in Washington like Kagan, less globalization, more nationalism. Very few commenters mention Neoconservatism and globalization which is the key problem that put Trump in the game.
    Here are some realistic comments: "Do all the Trumplings really believe he will rethink or change the NATO mafia, close down any of the 1,100 military bases and outposts 'Mericuh has all around the world, restore the Glass-Seagull act, interfere with all the CIA middlings in the Ukraine, Latin 'Mericuh, Turkey, Iran, ect., change or end NAFTA? lmao "
    And " Trump's candidacy is about so much more than personality. Once the media are forced to report Trump's positions, instead of his persona, even more Americans will see that Trump is the sole Republican who rejects a "free trade" that gives away the keys to the store and opposed the ill-fated Iraq war. He is the type of candidate Americans always wanted but the party establishments are too afraid to provide."
    Notable quotes:
    "... What is amusing that Guardian gaged all comments on all articles about Hillary but opened flood gates for those on Trump. Can't wait this political paparazzi return to b*tching about Murdoch and Fox. Or tear jerking about free press in Russia. ..."
    "... Consequently -- and after outspending Donald 15-to-1 in millions of dollars of tv and radio advertisements (LA Times) -- Hillary leads him by 3 points (HuffPost). ..."
    "... Thats the USA, two potential presidents nobody wants. ..."
    "... Let's face it, you need billions to get elected. That's not democracy by anybody's standards. ..."
    "... You are confusing money with elitism. They are not interchangeable. For example, even before he had any money, Obama was an elite. ..."
    "... If you look at Bill Clinton's record he really wasn't that much of a Democrate...more like a moderate Republican. One reason I never could understand the GOPs almost pathological hatred of the Clintons..and I'm not just talking about the far far far right Republicans either. ..."
    "... Trump is a better alternative because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts around the world. I think it's great that he is ending the politically correct culture that we have in the United States. ..."
    "... Trump's appeal to the disenfranchised workers of the USA is a strong one, whereas Clinton thinks Democrats, many of whom have deep reservations about her, will simply fall into line as if she's the matron of the WH. ..."
    "... The fact that she's a corrupt grifter won't help. ..."
    "... Whatever anyone thinks of him, you cannot deny this is history being made. The last was Roosevelt almost 100 years ago. Independent politicians are popping up around the world. ..."
    "... Just wondering : Which paradise do you come from? ..."
    "... "Trump is a better alternative because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts around the world. I think it's great that he is ending the politically correct culture that we have in the United States." ..."
    "... So i get that Democrats were hoping that the RNC convention would be an utter disaster but it hasnt turned out to be so. Apart from some shamefully contrived nonsense about plagiarism to attack a woman who appears to be a decent woman ( by the way I thought Democrats were all about women, hypocrites) and Ted Cruz deciding to end his political career, the RNC convention has gone rather well. ..."
    "... His comments on Neo-Liberal globalization and the creation of the nationless aristocracy at the expense of common folk labour all over the world is bang on . ..."
    "... I am happy to see that this disastrous , extraordinarily exploitive phenomenon has finally be brought out into the light of day ..... where it will stay long after this election is over . ..."
    "... When your a colony you obey the emperor whoever he or she is. If President Trump exposes NATO as just another Mafia by making threats and demanding money of all the 'allies' ,as the US's European quislings call themselves, they will pay up. ..."
    "... Do all the Trumplings really believe he will rethink or change the NATO mafia, close down any of the 1,100 military bases and outposts 'Mericuh has all around the world, restore the Glass-Seagull act, interfere with all the CIA middlings in the Ukraine, Latin 'Mericuh, Turkey, Iran, ect., change or end NAFTA? lmao ..."
    "... Quickest way to a bullet if he does try!! ..."
    "... Both the Republican and Democratic Parties are disasters in being, neither has shown the slightest interest in doing anything for the country, both are vastly more concerned about fighting each other, and fighting within, all to accumulate yet more wealth and power for themselves. ..."
    "... "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind." – Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928) ..."
    "... Trump is a breath of fresh air. I don't understand all the vitriol against him. ..."
    "... US politics needs an earthquake to re orientate the electorate's priorities. Trump is a populist and a populist is what America needs. ..."
    "... The liberal media's constant Trump hit pieces have no effect and the clowns are getting desperate as the realization sets in. Trump 2016! ..."
    "... The Guardian along with it's U.S. counterparts, have become one big opinion piece. This is cementing voters views that the media is elitist, and terriblly out of touch with ordinary Americans. It looks like you are actively trying to tear him down, this has backfired since day one, and attracted more right wing voters to come out for a protest vote. Trump is a sensationalist, and you have played into his reality show hands. ..."
    "... Trump comes along as an anti establishment choice for people who have been left behind by globalisation/capatalism. People who have felt ignored and disenfranchised. ..."
    "... Not unlike the make-up of the brexit voters in the UK. It's an odd grouping. ..."
    "... I would like to hear, in clear terms that reflect precise policies, why Trump is preferable to Clinton. Let's assume for a start that both candidates are in different ways dishonest, that they are both elitist, and that they both are opportunist (adapting their rhetoric to suit their goals). ..."
    "... Actually, dugandben's comment was spot on. Hillary is the bigger fascist considering the way the media (like the Guardian) shills for her, and how she is by far, the corporate-approved candidate. ..."
    "... Another Hilbot being paid to distort the truth, eh, Arundel? That's what good little fascists do. Inverted Totalitarianism . ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Nazly De La Hoya, 26, a delegate from El Paso, Texas, initially backed Kentucky senator Rand Paul. "He [Trump] was not my first choice; however, I'm very against the corruption and lies that Hillary's been involved with," she said during a rally in Cleveland's Public Square. "Trump is a better alternative because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts around the world. I think it's great that he is ending the politically correct culture that we have in the United States."

    diddoit , 2016-07-22 00:34:07
    Trump is right about Nato .

    The US currently pays 75% of the cost of European defence! How can that be good?

    After Brexit, a European army may emerge . Many politicians in Germany and especially France have desired this idea of an EU force for a long time , with the Brits as the main obstacle.

    Vladimir Makarenko , 2016-07-22 00:32:57
    What is amusing that Guardian gaged all comments on all articles about Hillary but opened flood gates for those on Trump. Can't wait this political paparazzi return to b*tching about Murdoch and Fox. Or tear jerking about free press in Russia.
    makaio , 2016-07-22 00:30:46

    "He's a disaster. He's a wild card. You don't know what he's going to do. He has no principles. He's a playboy entertainer and it's shocking that the American people would choose him."

    Consequently -- and after outspending Donald 15-to-1 in millions of dollars of tv and radio advertisements (LA Times) -- Hillary leads him by 3 points (HuffPost).

    Canuckling -> Bill Smith , 2016-07-22 00:37:31
    Bill hasn't even started his campaign. The greatest 2 for 1 deal of all time.
    scringlemescrongers -> Lionsingh , 2016-07-22 00:28:39
    Thats the USA, two potential presidents nobody wants.
    Markear, 2016-07-22 00:10:53
    Let's face it, you need billions to get elected. That's not democracy by anybody's standards.
    providenciales Markear , 2016-07-22 00:18:35
    You are confusing money with elitism. They are not interchangeable. For example, even before he had any money, Obama was an elite.
    Terrence D. Zarnick -> aeris2001x2 , 2016-07-21 23:46:40
    If you look at Bill Clinton's record he really wasn't that much of a Democrate...more like a moderate Republican. One reason I never could understand the GOPs almost pathological hatred of the Clintons..and I'm not just talking about the far far far right Republicans either.
    providenciales -> Terrence D. Zarnick , 2016-07-21 23:52:05
    If you had experienced 30 years of scandals with the Clintons you might understand the distrust.
    Drumboy , 2016-07-21 23:30:35
    ."Trump is a better alternative because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts around the world. I think it's great that he is ending the politically correct culture that we have in the United States."

    I do hope that the word "not" was missing from that sentence.

    bobbejaan99 , 2016-07-21 23:17:17
    Michael Moore has said he thinks Trump will win - and that's a distinct possibility. it's complacency that will put Trump in the White House and that may as well be Hillary's middle name. Trump's appeal to the disenfranchised workers of the USA is a strong one, whereas Clinton thinks Democrats, many of whom have deep reservations about her, will simply fall into line as if she's the matron of the WH. After watching the brexit campaign, people should be worried that weak campaigning from Clinton wont pull enough of the undecided voters and her soft opposition to her side.
    BillinChicago -> bobbejaan99 , 2016-07-21 23:34:29
    The fact that she's a corrupt grifter won't help.
    glennbb , 2016-07-21 23:16:37
    Whatever anyone thinks of him, you cannot deny this is history being made. The last was Roosevelt almost 100 years ago. Independent politicians are popping up around the world.
    sumsmlchangesoonpls , 2016-07-21 22:55:43
    If it's true that in a democracy you get the government you deserve it's hard to imagine a more perfect candidate for the job. Crass, crooked, mendacious, irresponsible bully, exactly like the country he seeks to lead.
    HorsesDark sumsmlchangesoonpls , 2016-07-21 23:09:15
    Just wondering : Which paradise do you come from?
    hendo101 , 2016-07-21 22:11:36
    "Trump is a better alternative because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts around the world. I think it's great that he is ending the politically correct culture that we have in the United States."

    Jesus, why are these people so obsessed with political correctness? In light of all the other issues plaguing America - out of control health care costs, crumbling infrastructure, stagnant wages, terrorism, overpriced education, race wars, etc. - these people are going to pick the next POTUS based primarily on his/her disdain for political correctness? Really?

    Dmanny , 2016-07-21 22:17:07
    So i get that Democrats were hoping that the RNC convention would be an utter disaster but it hasnt turned out to be so. Apart from some shamefully contrived nonsense about plagiarism to attack a woman who appears to be a decent woman ( by the way I thought Democrats were all about women, hypocrites) and Ted Cruz deciding to end his political career, the RNC convention has gone rather well.

    Now over to you Democrats. Lets see how many people can keep a straight face while extolling the virtues of a criminal for the highest office. If we are lucky we might see some self shame as person after person shows up to demonstrate their sold out souls.

    enodesign , 2016-07-21 21:39:42

    ...His comments on Neo-Liberal globalization and the creation of the nationless aristocracy at the expense of common folk labour all over the world is bang on .

    I am happy to see that this disastrous , extraordinarily exploitive phenomenon has finally be brought out into the light of day ..... where it will stay long after this election is over .

    ... ... ...

    LadybirdFarenheit -> enodesign , 2016-07-21 21:43:16
    At least the USA has checks and balances on executive power. England has just lost its.
    Babeouf , 2016-07-21 21:39:14
    When your a colony you obey the emperor whoever he or she is. If President Trump exposes NATO as just another Mafia by making threats and demanding money of all the 'allies' ,as the US's European quislings call themselves, they will pay up.
    duncandunnit , 2016-07-21 21:31:51
    I prefer trump to win than Clinton any day.
    BizaaroLand , 2016-07-21 21:10:12
    Do all the Trumplings really believe he will rethink or change the NATO mafia, close down any of the 1,100 military bases and outposts 'Mericuh has all around the world, restore the Glass-Seagull act, interfere with all the CIA middlings in the Ukraine, Latin 'Mericuh, Turkey, Iran, ect., change or end NAFTA? lmao

    How adorable.

    YeOldPhart -> BizaaroLand , 2016-07-21 21:40:12
    Quickest way to a bullet if he does try!!
    TomSarko , 2016-07-21 21:06:37
    Representoid:

    Trump is a better alternative because he is likely to get us into unnecessary conflicts around the world. Probably a slip or a typo, but keeping the US military-industrial complex ticking never did any harm - to stakeholders in it, at least.

    Everybody, and I mean everybody, fails to comprehend (capiche) how pressing is the global MIC. These vermin, aside from the otherwise good and decent enlistees and career soildiers, are guided ONLY by MORE WAR, MORE stupidly profitable revenues. $700 hammers, etc.

    goatrider , 2016-07-21 20:58:28
    Poor guy--his latest screw up is that he said he might not want to go to a nuke, end the world, war to save Estonia from the Russians--not that Russians have any real desire to do so at this point. Maybe he is the only sane man in politics.......
    brian123 , 2016-07-21 20:58:15
    Trump is going to win. Middle America is going to come out in their droves and propel Trump to the White House. #MAGA
    leodensian , 2016-07-21 20:57:11
    "Trump is a better alternative because he is LIKELY to get us into unnecessary conflicts around the world."
    apacheman , 2016-07-21 20:54:59
    Well, yes, Trump is a disaster.

    But he's just reflective of and the result of the ongoing disaster that American politics and political parties have been for the last few decades.

    Both the Republican and Democratic Parties are disasters in being, neither has shown the slightest interest in doing anything for the country, both are vastly more concerned about fighting each other, and fighting within, all to accumulate yet more wealth and power for themselves.

    Neither party really gives a rat's ass about the country or the people. To both, the people are annoyances to be manipulated and then ignored.

    Some Democrats smugly view the catastrophic disarray of the Republicans with glee, thinking that it shows how superior they are, but they are merely partisan nitwits who look no further than "Yay, we win!", completely failing to examine what that might mean in practicality. In point of fact, the Democratic Party is little better.

    Neither party has either the chops or the inclination to actually do anything about the mess the country is in other than to profit personally from it.

    Both parties need to be swept from office, but that is unlikely to happen. Neither is fit to govern.

    It makes me more sympathetic to a button I saw the other day:

    "If God meant for us to vote, He would have given us candidates."

    At this point, the rot is so deep I despair of finding an alternative way to fix it other than the time-honored solution: Off with their heads!

    tassimo -> apacheman , 2016-07-22 01:19:07
    Politics the world over in a nutshell. Well done
    dugandben , 2016-07-21 20:43:56
    The system told Clinton she would be President next time around when Obama was elected.
    They have set up a contest with the only person in the US she could beat & she is struggling with that.
    She may have to resort to tactics used in the past, which wouldnt be good for Trumps health.
    ashooin , 2016-07-21 20:35:38
    "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind." – Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928)
    trundlesome1 , 2016-07-21 19:13:26
    Trump is a breath of fresh air. I don't understand all the vitriol against him. Cruz is way to the right of Trump, an absolute toady to the Republican right. Hillary is as bad - 100% owned by Wall Street. Bill Clinton was 8 years of drift and disaster and Hillary will be at least another four years of the same. US politics needs an earthquake to re orientate the electorate's priorities. Trump is a populist and a populist is what America needs.
    Dylan Patrick , 2016-07-21 19:11:58
    The liberal media's constant Trump hit pieces have no effect and the clowns are getting desperate as the realization sets in. Trump 2016!
    Mike M , 2016-07-21 19:06:06
    First off, Trump is a horrific candidate. But, I can't help thinking The Guardian along with it's U.S. counterparts, have become one big opinion piece. This is cementing voters views that the media is elitist, and terriblly out of touch with ordinary Americans. It looks like you are actively trying to tear him down, this has backfired since day one, and attracted more right wing voters to come out for a protest vote. Trump is a sensationalist, and you have played into his reality show hands.
    c8th3r1n3 , 2016-07-21 19:06:03
    Trump comes along as an anti establishment choice for people who have been left behind by globalisation/capatalism. People who have felt ignored and disenfranchised. He also appeals to the racist right wing and the conservatives who are sick of career politicians. Not unlike the make-up of the brexit voters in the UK. It's an odd grouping.

    It might have to run its course - I can see him getting in despite Clinton war chest Trump is offering the change that people think they want. (Even though of course he cannot and wouldn't if he ever could deliver it)

    LeSeuil , 2016-07-21 18:56:27
    I would like to hear, in clear terms that reflect precise policies, why Trump is preferable to Clinton. Let's assume for a start that both candidates are in different ways dishonest, that they are both elitist, and that they both are opportunist (adapting their rhetoric to suit their goals).
    Lutefrisky -> Abe Coleman , 2016-07-21 23:43:46
    Actually, dugandben's comment was spot on. Hillary is the bigger fascist considering the way the media (like the Guardian) shills for her, and how she is by far, the corporate-approved candidate.
    Lutefrisky -> ArundelXVI , 2016-07-22 02:22:51
    Another Hilbot being paid to distort the truth, eh, Arundel? That's what good little fascists do. Inverted Totalitarianism .

    [Jul 22, 2016] Trumps Deserved Moment of Triumph

    Notable quotes:
    "... A year ago, Trump was a joke. A media circus. A novelty. We assumed – I assumed – he was in it for the giggles. I thought he'd drop out like he'd down twice before. I thought his total lack of experience, his profanity and his recklessness would count against him in a primary among conservatives. But the very nature of conservatism has changed. ..."
    "... Trump didn't just defy the establishment. He defied what we thought for years were the outsiders: the ideological conservatives who hitherto cast themselves as the rebels. By beating Ted Cruz, Trump actually ran an insurgency against the insurgent. He demonstrated that what people wanted wasn't something more ideologically pure – as Cruz assumed – but something that was totally different. ..."
    "... That is one big positive we can take from this campaign. If Trump can win when challenging the Republican position on trade and war, maybe someone in the future can win while challenging their positions on other things. ..."
    "... Donald Trump did, in fact, beat the hell out of the GOP Establishment. But let's also note here that the GOP Establishment beat itself. If you haven't yet, check out conservative writer Matthew Sheffield's evisceration of the Republican Industrial Complex. It was e-mailed to me by a Republican friend who until fairly recently was part of that world, and knows about it intimately. ..."
    "... Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you'd have to consider it wasted. ..."
    "... Pretty embarrassing. And yet they're not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents "an existential threat to conservatism." ..."
    "... It turns out the GOP wasn't simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too. ..."
    "... On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like Ted Cruz didn't appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it's hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don't go to public school. You don't take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It's all good. ..."
    "... Trump hasn't said anything especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals - these are the ravings of a Nazi? ..."
    "... This year, and this week, in Republican Party politics and in American conservatism has been about nothing but moral, intellectual, and institutional decadence. It did not happen because of Donald Trump. Donald Trump emerged because the institutions were rotten. It is an almost Shakespearean twist that Roger Ailes is being defenestrated from atop the Fox News empire even as Trump receives his crown in Cleveland. ..."
    The American Conservative
    It's mostly how I feel, though the one consolation I take from this debacle is that genuine creativity may emerge out of Trump's destruction of the old GOP. It's a small bit of comfort, but I'll take what I can. If Marco Rubio or any other of the GOP bunch were being nominated now, I would not be excited at all, or even interested. I prefer that to being freaked out by the prospect of a Trump presidency, but I would prefer to have someone to vote for , instead of against.

    But then, I've wanted that for years.

    Because I'm feeling contrarian, I want to give Donald Trump his due in this, his hour of triumph. He pulled off something that nobody imagined he would do. I remember watching him give a political speech for the first time - my first time watching him, I mean. He was addressing a big crowd in Mobile. I watched the thing nearly gape-mouthed. I could not believe the crudeness, the chaos, and the idiocy of the speech. This won't go anywhere, I thought, but it's going to be fun watching him implode.

    I laughed a lot at Donald Trump back then. Who's laughing now?

    Here's Tim Stanley, writing from Cleveland for The Telegraph . Excerpt:

    A year ago, Trump was a joke. A media circus. A novelty. We assumed – I assumed – he was in it for the giggles. I thought he'd drop out like he'd down twice before. I thought his total lack of experience, his profanity and his recklessness would count against him in a primary among conservatives. But the very nature of conservatism has changed.

    It was likely the rise of Sarah Palin in 2008 that made this possible – a candidate who suggested there was a choice to be made between intellectualism and common sense, and who inspired deep devotion among those who identified with her. Folks don't identify with Trump in the same, personal way as they did with the hockey mom from Alaska. How can they? He flies everywhere in a private jet and has a model as a wife. But his issues did strike a chord. The Wall cut through.

    Trump didn't just defy the establishment. He defied what we thought for years were the outsiders: the ideological conservatives who hitherto cast themselves as the rebels. By beating Ted Cruz, Trump actually ran an insurgency against the insurgent. He demonstrated that what people wanted wasn't something more ideologically pure – as Cruz assumed – but something that was totally different.

    That is one big positive we can take from this campaign. If Trump can win when challenging the Republican position on trade and war, maybe someone in the future can win while challenging their positions on other things.

    Yes, this.

    Donald Trump did, in fact, beat the hell out of the GOP Establishment. But let's also note here that the GOP Establishment beat itself. If you haven't yet, check out conservative writer Matthew Sheffield's evisceration of the Republican Industrial Complex. It was e-mailed to me by a Republican friend who until fairly recently was part of that world, and knows about it intimately.

    This is also a good time to return to Tucker Carlson's great Politico piece from January , talking about how the failure of the Republican Industrial Complex created the opening for Trump. Key excerpt:

    American presidential elections usually amount to a series of overcorrections: Clinton begat Bush, who produced Obama, whose lax border policies fueled the rise of Trump. In the case of Trump, though, the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their ad buys or waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption of the Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn't.

    Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you'd have to consider it wasted.

    Pretty embarrassing. And yet they're not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents "an existential threat to conservatism."

    Let that sink in. Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding? They're the ones who've been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change. Now they're telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don't, they're liberal.

    It turns out the GOP wasn't simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too.

    On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like Ted Cruz didn't appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it's hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don't go to public school. You don't take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It's all good.

    Apart from his line about Mexican rapists early in the campaign, Trump hasn't said anything especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals - these are the ravings of a Nazi? This is the "ghost of George Wallace" that a Politico piece described last August? A lot of Republican leaders think so. No wonder their voters are rebelling.

    Read the whole thing. Let it sink in that Carlson wrote this before a single vote had been cast in the GOP primaries.

    This year, and this week, in Republican Party politics and in American conservatism has been about nothing but moral, intellectual, and institutional decadence. It did not happen because of Donald Trump. Donald Trump emerged because the institutions were rotten. It is an almost Shakespearean twist that Roger Ailes is being defenestrated from atop the Fox News empire even as Trump receives his crown in Cleveland.

    Trump didn't steal the Republican Party. It was his for the taking, because the people who run it and the institutions surrounding it failed.

    When Trump loses in November, maybe, just maybe, some new blood and new ideas will rebuild the party.

    And if he wins? We will have far bigger things to worry about than the fate of the Republican Party. We will be forced to contemplate the fate of the Republic itself.

    [Jul 21, 2016] Trump vs. the New Class

    Neoliberalism is self-defeating social system, which creates the mechanism of redistribution of wealth up, that takes that whole system down.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The Republicans weren't interested in inequality-but inequality was interested in them. The conservative elite told us that we were a center-right country, that we didn't do class warfare, that envy was un-American. But the voters, invertebrates that they are, disagreed. In fact, they thought Obama was on to something when he said that secretaries shouldn't have to pay a higher tax rate than their billionaire bosses. ..."
    The American Conservative

    In Kennedy's day, Republicans worried more about budget deficits than economic growth and therefore opposed his tax cuts. When the legislation came up for a final vote in the House of Representatives, only 48 Republicans supported it and 126 voted against it, and it passed only because 223 liberal Democrats voted for it. Remember, we are talking about a top marginal rate of 91 percent, which the bill reduced to a still very high 65 percent.

    ... Trump, while he is not the poster child of inclusiveness when it comes to immigrants, has nonetheless revived the old Reagan coalition by bringing formerly Democratic voters to the voting booths to support him. They have left a Democratic Party whose leaders think them ignorant rednecks who cling to their guns and religion, and they're not made to feel especially welcome when Cruz supporters call them invertebrates and bigots: that's a good way to win an election, said no one ever.

    ... ... ...

    What Obama had spoken to were the classically liberal themes of equality and mobility, of the promise of a better future. The Republicans weren't interested in inequality-but inequality was interested in them. The conservative elite told us that we were a center-right country, that we didn't do class warfare, that envy was un-American. But the voters, invertebrates that they are, disagreed. In fact, they thought Obama was on to something when he said that secretaries shouldn't have to pay a higher tax rate than their billionaire bosses.

    ... ... ...

    Our mobility problem results from departures from and not our adherence to capitalism. Rising inequality in America has been blamed on the "1 percent," the people in the top income centile making more than $400,000 a year. They alone don't explain American income immobility, however. Rather, it's the risk-averse New Class-the 1, 2, or 3 percent, the professionals, academics, opinion leaders, and politically connected executives who float above the storm and constitute an American aristocracy. They oppose reforms that would make America mobile and have become the enemies of promise.

    The New Class is apt to think it has earned its privileges through its merits, that America is still the kind of meritocracy that it was in Ragged Dick's day, where anyone could rise from the very bottom through his talents and efforts. Today's meritocracy is very different, however. Meritocratic parents raise meritocratic children in a highly immobile country, and the Ragged Dicks are going to stay where they are. We are meritocratic in name only. What we've become is Legacy Nation, a society of inherited privilege and frozen classes, and in The Way Back I explain how we got here and what we can do about it.

    ... ... ...

    F.H. Buckley is a professor at George Mason Law School and the author of The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America.

    [Jul 20, 2016] Donald Trump raises the same issues as The American Conservative: concern about mass immigration, criticism of the foreign policy that took us to war in Iraq, skepticism about free-trade deals.

    He raised issues and continued Obama policies
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Donald Trump is probably not a long-time reader of The American Conservative. Yet those who are instantly recognized the constellation of issues Trump chose to highlight in his campaign: concern about mass immigration, criticism of the foreign policy that took us to war in Iraq, skepticism about free-trade deals. These were the distinguishing traits of Pat Buchanan's campaigns in the 1990s. Trump is no paleoconservative, but he has independently discovered something that sounds a lot like paleoconservatism" [ The American Conservative ]. "That's not a coincidence. The elements of a populist, nationalist right have been present in American politics since at least the end of the Cold War; the cluster of issues common to Trump and Buchanan is a natural set. It isn't necessarily a winning political formula-opportunistic politicians have shunned this combination precisely because they thought it couldn't win-but the economic and cultural conditions that bring it to life are persistent. As long as they exist, "paleoconservatism" will always come back, no matter what happens to campaigns like Buchanan's or Trump's." ..."
    naked capitalism
    The Voters

    "Who Will be President?" This is a "path to victory" interactive graphic that lets you test out various electoral college scenarios [ New York Times ]. "By letting you choose the outcome in the 10 most competitive states, it becomes very clear that Florida is the key to victory for Trump. Without it, it's nearly impossible for him to win" [ PoliticalWire ]. Wasserman Schultz's home state. How delicious

    UPDATE "Donald Trump is probably not a long-time reader of The American Conservative. Yet those who are instantly recognized the constellation of issues Trump chose to highlight in his campaign: concern about mass immigration, criticism of the foreign policy that took us to war in Iraq, skepticism about free-trade deals. These were the distinguishing traits of Pat Buchanan's campaigns in the 1990s. Trump is no paleoconservative, but he has independently discovered something that sounds a lot like paleoconservatism" [ The American Conservative ]. "That's not a coincidence. The elements of a populist, nationalist right have been present in American politics since at least the end of the Cold War; the cluster of issues common to Trump and Buchanan is a natural set. It isn't necessarily a winning political formula-opportunistic politicians have shunned this combination precisely because they thought it couldn't win-but the economic and cultural conditions that bring it to life are persistent. As long as they exist, "paleoconservatism" will always come back, no matter what happens to campaigns like Buchanan's or Trump's."

    Our Famously Free Press

    "Trump, Jr., was too naive to check.hire [sic] a speechwriter willing to do bespoke work rather than recycle, and was too naive to check" [ Bradford DeLong ]. I hope this doesn't get me on some kinda liberal goodthinker hit list , but DeLong seems to angling for work like another former economist, Paul Krugman. He needs to work harder , and on more than proofreading. He should consider putting on his own yellow waders and going through a Clinton speech looking for "bespoke work," as I have, or look at a Sanders speech, which was the same white paper with elbows delivered over and over again. Speechwriting is like that.

    Money

    "In the year that Donald Trump was transformed from a long-shot presidential candidate into the presumptive Republican nominee, he took on more debt and sold at least $50 million of stocks and bonds. At the same time, the value of his golf courses and his namesake Manhattan tower soared" [ Bloomberg ]. So Trump's candidacy works out for the Trump brand, which is Trump's main asset, literally and metaphorically.

    Conventions

    Christie on a Clinton presidency: "[A]ll the failures of the Obama years with less charm and more lies" [ US News ]. If Christie maintains the standard as an attack dog, he'll certainly outdo Warren (and who would have thought the two would end up being comparable? It's a funny old world).

    "Tuesday was "Make America Work Again" day at the Republican National Convention, which also happened to coincide with the party formally nominating Donald Trump as its nominee" [ The Intercept ]. "But neither jobs nor Trump got much attention as a grab bag of Republican headliners Tuesday spent most of their time demonizing Hillary Clinton and talking about themselves without offering an affirmative case for the nominee or a concrete economic policy agenda." Pivot to the general? In a way, the Republican "Because Clinton!" is a mirror image of the Democrat "Because Trump!" A fun-house mirror, perhaps, but still .

    The Trail

    Clinton on Kaine: "World-class mayor, governor, and senator and– is one of the most highly respected senators I know" [ NBC ]. "While Clinton went on to praise Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, as well as Elizabeth Warren, it sure seemed like the Kaine stuff was a little too well-rehearsed." Since Clinton is famously scripted, her staff may already have been prepping her.

    "Election Update: Clinton's Lead Is As Safe As Kerry's Was In 2004" [Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight] . "What's relatively safe to say is that we'll know a lot more in a month or so." 538's charts are fun. But they're just illustrations.

    Interestingly, in 2008 the Clinton campaign accused Obama of plagiarizing from Deval Patrick, though it looks like the both of them were trading riffs [ Snopes ]. So I assume this story will die down now. Not. More on plagiarism here .

    "Beyond the clear ethical violations here, there is a larger principle at play in the way that a Republican vision of the world relies on both the manual and intellectual labor of black women, while hating black women in practice" [ Cosmopolitan ].

    The problem with this "vision" framing is that it airbrushes Democrat (hence neoliberal (hence Republican too )) economic violence against Black women. Delphine Davis, on Obama's SOTU: "We heard about the economy and giving people a fair shot at opportunity. The president said that 'we're in the middle of the longest streak of private-sector job creation in history.' But he didn't acknowledge that black women aren't advancing. Black women are more likely to experience wage theft and they are making 64 cents, compared to the 77 cents white women make, to every dollar made by white men in our economy. [ Black Lives Matter] . Tavis Smiley: "On every leading economic issue, in the leading economic issues Black Americans have lost ground in every one of those leading categories. So in the last ten years it hasn't been good for black folk. This is the president's most loyal constituency that didn't gain any ground in that period" (though note poll results at bottom) [ Essence ]. To be clear, I'm not urging either/or here (except in the sense that you can't throw all your troops at a plagiarism dogpile and talk about the economy at the same time); I'm urging both/and. Thought experiment: Suppose we have policies D and R, and economic outcome E, and we set H to "hate." If R + H = E, and D = E, what does H equal?

    UPDATE "Mary Susan Rehrer, a delegate from Minnesota, was standing in the hallway, outside of the convention floor posing for photographs in her red and blue light-up Trump cape that had been sewn for her by a 'legal immigrant' (who, in the true entrepreneurial spirit of the GOP convention, has since made a business of making light-up capes.) "I'm in business, OK, and I speak for a living as one of the things that I do. All the best stuff is stolen and there is nothing original, so it's all hocus pocus ' Rehrer said. "We're supposed to share.'" [ Talking Points Memo ]. So there you have the base. And her views are not without merit.

    "Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's three delegates at the Republican National Convention cost him and his campaign about $50 million each" [ The Hill ]. See, there is a bright side.

    Canova v. Wasserman Schultz

    "One former Sanders staffer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, put things bluntly: 'It's the proxy campaign'" [ Miami New Times ]. "Sanders staffers, too, have migrated to South Florida to help." Profile of Canova, including:

    Howie Klein, who operates the Blue America Political Action Committee, which raises money for progressive candidates, is a longtime Wasserman Schultz adversary. He recalls cold-calling Canova around that time. "I told him to please, please, please think about running really closely," Klein says. "I called him out of the blue just to tell him how important it is that she can't keep on winning without a challenge. The only way to get out that evil is with a primary."

    A rewrite of the MTN article at Jezebel [ Jezebel ]. The new Sanders organization " Our Revolution will target candidates from both local and national campaigns, but one of its more prominent focuses includes Canova."

    "Tim Canova, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University, reported raising $1.7 million between April 1 and June 30, while Wasserman Schultz brought in $1.3 million" [ The Hill ]. "Canova's fundraising boost is likely a result of Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-Vt.) May endorsement."

    [Jul 20, 2016] Note to plagiarism police Leave Melania alone! by Michael McGough

    The problem with this paragraph lifted in not so much that Melania is plagiarizing (she does) but that Michele is blatantly lying. What she said is a blatant, obvious lie: "Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you're going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them, and even if you don't agree with them." Barack for example is a king of "bait and switch", one of the most dishonest Presidents the USA ever has (and the USA has many -- think about Clinton and Bush II). He betrayed all his votes and not once but trice. Throwing them under the bus, with a broad smile and nice words. Michele herself was skating using "affirmative action" bandwagon. It one read her Princeton thesis one would understand that she did not got much out of this privileged university and probably unfairly was awarded her diploma for her gender and the color of her skin, not so much for her academic achievements.
    The way MSM launched this attack suggest that they were preparing for something like that. what a neoliberal bastards ;-) Actually I do no know about Michelle (whose Princeton graduation thesis is really extremely weak nonsense -- no signs of work on it at all) , but plagiarism or not, for Melania herself this statement is more or less true (abstracting from republican "meritocracy" memo) -- "From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise; that you treat people with respect." She managed to get to top level of model business on her own, and also proved to be a rather talented jewelry designer on her own right (and this talent was demonstrated by her at young age -- her high school friends report that she never wear jewelry not made by herself). .
    Notable quotes:
    "... "From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise; that you treat people with respect. ..."
    "... The borrowed phrases are trite and generic ..."
    "... It's also true, as my colleague David Lauter points out, that the controversy has been a distraction for the Trump campaign. ..."
    "... But Democrats (including Michelle Obama) would be wise to play it cool. Even if the mockery is directed at the Trump campaign, Melania Trump will suffer collateral damage - and sympathy for her could redound to her husband's benefit. ..."
    Jul 19, 2016 | LA Times

    Outrages abound at this week's Republican National Convention, so there is plenty for Democrats and other Trumpophobes to get exercised about. Melania Trump's alleged plagiarism of a Michelle Obama speech isn't one of them.

    Granted, it looks as if the potential first lady (or her speechwriters) lifted some passages from the current first lady's speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Viewed synoptically, as New Testament scholars would say, the parallels are striking.

    Case seemingly closed. But so what?

    1. Melania Trump (unlike Donald Trump's adult children) is apparently not a campaign adviser. Her speech would have been fluff even if it had been 100% original.
    2. The borrowed phrases are trite and generic. (Michelle Obama is no Neil Kinnock, the lyrical Welsh politician famously ripped off by Joe Biden.)
    3. Even a sophisticated political campaign might make this mistake, and the Trump campaign is far from sophisticated.

    The similarity between the two speeches is embarrassing, and so is the insistence by one campaign official that there was "no cribbing." A Republican National Committee strategist ramped up the ridicule by noting that other passages in the speech mirrored language used by a character in "My Little Pony."

    It's also true, as my colleague David Lauter points out, that the controversy has been a distraction for the Trump campaign.

    But Democrats (including Michelle Obama) would be wise to play it cool. Even if the mockery is directed at the Trump campaign, Melania Trump will suffer collateral damage - and sympathy for her could redound to her husband's benefit.

    Leave Melania alone!

    [Jul 20, 2016] Sanders Delegation Plotting in Public and Secretly to Shake Up Democratic Convention

    Notable quotes:
    "... On Monday night, aides for the former secretary of state held a private conference call with members of the Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee and laid out how the campaign would like those members to vote at an upcoming rules meeting in Philadelphia. The purpose of the conference call was to answer any questions and ensure that the Rules Committee members, picked by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and by Clinton, remained in lockstep with the presumptive Democratic nominee. ..."
    "... The stars will ultimately align and the convention will go smoothly and without a hitch. Bernie and Liddy Warren will continue their unabashed endorsement of Her, the party will be united, and the good of the American people will be top priority on the go forward. Curtain. Exit stage left. Thank you for attending another Clinton Theater production. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    3.14e-9 , July 20, 2016 at 6:31 am

    Looks like there's a slightly different dynamic in the Clinton camp:

    On Monday night, aides for the former secretary of state held a private conference call with members of the Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee and laid out how the campaign would like those members to vote at an upcoming rules meeting in Philadelphia. The purpose of the conference call was to answer any questions and ensure that the Rules Committee members, picked by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and by Clinton, remained in lockstep with the presumptive Democratic nominee.

    The roughly 30-minute call was a glimpse into how Clinton officials have sought to shape the party platform and party rules with minimal public drama. Campaign officials have corresponded with members via text messages to direct them how to vote and counseled them to bring concerns directly to the campaign, rather than follow a process laid out by the DNC for submitting amendments and resolutions. …

    The plea to keep any policy disputes in-house, and off-camera, underscores the campaign's determination to present a united front at the convention, and stave off any conflict between the Clinton-aligned committee members and Sanders members during the drafting process. A few months ago, Sanders was vowing to take his policy sticking points all the way to the convention floor.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-convention-2016-delegate-fight-225798?cmpid=sf

    Patricia , July 20, 2016 at 8:45 am

    Vid about the larger protesting groups going to D convention (6min):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8sh0tGvGgo

    Pirmann , July 20, 2016 at 10:24 am

    This is nothing more than a ploy to get Sanders supporters to watch the convention coverage, so we can become acquainted with the "new" Hillary Clinton, and thus vote for Her in November.

    "Let's all tune in; maybe the Bernie delegates will turn the party upside down". Expect to be disappointed.

    The stars will ultimately align and the convention will go smoothly and without a hitch. Bernie and Liddy Warren will continue their unabashed endorsement of Her, the party will be united, and the good of the American people will be top priority on the go forward. Curtain. Exit stage left. Thank you for attending another Clinton Theater production.

    Oh, and none of the speeches will result in legislation that actually benefits the American people, but at least they won't be plagiarized!

    [Jul 19, 2016] Bern Out: Beyond Cowardly Lion Leftism by Paul Street

    www.counterpunch.org
    I doubt many public figures were happier than Bernie Sanders to see the seemingly endless presidential election carnival overtaken by other news last week. Beneath the headlines on race and criminal justice, the nominal socialist "revolution" advocate Sanders got to make his official endorsement of the right-wing corporatist and war hawk Hillary Clinton with the public's eyes focused on different and more immediately hideous matters.

    Anyone on the left who was surprised or disappointed by Bernie's long-promised Cowardly Lion endorsement of Mrs. Clinton one week ago hadn't paid serious attention to his campaign and career. Sanders' "democratic socialism" has always been a leaky cloak for a mildly social-democratic liberalism that is fiscally and morally negated by his commitment to the nation's giant Pentagon System. More

    [Jul 19, 2016] Trump and Clintonian Neoliberalism by Mark Lewis Taylor

    www.counterpunch.org

    If Trump is the price we have to pay to defeat Clintonian neoliberalism – so be it.

    -- Mumia Abu-Jamal

    With these words the revolutionary journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal offers a bold challenge to those who circulate the fear of a Trump presidency to drum up a mandate for voting for Clinton.

    Mumia's words were shared with me just a month ago in a prison visit with him. They are a timely challenge to Bernie Sanders' endorsement this week of Hillary Clinton's drive for the presidency. Sanders mantra is anchored in the fear of Trump: "I will do everything possible to help defeat Trump."

    But it is not just a Trump presidency that needs defeating. It is just as important to defeat the very "Clintonian neoliberalism" whose party Sanders now joins.

    More

    [Jul 19, 2016] Christie botched critique of : Clinton lied over and over again

    New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie blasted Hillary Clinton, conducting a mock trial and asking the audience to "render [a] verdict" on her record as secretary of state. He was on target about Libya and Algeria, off the mark as for Syria and Iran (that does not means that Hillary is not guilty of instigating civil war in the country). He is completely lunatic on Russia.
    www.nbcnews.com

    Days after being passed over as Donald Trump's running mate, Chris Christie took the podium at the GOP convention to make the case for the party's presidential nominee.
    But his focus, as has been the case for many of the convention speakers, was focused more on Hillary Clinton than Trump. "This election is not just about Donald Trump. It is also about his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton," he said at the beginning of his remarks.

    [Jul 19, 2016] Republican Platform Unexpectedly Calls For A Return To Glass-Steagall

    Notable quotes:
    "... Manafort mentioned the return of Glass-Steagall specifically as a counterpoint against Hillary Clinton, arguing it was Democrats that were the ones actually beholden to big banks. "We believe the Obama-Clinton years have passed legislation that has been favorable to the big banks, which is why you see all the Wall Street money going to her," he said. "We are supporting the small banks and Main Street." ..."
    "... Good! Screw the Clintons and crony capitalism. ..."
    "... Bob Rubin already cashed the checks....Mission Accomplished. ..."
    "... Laugh Track Deafening) ..."
    "... How different would it be now if everyone in that photo had died simultaneously BEFORE Clinton signed it? ..."
    "... Panic attacks and violent pangs on Wall Street tomorrow? Or will they just pour billions more into the Clinton corruption campaign? ..."
    "... Hang the Clintons, Bushes, and all the damned banksters with them. Then your reforms might mean something ..."
    Zero Hedge
    While we know better than to trust politician promises, we were surprised to read that today the GOP joined the Democrats in calling for a repeal of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 pushed through by none other than Bill Clinton, and will seek a return to Glass-Steagall, the banking law launched in 1933 in the aftermath of the Great Depression meant to prohibit commercial banks from engaging in the investment business, and which according to many was one of the catalysts that led to the Global Financial Crisis.

    According to The Hill, Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's campaign manager, told reporters gathered in Cleveland Monday that the GOP platform would include language advocating for a return of that law, which was repealed under President Bill Clinton, husband of, well you know...

    "We also call for a reintroduction of Glass-Steagall, which created barriers between what big banks can do," he said.

    Including that language in the GOP platform comes shortly after Democrats agreed to similar language in their own, calling for an "updated and modernized version" of the law.

    However before anyone gets their hopes up, recall that a party platform is not binding but is thought to reflect the values of the party.... until the values change as a result of Wall Street "incentives" because if there is one thing US "commercial banks" can not afford it is a separation of their depository and investment activities.

    The GOP platform has not yet been officially released, although the convention is expected to approve it later Monday. Nonetheless, the embrace of Glass-Steagall by both parties is a telling indication of how unpopular Wall Street remains with the public, years after the financial crisis.

    Manafort mentioned the return of Glass-Steagall specifically as a counterpoint against Hillary Clinton, arguing it was Democrats that were the ones actually beholden to big banks. "We believe the Obama-Clinton years have passed legislation that has been favorable to the big banks, which is why you see all the Wall Street money going to her," he said. "We are supporting the small banks and Main Street."

    HRH of Aquitaine Jul 18, 2016 5:15 PM

    Good! Screw the Clintons and crony capitalism.

    onewayticket2 -> HRH of Aquitaine, Jul 18, 2016 5:19 PM

    Bob Rubin already cashed the checks....Mission Accomplished.

    Love,

    sandy weil

    ps.... So did I. Thanks Clintons

    macholatte -> onewayticket2, Jul 18, 2016 5:24 PM

    Just break-up the banks into little itsy-bitsy pieces so they can't hurt anyone anymore. – Mother Goose

    JRobby -> macholatte, Jul 18, 2016 5:32 PM

    What!!!! Is sanity breaking out!???!!!

    Guess the big public utility banks are going to get broken up? (Laugh Track Deafening)

    How different would it be now if everyone in that photo had died simultaneously BEFORE Clinton signed it?

    californiagirl -> Timmay •Jul 18, 2016 7:10 PM

    Panic attacks and violent pangs on Wall Street tomorrow? Or will they just pour billions more into the Clinton corruption campaign?

    Perimetr -> californiagirl •Jul 18, 2016 7:24 PM

    Hang the Clintons, Bushes, and all the damned banksters with them. Then your reforms might mean something.

    [Jul 19, 2016] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/08/trump-clinton-sanders-super-pacs-election-money

    www.theguardian.com

    SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 2016-07-08 12:10:54

    'People know it's a fixed system'

    I think we're a step further than that. The majority still accept it as a De- facto, impossible to change reality which they are to lazy to try and change. The excuse of ''its all too late and impossible to change'' peddled to them by all the branches of the system and in particular the corrupt establishment mainstream media. But that era is coming to an end....next election will be far more momentous...this one may be the last time BAU politicians prevail Report
    smirnova SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 2016-07-10 07:13:29
    "'People know it's a fixed system'

    I think we're a step further than that. The majority still accept it as a De- facto, impossible to change reality which they are to lazy to try and change. The excuse of ''its all too late and impossible to change'' peddled to them by all the branches of the system and in particular the corrupt establishment mainstream media."

    Strangely enough, this isn't so different from Russian politics. Two different sides of the same, or similar, coin. Eery stuff.

    AmyInNH sportinlifesport , 2016-07-08 14:44:05
    We need to flush congress. All the attention is on president/presidential election, and many don't vote for a congressman while there. Oust the incumbents. Report
    lostinbago AmyInNH , 2016-07-08 14:54:58
    2-3 elections with all incumbents being voted out with the exception of always voting against the candidate with the most dark money always being voted against and the candidates will get the message to start listening to the voters instead of the donors. Report
    Vigil2010 sportinlifesport , 2016-07-08 19:28:51
    I'd be in favor of electing congressmen for 4 years rather than 2. Most of them will get reelected anyway and at least then they may have a year of two where they might actually consider wise legislation rather than never getting off the money treadmill.
    brotato , 2016-07-08 12:58:01
    Between the hag and the buffoon, I'm sorry to say that we're all fcuked for another 8 years. Million more white collar jobs will have left the US at that time, middle class wealth completely shredded and the top 1 or 2% richer than ever before (or probably buying up Mars real estate).

    The people we elect work for the economies of China and India. Our tax dollars are creating jobs in Shanghai. Let's all sit down and cry. Or take to FB and post selfies. Duck face. Report

    QuetzalLove1 brotato , 2016-07-10 11:11:45
    No reason to demonize China and India. They produce many quality products at low prices Americans want.
    US corps are outsourcing these jobs. And we are buying more than we need or use.
    Complain to government, tax corps, close tax havens and stop buying foreign produced goods by paying an extra 20 to 40%. Report
    kaltnadel , 2016-07-08 12:59:53
    Revoking Citizens United is Bernie's issue. Once in a while Hillary quietly mouths a platitude about campaign reform, but her hand is in the till bigtime. Her Supreme Ct issue is abortion; she won't touch Citizens United. After all, the status quo is her cause.
    somebody_stopme , 2016-07-08 13:00:06
    I see more of this articles very frequently nowadays as Hillary already clinched the nomination. These things are not out of the blue issues, Sanders started his campaign talking about these yet the Guardian dint a give shit then. Now all they care is their readers. Pff,give me break. Report
    Ezajur somebody_stopme , 2016-07-11 08:21:31
    Thank you. It was so blatant that is was shocking. The Guardian turned its back on the first Green President - and yet asks me to join their campaigns?!

    Its heartbreaking. Report

    aleatico , 2016-07-08 13:07:41
    Interesting the near obsession about Citizens United. Nothing about Bill Clinton driving a Mack truck through campaign finance laws. Nothing about the legal graft of Goldman Sachs passing $675,000 to Hillary for speeches nobody would pay a quid to hear, and nothing about the last campaign reform effort, where McCain-Feingold inserted an incumbent protection clause in what was supposed to keep dirty money out of politics. Report
    pantsoffdanceoff aleatico , 2016-07-08 14:27:35
    She will not release the transcripts because she knows they are damning. It's obvious. When she says "I'll release them when everyone else does." Does that sound like a LEADER? no way. A leader would own up to that shit. SHe is a tool, not a leader.
    tommydog aleatico , 2016-07-08 15:10:35
    There is a bright side to all this. Obama, the Guardian, and many liberals are propounding the benefits of a stronger and even more centralized government. Given the gains that the Republicans made in the Congress and various states, it seems even Obama never really sold the public on this. Should Clinton win, which seems probable though it's a weird year, her primary focus will clearly be on propelling the family into the ranks of billionaires. I think, or am at least hopeful, that four years from now much of the public will be so sick of these people that they'll realize that we really don't get all that much from them. Report
    aleatico tommydog , 2016-07-08 18:33:28
    Whence Hillary's obsession with lucre? When she was first lady of Arkansas she bitched to her friends about her lack of money. She was the pipeline for Tyson's bribery concerning the phony cattle futures. Before she took the oath of office as a Senator she posted a wish list for people who wanted to buy favors. There's something weird about someone who never lacked for creature comforts her entire life devoting her life to collecting funds, even if by crook.
    Fartoutloud , 2016-07-08 13:22:54
    From this side of the pond, from a 60's kid, America is dead. Maybe All those American states would do better as independent countries. The America today is a disgrace to its' peoples. Report
    OXIOXI20 Fartoutloud , 2016-07-08 13:34:30
    You know, from this side of the pond (US) we are seriously thinking of asking Texas to go back to Mexico. That would be a good start, after all Texas thinks it a good idea for its citizens to walk around their city streets carrying "assault style weapons" and not only that, now they want students in their Universities to carry concealed weapons also. Would any of you on your side of the pond like to have Texas, we will be willing to let them go real cheap. C'mon now, make us an offer we can't refuse. Report
    TedMorton Fartoutloud , 2016-07-08 14:49:38
    From this (US) side of the pond, it's clear that people reading the MSM think that the whole of the US is like a wild west movie shootout. If I were to believe the MSM, I might be forgiven that thinking that Godzilla is crashing through the Houses of Parliament as I write.
    Try a bit of perspective will you? And put your tinfoil hat back on. It wasn't that long ago that a crazed UK citizen shot and killed an MP was it?
    SpicewoodJoe , 2016-07-08 14:51:30
    Our system was founded on the presumption that an informed electorate will make the best choice. Obviously we have missed that mark. Having the average voter be better informed is always a good thing. Can we lay some blame at the feet of our incompetent public schools? How many recent public school graduates can recite the declaration of Independence? Who is responsible for our current state of ignorance? Is half the story a lie? Our founding fathers intended a free press to inform the masses. The Guardian is one of several media outlets that have gone from informative to outright advocacy. The opinion pieces here that are passed off as fact are nonstop. The progressive revision of history and willful ignorance of facts is disheartening. Sure big money can distort results, but putting a government agency in charge of policing who gets to donate is a whole new mess.
    We were blessed with an enduring document in our constitution. To ignore it is foolish. More government is not always better government. The current rise of outsiders reflects our angst here in flyover country. We have had enough of Washington insiders doing the bait and switch. We are not under taxed, we are not under regulated, we need you media outlets to tell the truth about the corruption and deceit rampant in Washington even on the left
    Chris Holland SpicewoodJoe , 2016-07-08 17:53:56
    "Our system was founded on the presumption that an informed electorate will make the best choice."
    Depends on who is doing the informing, and what information pablum they feed to the masses.
    "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
    ― Joseph Goebbels
    Goebbels had a thorough understanding of how to manipulate the minds of the masses, and current politicians have studied him well. All it takes is money to put the spin on. The media love it, because that's where all that money goes to produce the spin. Why do you think they left Sanders in such a void? Because his platform is to get all that money out of politics.
    Sqweebo , 2016-07-08 15:22:08
    The only hope the US has is for 34 states on a local level,to call for a convention to amend the constitution,with the repeal citizens united being the amendement proposed. The beautiful part the US founding fathers left for the people is the ability to change the law if enough states want it. So when the judicial,executive,legislative as well as the press fail the people,they can change the law themselves. Its the only hope the US has at this point. Report
    ehmaybe Sqweebo , 2016-07-08 15:40:24
    Citizens United doesn't just let Walmart fund PACs to run ads against unions. It allows unions to fund PACs to run ads against trade agreements. It allows the Sierra Club to fund PACs to run ads about environmental policy. It allows NARAL to fund PACs to support abortion rights.
    Do you really want create an environment where only individuals can engage in political speech and where people can't organize groups to speak collectively? Limiting political speech is not something we should take lightly. Citizens United didn't cause the partisanship problems we have today and it's not the reason our representatives are content to do nothing. The way we elect people is the real problem, not how we fund our elections, that's a side effect of the former.

    [Jul 18, 2016] Melania Trump Interview Marriage to Donald Trump, a Secret Half-Brother, and Plastic Surgery Rumors

    Notable quotes:
    "... Melania also made her own jewelry. "Melania never wore anything from the store," recalls one friend. ..."
    GQ

    When she was getting her jewelry plans off the ground, Melania sketched the designs for the collection herself, relying on a talent for drawing that her childhood friends tell me she flashed as a girl. "It's not free; it's precise," Petra Sedej, one of Melania's high school classmates, says of her art. "She has a really good feeling for this."

    ... ... ...

    "She was always very fancy." Amalija spent evenings after work sewing clothing for herself and her two daughters, Ines and Melania. Once she learned to draw, Melania sketched her own designs, and her mother or sister sewed them. Melania also made her own jewelry. "Melania never wore anything from the store," recalls one friend.

    ... ... ...

    While working for the car company in Ljubljana, Viktor had an apartment there, in one of the city's first residential high-rises. It was a prestigious address and provided the girls a place to stay in the capital so that they could attend design school-another luxury.

    ... ... ...

    In those days, Melania wasn't thinking about a career as a model. Like her sister, Ines, her goal was to become a designer, and she applied to the school of architecture at the local university, successfully passing the notoriously difficult entrance exams. In those years in Ljubljana, she was focused on school. She didn't drink, didn't party, didn't smoke. Even after she met Jerko and began dabbling in modeling, she preferred to go home after work, to be with her equally quiet and reserved sister. "She kept to herself, she was a loner. After a shoot or a catwalk, she went home, not out. She didn't want to waste time partying," Jerko remembers.

    ... ... ...

    Melania decamped to Milan after her first year of college, effectively dropping out

    ... ... ...

    In New York, Melania lived a quiet, homebound life, taking assiduous care of her body: walks with ankle weights, seven pieces of fruit every day, diligently moisturizing her skin. She rarely partied, never brought anyone back to the apartment, and was always home early. "She didn't go out to dance clubs; she'd go to Cipriani for dinner at ten and be home by one," Atanian recalls.

    [Jul 18, 2016] Melania Trump From Small-Town Slovenia to Doorstep of White House

    Jul 18, 2016 | NYT

    ... ... ...

    Ms. Trump, born in 1970, grew up in this hilly town of 4,500 best known around Slovenia, at least until Mr. Trump entered the presidential race, for its medieval castle and annual salami festival. Then, Slovenia was the northern region of Yugoslavia, ruled by Josip Broz Tito, a Communist dictator who kept his distance from the Soviet Union and allowed more freedoms than did other Eastern bloc leaders.

    ... ... ...

    Mr. Trump, in an interview last month, said he had never discussed the topic with his father-in-law. "But he was pretty successful over there," he said. "It's a different kind of success than you have here. But he was successful."

    In 1972, the Knavses moved into a larger apartment in a new housing block for workers of the government-owned textile factory, including Melania's mother, Amalija, nicknamed Malci. She drew patterns for children's clothes and later designed them, crossing the bridge to the factory every day in heels.

    Mr. Knavs, a traveling car salesman, spent a lot of time on the road. But when he was home, he was noticed. Friends say he had a jocular personality and a fondness for his Mercedes sedans and his coveted Maserati. Ms. Trump's childhood friends recalled him incessantly washing the cars, but also carrying himself in a self-assured way that now reminded them of Mr. Trump.

    ... Friends say that she enjoyed geography lessons in a room adorned with maps of the world, and that she adored art class. The future creator of the QVC collection "Melania Timepieces & Jewelry" made bracelets there...

    In 1985, Melania left Sevnica, traveling on the narrow roads along the slow-moving Sava River, green from the reflection of the wooded hills, and through coal mining towns on the way to Ljubljana. There she attended the Secondary School of Design and Photography, housed in an arcaded Renaissance monastery.

    She lived in an apartment that her father, who had opened a bicycle and car parts shop in Ljubljana, had bought a few years earlier on the outskirts of the city.

    ... ... ...

    Melania and her older sister, Ines, also stood out, for their looks, their wardrobe and the makeup they put on whenever they left the apartment. At school, Melania kept her distance from peers listening to the Cure or Metallica, Mr. Kracina said, and gravitated toward a clique of pop music fans who hung out at the Horse's Tail bar by the Triple Bridge in Ljubljana.

    It was there that Peter Butoln, who prided himself on having Ljubljana's only metallic blue Vespa, noticed Melania one night among the regulars dressed in bleached jeans and Benetton shirts, drinking Mish Mash (Fanta and wine) and chatting each other up. Now 17, Melania was abstemious and more wholesome than the other girls, he said, and they started dating. He would pick her up on weekends and drive her around on his Vespa, and they would dance badly to Wham in "a nice discothčque" by the cathedral.

    ... ... ..

    Melania had also begun a process that would carry her away from Slovenia. In January 1987, the photographer Stane Jerko spotted her and asked if she would be interested in modeling.

    ...Melania's entire family sensed potential in her modeling. After high school, she concentrated on her career, dropping out of architecture school. (She still claims on her website to have graduated.) On one occasion, Mr. Kravs drove his Mercedes to the shop of the seamstress Silva Njegac, hours from Ljubljana, to order leather dresses for Melania that his wife had designed.

    ... ... ...

    A second-place finish in Jana magazine's Slovenian Face of the Year contest in 1992 expanded Melania's ambitions. In a fashion video for a Slovenian label, she wore a skirt suit, exited a plane shadowed by bodyguards and signed papers at the national library.

    ... She would soon Germanize her name to Melania Knauss and become an international model.

    ... ... ...

    [Jul 18, 2016] Democrats struggle for unity as protesters swarm Netroots convention US news

    The Guardian

    Stephen Mitchell

    1. Sanders: Clinton has backed "virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions of jobs"
    2. Sanders: Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street
    3. Sanders: Hillary Clinton = D.C. Establishment
    4. Sanders: Democrat Establishment immigration policies would drive down Americans' wages, create open borders
    5. Sanders: Clinton supports nation-building in Middle East through war and invasion

    Sanders: "And now, I support her 100%."

    DurbanPoisonWillBurn

    Anyone who believes Hillary is progressive deserves the horrible outcome a Hillary presidency will bring. How ANYONE can still support Hillary is beyond me. The woman has accomplished NOTHING except chaos & failure. Wake up folks. Hillary does NOT care about you. She cares about power, money, and making deals that benefit HER. Vote Jill Stein

    [Jul 16, 2016] Sanders much-vaunted e-mailing list has a pesky shrinkage problem

    Bernie on Monday to his supporters : Thanks for comin', see ya!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Donations to Jill Stine skyrocket after Sander's endorsement. https://www.rt.com/usa/351129-jill-stein-bernie-donations/ ..."
    "... And, let me guess: Sanders' much-vaunted e-mailing list has a pesky shrinkage problem. Which started on Tuesday. ..."
    "... Bernie denouement is the best thing that could have happened to Stein and the Greens. ..."
    "... The Stein campaign seems unprepared. They simply don't have any staff to deal with volunteers. There is a well trained group out there now, so they need gear, packets, flyers, talking points. ..."
    "... Sanders will attempt to maintain his supporters by focusing their time, skills and money on his new institute. Should serve to keep a good number from paying attention to Stein. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Code Name D , July 15, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    Donations to Jill Stine skyrocket after Sander's endorsement. https://www.rt.com/usa/351129-jill-stein-bernie-donations/

    Arizona Slim , July 15, 2016 at 4:06 pm

    And, let me guess: Sanders' much-vaunted e-mailing list has a pesky shrinkage problem. Which started on Tuesday.

    Steve C , July 15, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    Bernie denouement is the best thing that could have happened to Stein and the Greens. If Bernie and West had started with the Greens, they would have gotten zero traction. Another noble cause no one's ever heard of. Instead, Bernie started something that came close to blowing up the Democrats the way Trump blew up the Republicans.

    Now a lot of the Bernie sisses and bros are looking for somewhere to go. Stein is well placed to pick up the pieces if she knows what to do with them.

    Waldenpond , July 15, 2016 at 9:52 pm

    The Stein campaign seems unprepared. They simply don't have any staff to deal with volunteers. There is a well trained group out there now, so they need gear, packets, flyers, talking points.

    Sanders will attempt to maintain his supporters by focusing their time, skills and money on his new institute. Should serve to keep a good number from paying attention to Stein.

    The Stein campaign has a narrow window.

    [Jul 16, 2016] Trump Bernie Just Lost The FBI Primary; Today Proves He Was Right About The Rigged System Video RealClearPolitics

    www.realclearpolitics.com

    Donald Trump comments on the end of what he called the "FBI Primary," saying that Bernie Sanders has so far refused to drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination in hopes that Clinton might be indicted. He says that the FBI's recommendation not to indict proves Sanders was right when he said the Democratic primary was "rigged."

    Today is the best evidence ever that we have seen that our system is totally, absolutely rigged," Trump said at a rally in North Carolina.

    "It's rigged," Trump said. "And I used that term nationally when I was running in the Republican primaries, and I was the first to use it, and then all of a sudden it became a hot term and everyone was using the word rigged, rigged, rigged. But if you remember, I won Louisiana. And I didn't get enough delegate, what happened? Places like Colorado, which was so good to me, but all of a sudden we find out that they don't have the vote... I'll be honest, if I didn't win in landslides, I wouldn't be standing here. You would be watching some politician who will lose to Hillary.

    "I learned about the rigged system really fast. All of a sudden, Bernie started using it and now everyone talks about the system being rigged," he said.

    "I'm going to keep using it because I was the one that brought it up."

    "I asked a couple of political pros," he said. "Think of Bernie Sanders. I think the one with the most to be angry about. The one with the most to lose is Bernie Sanders, because honestly, he was waiting for the FBI primary, and guess what? He just lost today the FBI primary!"

    "He lost the FBI primary! Bernie, my poor Bernie, oh, Bernie! I feel so badly for Bernie, but you know what? A lot of Bernie Sanders supporters are going to be voting for Trump, because Bernie Sanders was right! Bernie Sanders was right about a couple of things. He's right about the system being rigged, but he's also right about trade. Our trade deals are a disaster. They're killing our jobs. They're killing our families. They're killing our incomes."

    [Jul 16, 2016] Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders Sheepdogging for Hillary and the Democrats in 2016 Black Agenda Report

    blackagendareport.com

    Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box.

    [Jul 15, 2016] How U.S. And UK Liberals Disfranchise Their Party Members

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bernie supporters are crowing about his great success at influencing the Democratic Party platform. How exciting is that? Is there anything less useful than the platform of a political party? Screen doors in a submarine come to mind. A political party platform has all of the significance and impact of a good healthy a fart in the midst of a hurricane. ..."
    "... bernie sanders, when it comes right down to it, is either a liar, or is willing to support hillary in spite of who and what she stands for.. trumps comments on this are indeed bang on. ..."
    "... The Sanders move is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook of the last 100 years, as so many predicted. The Democrats have co-opted every grass-roots movement that has arisen in the US, co-opted and quashed it. ..."
    "... The party primaries in the USA are not intended to be representative, democratic elections: they simply serve as a sort of consumer survey to see which of their candidates would be most popular in the general election. ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders claims some concessions were achieved in the platform committee document. But one issue of greatest importance, on trade issues,--specifically the rejection of TPP, is a lost cause. Bernie threw in the towel. The phony sideshow of reconstituted New Deal hoopla is merely the same tired fantasy narrative that the Democrats predictably trot out for every presidential election. ..."
    "... The dear old man who started this campaign with this gem of rhetoric: "What we need is a revolution in the streets", is ending his monkeyshines with a ringing endosement of one of the most politically corrupt figures in our history. ..."
    "... Jill Stein, who ran for president on the Green Party platform, says that Bernie's endorsement of Hillary is the "last nail in the coffin" which turns Sanders' revolution over to a counter-revolutionary party. ..."
    "... Trump would do well to attract Bernie Voters now, by exploiting areas of agreement. The TPP is one example. ..."
    "... He led people to believe that he had principles - that he really was against Wall St. and SuperPACs and all that Hillary stands for. He also (late in the race) began talking about 'revolution' to play to the discontented and young idealists. ..."
    "... Its all just bullshit when he ultimately supports Hillary. But those who support Hillary (like rufus does) try hard to finesse Sanders failing because they value the "service" that Sanders performed for the Obama-Hillary "Third Way" Democratic Party. ..."
    "... What chance do we have with Hillary?--a back-stabbing, forked-tongue, daughter of Goldman Sachs, whose speeches to the industrialists and bankers are practically a state secret? Yes, Hillary!--who is coated from head to toe with a patina of blood, and smells of corpses? ..."
    "... US corporations aren't stupid. They know bad, expensive education, decaying infrastructure and violence in the street are bad for business. They might even realize that corruption is bad for them. And that worker representation makes life easier all around. ..."
    "... In fact, Sanders pulled several key punches in the race ..."
    "... he failed to call Hillary out on her emails after the State Inspector General report was release and it was CLEAR that she had lied about her emails; ..."
    "... he is close/friendly with all of the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him to win his Senate seat; Schumer endorses him; he calls Hillary a 'friend' of 25 years. ..."
    "... Except in style, Hillary is no different than Obama, Bush II, or her husband. Whereas earlier presidents felt the need to put on a show of decency -- well, okay, Bush II let it drop now and then -- H. Clinton will be a bitch Cheney, going out of her way to rub everyone's face in it and bragging there's nothing they can do about it. ..."
    "... There's a bright side however. She's dumb and knows no bounds. Think Louis XVI. That, along with her arrogance, may finally bring a tipping point of sorts. With things coming apart everywhere, a smooth-talking fraud like Reagan or Obama might be able to somehow hold it together a little longer. Hillary's nastiness could actually bring real change. God in his infinite irony. ..."
    "... To say there is a deep state controlling Clinton may be an over simplification. More likely their are lots of competing and conflicting forces working in the dark, none with any clear idea or plan (or inkling of what other powers are doing) each pushing for immediate gains without a thought for the future. ..."
    "... In the struggle for power everyone. including H. Clinton, is a useful fool and a potential patsy. Those hidden powers have a history of eating their own. ..."
    "... Sanders has been a great disappointment. In order to prevent Trump from getting the votes, he is embracing and selling his soul and his supporters to a demon! In fact Sanders has more in common with Trump that he has with Hillary. ..."
    "... "Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs" ..."
    "... His followers were fools. I think some of them know that now. ..."
    "... I for one, hoped for more than "sheepdog" from Sanders, but, alas, those who said so, were totally correct ..."
    "... in American politics, none of these people are for dismantling the biggest budgetary fraud & boondoggle in human history: the pentagon. anybody saying they are for "small gov't" who doesn't immediately propose to slash the military/para-military budget (not the VA, not now) by 50% every year for the next 500 years is lying. ..."
    "... Hillary represents a continuation of the last 8 years, or even perhaps the last 16 or 24+ years. There is absolutely no doubt about that. ..."
    "... People taken in by Sanders learned no lessons from gushing over Obama. They hurt themselves again and are sociopathically indifferent to the far greater harm they have done to those who were not gullible. ..."
    "... Even if she had given any "significant concession", it would have been meaningless noise with not an iota of intention to implement such concessions. She is a POS who will say anything at all to get elected. The only thing we really know is she relishes confrontation on the foreign policy scene. Otherwise nobody can rely on her to act in their interests in the domestic realm, except big corporate entities. ..."
    "... It is stupid for B to keep linking to Trumps quotes exclusively. Why does b not link to Jill Stein criticism. Sure Trumps criticism of evil Hillarys corruption will gather important support, but exclusively giving torture loving warmongering Trump ammunition, strangles other better candidates in their political birth in the alternative to status quo attention. In the same way that the Sanders, Chomsky, and other shortsighted cowards react by strangle politically strangling a desperate new movement. ..."
    "... Congrats to those who labeled the 'Sheepdog' so early. Such an apt description. Good call. ..."
    "... Sanders released only one year of tax returns (2015). His campaign manager claimed his taxes held no surprises. Well they didn't for 2015. But why didn't Sanders release earlier years? Any serious Presidential candidate would expect to release at least 3 years of tax returns. ..."
    "... Given the 'service' that he performed, it might be especially interesting to have seen his taxes for 2014, the year before he entered the race. The lack of transparency and Sanders' 'sheepdogging' raises questions of whether he received any inducements to enter the race. ..."
    "... The Plan was always from the start for Bernie to hold down the Left, so Hillary could capture Center-Right, and Donald could lead the Far Right into Smackdown. Then Bernie would deliver the Left to Hillary. And so it has come to pass. ..."
    "... Strange bedfellows? Not at all. The Israelis and the GCC countries, the USG and EU, are all soul brothers : tiny 'elite' minorities attempting to rule their respective roosts by technological means encompassing everything from drones to the media to their ubiquitous taps. ..."
    "... in loco parentis ..."
    "... In 1963 there was a coup in America. Since then the military-industrial complex has run the country. It has been most apparent in its foreign policy, which has been the conquest of natural resources (especially oil and gas) worldwide. America's resentment with the USSR/Russia has to do with their living on top of resources. ..."
    "... But in order to continue the illusion of democracy in the US, it was necessary to maintain some differences between the two parties so that Americans would think that they have a choice. Meanwhile, the party that is supposed to represent the working class has been sliding into the arms of the corporatists. Essentially, in order to give Americans a "choice" Trump has been pushed as the demonic clown versus H. Clinton. Unfortunately, for good reasons as well as because of endless propaganda from the right, most Americans distrust Clinton, as well they should. Her casual announcement about enforcing a "no-fly zone" over Syria is essentially a declaration of war against Russia. ..."
    "... Going back to the coup in 1963, in order to maintain control of the population it was necessary for the ruling class to continue to generate candidates each election cycle to pretend to care about the working class. I have long suspected that early on in their careers both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were recruited by US intelligence. During his time in Britain Bill's classmates assumed that he was CIA ..."
    "... I suspect it was the beginning of her career in US power politics. Shortly after she wrote a pro-Vietnam speech for Melvin Laird in 1968, she was involved with the various Black Panther trials around the US. ..."
    "... It's hard to believe that the Hillary who stands before us now was ever a political ally of the Panthers. Rather, I suspect she was observing for an intelligence agency, the FBI or CIA She sat through a Panther trial in New Haven, Connecticut, and then spent a summer in Oakland working for the law firm that was representing the Panthers in the Bay Area. Essentially, she was in the right place at the right time to glean information for COINTELPRO, the massive spying program directed against anti-war and black movements. A few years later she worked on the Democrats' legal team for Watergate, another good place for a government informant to be. Bill, during his time at Oxford, would have functioned like the thousands of informants who sat in on peace group meetings across American campuses. ..."
    "... Later, when the CIA was dumping cocaine at Mena, Arkansas, Bill Clinton was in position to make sure state police left the operation alone. It's not surprising that George W. Bush's first head of the DEA was Asa Hutchinson, who'd been the incurious federal prosecutor over that part of Arkansas when the drugs came in. ..."
    "... The Clintons were prominent in the Democratic Leadership Council, which was an organization within the Democratic Party pushing it to the right. In 1992 Bill pushed trade agreements that would destroy the American middle class. Since then the party has been hopelessly corrupted by Wall Street money. ..."
    "... I cannot think of another president in memory who is more wed to military adventurism than Hillary. ..."
    "... But if she polls badly enough, Democratic establishment may see the light and go for Sanders. ..."
    Jun 13, 2016 |

    Bernie Sanders folded. This without gaining any significant concession from Hillary Clinton on programmatic or personal grounds. (At least as far as we know.) He endorsed Clinton as presidential candidate even as she gave no ground for his voters' opinions. This disenfranchises the people who supported him.

    ... ... ...

    I expect the "Not Hillary" protest vote to be very strong in the November election. There is still more significant dirt to be dug up about her and her family foundation. Trumps current lows in the polls will recover when the media return to the "close race" mantra that makes them money. He still has a decent chance to win.

    V. Arnold | Jul 13, 2016 1:04:11 AM | 1
    It is long, long past the time to see the world we really live in; the realities of our western faux democracies. Until and unless we recognise the facts, as they are, nothing can be changed. The problem/s must be identified for it/them to be solved.

    It doesn't take a critical mass of people; but it takes more than a few; far more than evidenced this election cycle...

    Bill H | Jul 13, 2016 1:07:34 AM | 2
    Bernie supporters are crowing about his great success at influencing the Democratic Party platform. How exciting is that? Is there anything less useful than the platform of a political party? Screen doors in a submarine come to mind. A political party platform has all of the significance and impact of a good healthy a fart in the midst of a hurricane.
    james | Jul 13, 2016 1:27:48 AM | 3
    thanks b, for highlighting these sad realities. bernie sanders, when it comes right down to it, is either a liar, or is willing to support hillary in spite of who and what she stands for.. trumps comments on this are indeed bang on.

    the labour. party is run by a gang of thugs.. i hope the people who want corbyn are able to overcome the mostroisity the labour party has become.

    i echo @1 v. arnolds comments..

    @2 bill..bernie spporters better not show how stupid they are by also voting for hillary..

    Grieved | Jul 13, 2016 2:46:33 AM | 4
    The Sanders move is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook of the last 100 years, as so many predicted. The Democrats have co-opted every grass-roots movement that has arisen in the US, co-opted and quashed it.

    Even as deliberately unplugged as I've been from this race, it's been easy to see at a glance that Sanders magnetized the next wave of concerned citizens - of course the young people rallied to his banner - and will now leave them broken and in disarray, or delivered to the Democrats.

    He was an independent. He so simply could have turned the Green Party into a ten-percent force in the US, making it hugely important, and advancing in one leap the cause of multi-party governance.

    He didn't.

    Brunswick | Jul 13, 2016 2:48:56 AM | 5

    http://www.vox.com/2016/7/1/12083494/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-concessions

    okie farmer | Jul 13, 2016 5:04:31 AM | 10

    Thomas Frank: It's Bill Clinton Who Wrecked the Democratic Party.
    https://youtu.be/pmCibWptzZQ

    ralphieboy | Jul 13, 2016 6:25:21 AM | 11
    The party primaries in the USA are not intended to be representative, democratic elections: they simply serve as a sort of consumer survey to see which of their candidates would be most popular in the general election.

    Registering for a party does not mean that you are a member of a particular party or even support it, you are simply choosing to vote in their primary elections (if you live in a state with closed primaries). That is something a lot of Bernie supporters found out much too late. But that is not a "rigged system", those rules were in place long before Sanders decided to run as a Democrat.

    And rules differ from state to state: some places allot delegates proportionally, in others it is winner-take-all. Some states hold a general election, other hold a caucus:you have to travel to a certain place at a certain time to cast your vote, which means you have to have the time and money in order to participate.

    I have never seen a similar system in place anywhere else. Usually it is only card-carrying, dues-paying party members who are allowed to select their candidates.

    nmb | Jul 13, 2016 7:13:16 AM | 13
    From Tsipras to Corbyn and Sanders: This is not the Left we want
    rufus magister | Jul 13, 2016 7:29:34 AM | 15
    Further to 14 -- Big Legacies of Bernie Sanders' Historic Campaign.
    Seventh is the real possibility Bernie has inspired of a third party – if the Democratic Party doesn't respond to the necessity of getting big money out of politics and reversing widening inequality, if it doesn't begin to advocate for a single-payer healthcare system, or push hard for higher taxes on the wealthy - including a wealth tax - to pay for better education and better opportunities for everyone else, if it doesn't expand Social Security and lift the cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax, if it doesn't bust up the biggest banks and strengthen antitrust laws, and expand voting rights.

    If it doesn't act on these critical issues. the Democratic Party will become irrelevant to the future of America, and a third party will emerge to address them.

    From the first I hoped that the revolutionary left would be able to capitalize on the issues raised by Sanders' insurgency. You will win support by winning concrete gains for real people. Not by shrill denunciations of the masses ignorance or gullibility.

    Copeland | Jul 13, 2016 7:56:07 AM | 18
    Very good observations from b. Bernie Sanders claims some concessions were achieved in the platform committee document. But one issue of greatest importance, on trade issues,--specifically the rejection of TPP, is a lost cause. Bernie threw in the towel. The phony sideshow of reconstituted New Deal hoopla is merely the same tired fantasy narrative that the Democrats predictably trot out for every presidential election.

    The dear old man who started this campaign with this gem of rhetoric: "What we need is a revolution in the streets", is ending his monkeyshines with a ringing endosement of one of the most politically corrupt figures in our history. And once again, every 1930s, New Deal trope and hurrah, is to be trotted out, even though the former Clinton administration drove a stake into the heart of most of FDR's work.

    Get in line sheep. Mutton will be served.

    Jill Stein, who ran for president on the Green Party platform, says that Bernie's endorsement of Hillary is the "last nail in the coffin" which turns Sanders' revolution over to a counter-revolutionary party.

    fast freddy | Jul 13, 2016 8:11:02 AM | 19
    Trump would do well to attract Bernie Voters now, by exploiting areas of agreement. The TPP is one example.

    Owned by Goldman Bilderberg and the CFR, the Den of Lying Thieves and Whores - aka the Democratic Party - now has sneakily moved forward to tee up the TPP for passage by Crooked Hillary if not Oilbomber.

    Note: The Republican Party is also a Den of Lying Thieves and Whores.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 13, 2016 8:26:49 AM | 21
    rufus: Sanders did what he said he would from the start ...

    He led people to believe that he had principles - that he really was against Wall St. and SuperPACs and all that Hillary stands for. He also (late in the race) began talking about 'revolution' to play to the discontented and young idealists.

    Its all just bullshit when he ultimately supports Hillary. But those who support Hillary (like rufus does) try hard to finesse Sanders failing because they value the "service" that Sanders performed for the Obama-Hillary "Third Way" Democratic Party.

    Those who said that Sanders was a sheepdog from the start were right: the Democratic Party led by "Third Way" sellouts is hopeless. Long past time to move on.

    Vote Green Party.

    Bluemot5 | Jul 13, 2016 8:33:17 AM | 23
    Jill Stein response to Bernie endorsement of Hilary:
    http://www.jill2016.com/sanders_endorsement_clinton
    dahoit | Jul 13, 2016 8:35:54 AM | 24
    16;Heru;You gotta throw that ideology crap in the can.

    Wtf do think Trumps support is, but democrats and republicans tired of Israeli shills?

    Trump will win, as the only way the pos crud could is by Trumps assassination.

    Did you hear what he said about Ginsburg? Her mind is shot! An Israeli on the SC.3 in fact. sheesh.

    Copeland | Jul 13, 2016 8:54:37 AM | 26
    Now now Jackrabbit, go easy on rufus. You have to remember that cognitive dissonance is infinitely extensible across a mind that is captured by delusion.

    Yes Virginia, they are all hucksters -- Surely the microscopic communist party, or its pale American likeness, of which rufus is a mustache twirling member, is less of a political fantasy, than the Green Party!

    What chance do we have with Hillary?--a back-stabbing, forked-tongue, daughter of Goldman Sachs, whose speeches to the industrialists and bankers are practically a state secret? Yes, Hillary!--who is coated from head to toe with a patina of blood, and smells of corpses?

    somebody | Jul 13, 2016 9:46:28 AM | 30
    @harrylaw | Jul 13, 2016 9:18:24 AM | 27

    So it is basically the British Trade Unions making sure their members dominate in the leadership election?

    The US democratic party is a huge income generating corporation with some worker representation. Sanders is correct to stay inside if he wants to change politics. If Sandernistas continue the fight (they will, it is generational, same as the Clintons were generational) seat for seat they will change the party. They will get changed themselves in the process for sure.

    It seems the Libertarian party succeeds in splitting Republicans. For Sanders to split Democrats would be voting for Trump. He would have to live with this fame outside of the Democratic Party with no one to team up in the Senate.

    US corporations aren't stupid. They know bad, expensive education, decaying infrastructure and violence in the street are bad for business. They might even realize that corruption is bad for them. And that worker representation makes life easier all around.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 13, 2016 9:48:55 AM | 31
    Bluemot5 @23

    Jill goes easy on Sanders in her statement because she wants to attract his supporters.

    In fact, Sanders pulled several key punches in the race:

    > he was late in calling out Hillary-DNC collusion - campaign financing got the headlines but what about the DNC's silence about: a) media bias toward Hillary and b) voter irregularities: AP called the race for Hillary the day before California voted based on secret polling of Super-delegates! ;

    > he failed to attack Obama's record on black/minority affairs - despite Sanders having conducted a fake filibuster over the Fiscal Cliff/Sequester - Hillary walked away with the black vote;

    > he failed to call Hillary out on her emails after the State Inspector General report was release and it was CLEAR that she had lied about her emails;

    And Sanders is not an "independent" as any ordinary person would interpret that term:

    > he has caucused with the Democrats for a very long time (nearly 20 years?);

    > he runs in the Vermont Democratic Primary when running for House/Senate with the understanding that he will not run in general election as a Democrat (this effectively blocks opposition from a Democratic candidate);

    > he is close/friendly with all of the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him to win his Senate seat; Schumer endorses him; he calls Hillary a 'friend' of 25 years.

    Felicity | Jul 13, 2016 10:35:54 AM | 33
    I "stole" this great piece for Global Research, with so many thanks again:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-u-s-and-uk-liberals-disfranchise-their-party-members/5535699

    RIP democracy in the US and UK, finally out of it's misery, been gasping it's last for a very long time.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 13, 2016 10:45:08 AM | 34
    Kshama Sawant: Bernie Sanders Abandons the Revolution
    The strategy of lesser evilism has been an utter disaster for the 99%. Effectively unchallenged by the left, the Democratic Party helped the Republican Party to push the agenda steadily to the right over the past decades. As Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has aptly put it, "the politics of fear has delivered everything we were afraid of."

    ... Bernie's endorsement will be used in an attempt to prop up that same rotten establishment ... [that makes] Sanders endorsement of Clinton is [sic] a fundamental failure of leadership.
    ...
    We can't afford to follow Bernie's error. It is time for us to move on. ... That is why I'm endorsing Green Party candidate Jill Stein. ... There can be no doubt that Jill's campaign is the clear continuation of our political revolution, and deserves the broadest possible support from Sandernistas.

    Ken Nari | Jul 13, 2016 10:55:38 AM | 35
    Mark Stoval @ 16 -- We've had a fascist economic system (since the 30s)...

    Even before. At least since 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which transferred the holdings of the U.S. treasury to international bankers.

    b, me too. For the first time I think Clinton may actually be president. Sanders never had a chance for the simple reason -- never stated -- that he is too old. When he took office he would have been only a few years short of the age Reagan was when he left.

    (For some reason age has never come up with this elderly bunch. Both Bill Clinton (as co-president) and Trump will be older than Reagan was on election day, and Hillary will be only a few months younger. You'd think we'd be seeing clips of Hillary chopping logs and Trump free climbing the face of cliffs -- the sort of stuff they put poor old Ron through.)

    A scary thought is that age has never come up because the powers that pick presidents don't intend for them to be in office long.

    Except in style, Hillary is no different than Obama, Bush II, or her husband. Whereas earlier presidents felt the need to put on a show of decency -- well, okay, Bush II let it drop now and then -- H. Clinton will be a bitch Cheney, going out of her way to rub everyone's face in it and bragging there's nothing they can do about it.

    Her style's different, but the same game will go on.

    There's a bright side however. She's dumb and knows no bounds. Think Louis XVI. That, along with her arrogance, may finally bring a tipping point of sorts. With things coming apart everywhere, a smooth-talking fraud like Reagan or Obama might be able to somehow hold it together a little longer. Hillary's nastiness could actually bring real change. God in his infinite irony.

    To riff off a comment by Banger a few posts back. To say there is a deep state controlling Clinton may be an over simplification. More likely their are lots of competing and conflicting forces working in the dark, none with any clear idea or plan (or inkling of what other powers are doing) each pushing for immediate gains without a thought for the future.

    It's often said here that the plan is chaos. Maybe, or it could be that there is such confusion and turmoil and chaos is so prevalent, that it looks like it must be a plan. Or taking a longer view, it could be what we're seeing everywhere is the inevitable collapse of a vast culture that has grown too complex.

    In the struggle for power everyone. including H. Clinton, is a useful fool and a potential patsy. Those hidden powers have a history of eating their own.

    virgile | Jul 13, 2016 11:04:50 AM | 36
    Sanders has been a great disappointment. In order to prevent Trump from getting the votes, he is embracing and selling his soul and his supporters to a demon! In fact Sanders has more in common with Trump that he has with Hillary.

    One hopes that disenchanted Sanders supporters will either abstain or vote for Trump.
    Having the choice only of two candidates is an absurdity.

    Stan | Jul 13, 2016 11:26:42 AM | 41
    "Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs" is not a valid statement.

    Sanders is a long time member of The Party and Congress. One cannot be a member of those clubs for so long -- particularly during the years spanning the turn of the last century -- and not be rotten to the core.

    His followers were fools. I think some of them know that now.

    Jack Smith | Jul 13, 2016 12:14:52 PM | 44
    @Grieved | Jul 13, 2016 2:46:33 AM | 4

    Excuse me, not meant to be offensive. :-)

    Like million and millions of Americans you have been fooled not once but repeatedly and still believe in democracy and Democratic party. Get real, Sanders probably a better lair than most liars but not as good as Obomo and Hillary. Understands million and millions still believe these two liars (dun believes me look at the most recent poll).

    Do the smart things vote the opposite what the masses or MSM tells you. Better still vote Trump and end the drip, drip and drips. Buy yourself a good cheap pitchfork, snows shovel or whatever in yr local Craigslist or yard sales. Get ready for the final solution.

    Good luck. :-)

    ben | Jul 13, 2016 12:23:08 PM | 47
    Good take b, thanks.

    I for one, hoped for more than "sheepdog" from Sanders, but, alas, those who said so, were totally correct. Trump and HRC are 2 sides of the same coin. It matters not who wins. With either one, workers of the world are fucked. The corporate global takeover rolls on.

    I will "vote" for Jill Stein.

    On the efficacy of E-voting in the U$A.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14545

    jason | Jul 13, 2016 12:29:05 PM | 48
    jules @ 46: in American politics, none of these people are for dismantling the biggest budgetary fraud & boondoggle in human history: the pentagon. anybody saying they are for "small gov't" who doesn't immediately propose to slash the military/para-military budget (not the VA, not now) by 50% every year for the next 500 years is lying.
    Jules | Jul 13, 2016 12:34:42 PM | 51
    @rufus magister | Jul 13, 2016 8:29:00 AM | 22

    I would have thought anyone with half a brain could see why there is an attraction for Trump.

    Hillary represents a continuation of the last 8 years, or even perhaps the last 16 or 24+ years. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

    Trump represents someone who's just so mad he might well blow up the entire global trading system starting trade wars left right and centre.

    How do you think a US trade war with China will go down?

    It will destroy the G20, WTO, perhaps even the US trading relations with Europe in the backdraft!

    For anyone who is against the NWO, this can surely be only a good thing.

    Also, Trump's stated foreign policies are basically bomb and kill all the terrorists and leave the various thug governments alone.

    Sounds better to me than NeoCon Wars all over the place "of choice".

    Ala, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.

    ben | Jul 13, 2016 12:37:14 PM | 52
    PS-I guess, to distill the question, one might say.. Should corporations serve the people, or should people serve the corporations? As of now, "the powers that are", believe in the latter.
    Stan | Jul 13, 2016 2:31:27 PM | 68
    @juliania | Jul 13, 2016 2:00:54 PM

    People taken in by Sanders learned no lessons from gushing over Obama. They hurt themselves again and are sociopathically indifferent to the far greater harm they have done to those who were not gullible.

    Casowary Gentry | Jul 13, 2016 2:57:06 PM | 70
    "Bernie Sanders folded. This without gaining any significant concession from Hillary Clinton on programmatic or personal grounds. (At least as far as we know.) He endorsed Clinton as presidential candidate even as she gave no ground for his voters' opinions. This disenfranchises the people who supported him."

    Even if she had given any "significant concession", it would have been meaningless noise with not an iota of intention to implement such concessions.
    She is a POS who will say anything at all to get elected. The only thing we really know is she relishes confrontation on the foreign policy scene. Otherwise nobody can rely on her to act in their interests in the domestic realm, except big corporate entities.

    tom | Jul 13, 2016 5:13:00 PM | 82
    Syriza...oops, Sanders, was always more loyal to the Democratic party then his ideology. ALWAYS.
    I don't know why his supporters are surprised. Did they actually think he was lying when he said he would support Hillary Clinton.
    And not only that, he out right lied saying that the Democrats have the most progressive platform in Democrat history !!! A fucking ludicrous lie to protect evil Hillary. Disgraceful.

    Most of The left are so pathetic it's embarrassing, it's a great invitation to be dominated by the right wing.
    I believe every threat that the despicable right wing will bring, I do not believe the ideology commitment the vast majority of the left wing in power. Miserable lying cowards.

    It is stupid for B to keep linking to Trumps quotes exclusively. Why does b not link to Jill Stein criticism. Sure Trumps criticism of evil Hillarys corruption will gather important support, but exclusively giving torture loving warmongering Trump ammunition, strangles other better candidates in their political birth in the alternative to status quo attention. In the same way that the Sanders, Chomsky, and other shortsighted cowards react by strangle politically strangling a desperate new movement.

    MadMax2 | Jul 13, 2016 5:41:33 PM | 83
    Congrats to those who labeled the 'Sheepdog' so early. Such an apt description. Good call.
    Yesterday I had two emails from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, giddy with joy over Sanders endorsement of Clinton. Today I had another, which made me giddy with joy:
    After Bernie's call for unity yesterday, we just figured Democrats would...well...unify.

    But instead, everything is falling apart.

    FIRST: We heard barely a peep from grassroots Democrats.
    THEN: A Quinnipiac poll showed Trump and Clinton tied in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
    NOW: We're questioning whether the Democratic Party can unify at all.

    Great to hear that they're falling on their faces. The DCCC recruits ex-Republicans, Republicans-Lite, and conservative Democrats to run for Congress, and actively oppose liberal candidates. Long may they fail. Support worthy individual candidates.
    karlof1 | Jul 13, 2016 7:56:55 PM | 86
    Don't know if anyone's mentioned this book: "The Clinton's war on Women." There's a good long review posted here, http://thesaker.is/the-clintons-war-on-women/ Lots of potential mud for Trump to sling that will stick.
    Jackrabbit | Jul 13, 2016 8:36:09 PM | 90
    Sanders released only one year of tax returns (2015). His campaign manager claimed his taxes held no surprises. Well they didn't for 2015. But why didn't Sanders release earlier years? Any serious Presidential candidate would expect to release at least 3 years of tax returns.

    Given the 'service' that he performed, it might be especially interesting to have seen his taxes for 2014, the year before he entered the race. The lack of transparency and Sanders' 'sheepdogging' raises questions of whether he received any inducements to enter the race.

    Donald Trump is even worse. He hasn't released any tax info. He claims that the IRS is auditing him (and that they have for many years) . But why not release estimates and/or earlier tax returns?

    ALberto | Jul 13, 2016 9:26:55 PM | 91
    We have gone through the looking glass. This evening on Public Broadcasting Service television news hour Dr. Assad was interviewed by Judy Woodruff, a talking head teleprompter reading hand puppet. Dr. Assad was asked if Donald Trump was elected President would his lack of foreign relations diplomacy chops hinder his administrations abilities to achieve their goals. The question was of no import. Nor was the answer. THE FACT THAT DR. ASSAD WAS TREATED AS AN EQUAL and not "Assad must go" is a very significant event. VERY SIGNIFICANT!

    Just me opinion...

    rufus magister | Jul 13, 2016 9:29:33 PM | 92
    in re 82 --

    He's a democratic socialist, so such affiliations and tactics are not unusual. The Democratic Socialists of America, for example, a Socialist International section, is wholly within the Democratic Party.

    Cho Nyawinh | Jul 13, 2016 10:17:28 PM | 94
    The Plan was always from the start for Bernie to hold down the Left, so Hillary could capture Center-Right, and Donald could lead the Far Right into Smackdown. Then Bernie would deliver the Left to Hillary. And so it has come to pass.

    I thought everyone knew Bernie, Hillary and Donald are all bought and sold by Goldman? Hillary and Donald sold their progeny to The Tribe, and Bernie is a woo-woo already. The traitor Chosen sold US into slavery with Gramm-Leich-Bliley, and fawning sycophant Al-Clintonim signed that bill into 'law' (sic), in return for her US Senate seat from NY.

    Badda-boom, badda-bing!

    These are the Vampire Squid, the Takers, Mafia Elites 'who settled the Western Frontier' and now are the 'Disruptors' of the Public Space into a privatized Fivrr-Uber hell. They own you. You are owned by the Private Central Bankim. Even a small child will tell you that your only real 'free choice' is to write-in "HELL NO!" in November, then flee to the 3W.

    "We did not know" Lol, sure you didn't.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 13, 2016 10:36:03 PM | 99
    followup @89

    Sanders didn't release his other tax returns even when it became an issue in the campaign .

    Hillary said that she wouldn't release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches until Sanders had released more tax returns. Her reasoning: she had complied with what was expected of a Presidential candidate while the other had not yet done so.

    Why wouldn't he immediately release those returns - which his campaign had claimed contained no surprises - so as to force Hillary to release the transcripts?

    Very suspicious.

    rufus magister | Jul 14, 2016 8:21:04 AM | 112
    Here's an indicator of what sort of transparency in government one might expect from the Trump "Administration."

    Trump Sues Ex-Staffer For $10 Million For Breaking Nondisclosure Agreement.

    Not only are staffers subjected to this, volunteers are as well. "The tight control of volunteers stands in stark contrast to not only American political-campaign norms but also Trump's reputation for speaking his mind."

    Combine that with his statement that he'd like to change libel laws to make it easier for himself to sue news organizations that down fawn all over him. Does he seem like the sort to encourage whistle-blowers like Manning or Snowden? Will he be logging all his email traffic for future FOIA requests? Or maybe he'll kill that off, too.

    PavewayIV | Jul 14, 2016 2:57:23 PM | 122
    News Flash: Israel wins U.S. election; Iran to be nuked during inauguration

    Trump just picked Mike Pence as running mate. And from ((( Forward ))):

    "...Pence has said his support of Israel is deeply rooted in his Christian faith, as well as in his strong relationship with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Pence was introduced to AIPAC members in 2009 by then-board member Marshall Cooper at an AIPAC policy conference.

    "Let me say emphatically, like the overwhelming majority of my constituents, my Christian faith compels me to cherish the state of Israel," then-Rep. Pence said.

    Cooper described Pence to the audience as "Israel's good friend."..."

    So whether Hillary or Trump gets the job (or Obama declares a national emergency an remains) Israel will be the de-facto new commander-in-chief of the U.S., henceforth to be know as Palestine West.

    jfl | Jul 14, 2016 7:28:16 PM | 126
    Israeli Mass Surveillance System Launched in UAE

    The new Falcon Eye surveillance system-sold to the UAE by an Israeli defense contractor-"links thousands of cameras spread across the city, as well as thousands of other cameras installed at facilities and buildings in the emirate," the Abu Dhabi Monitoring and Control Center said in an official statement. The Falcon Eye will "help control roads by monitoring traffic violations while also monitoring significant behaviors in (Abu Dhabi) such as public hygiene and human assemblies in non-dedicated areas."

    Strange bedfellows? Not at all. The Israelis and the GCC countries, the USG and EU, are all soul brothers : tiny 'elite' minorities attempting to rule their respective roosts by technological means encompassing everything from drones to the media to their ubiquitous taps.

    Totalitarianism is alive and well in the Middle East ... and in North America, the UK, Europe ... the last thing to be tolerated, the first things to be crushed, are 'human assemblies in non-dedicated areas' over which their corporate selves would rule.

    The Powers That Are are thicker than thieves. Among mere thieves competition remains. The PTA are acting in loco parentis ... taking 'care' of us all for their own good.

    Mike Gravel used to describe our present political situation as 'adolescent': mature enough to understand the fix we're in, too immature to do anything but complain to 'those in charge'.

    We're in charge. We've just been asleep at the wheel. Time to wake up, finally? Before our whole world become Nice?

    Bob In Portland | Jul 14, 2016 8:02:35 PM | 127
    I agree that if Sanders had gone on to the Green Party he could have gotten significant support, enough to guarantee Clinton's loss. But that's not what he wanted to do, whatever his reasons for running. Folks overseas who think that Trump is anything more than a loudmouth, racist who would be controlled by the same forces as Clinton is controlled by are fooling themselves. If Sanders ran as a "pied piper" it wasn't successful. If anything, he presented a contrast to what the Democratic Party has become.

    In 1963 there was a coup in America. Since then the military-industrial complex has run the country. It has been most apparent in its foreign policy, which has been the conquest of natural resources (especially oil and gas) worldwide. America's resentment with the USSR/Russia has to do with their living on top of resources.

    But in order to continue the illusion of democracy in the US, it was necessary to maintain some differences between the two parties so that Americans would think that they have a choice. Meanwhile, the party that is supposed to represent the working class has been sliding into the arms of the corporatists. Essentially, in order to give Americans a "choice" Trump has been pushed as the demonic clown versus H. Clinton. Unfortunately, for good reasons as well as because of endless propaganda from the right, most Americans distrust Clinton, as well they should. Her casual announcement about enforcing a "no-fly zone" over Syria is essentially a declaration of war against Russia.

    Going back to the coup in 1963, in order to maintain control of the population it was necessary for the ruling class to continue to generate candidates each election cycle to pretend to care about the working class. I have long suspected that early on in their careers both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were recruited by US intelligence. During his time in Britain Bill's classmates assumed that he was CIA At about this time Hillary, who'd been raised a rabid Republican, went to both the Republican and Democratic national conventions in 1968. Not only was it a rather expensive thing to do for a college student, but most people who are interested in one party aren't interested in the other. I suspect it was the beginning of her career in US power politics. Shortly after she wrote a pro-Vietnam speech for Melvin Laird in 1968, she was involved with the various Black Panther trials around the US.

    It's hard to believe that the Hillary who stands before us now was ever a political ally of the Panthers. Rather, I suspect she was observing for an intelligence agency, the FBI or CIA She sat through a Panther trial in New Haven, Connecticut, and then spent a summer in Oakland working for the law firm that was representing the Panthers in the Bay Area. Essentially, she was in the right place at the right time to glean information for COINTELPRO, the massive spying program directed against anti-war and black movements. A few years later she worked on the Democrats' legal team for Watergate, another good place for a government informant to be. Bill, during his time at Oxford, would have functioned like the thousands of informants who sat in on peace group meetings across American campuses.

    Later, when the CIA was dumping cocaine at Mena, Arkansas, Bill Clinton was in position to make sure state police left the operation alone. It's not surprising that George W. Bush's first head of the DEA was Asa Hutchinson, who'd been the incurious federal prosecutor over that part of Arkansas when the drugs came in.

    The Clintons were prominent in the Democratic Leadership Council, which was an organization within the Democratic Party pushing it to the right. In 1992 Bill pushed trade agreements that would destroy the American middle class. Since then the party has been hopelessly corrupted by Wall Street money.

    It's now Hillary's turn. If you've always wanted to take a vacation somewhere or wanted to do something before you die, I suggest you make time for it this year. I cannot think of another president in memory who is more wed to military adventurism than Hillary.

    Piotr Berman | Jul 14, 2016 9:19:55 PM | 129
    Proportional representation etc. is not a panaceum. I think that party solidarity, even if the party is only partially satisfactory is a good tool. What is happening is that Sanders who represents "turn left" for Democrats is now more electable than Clinton. This has a potential for a big change, much bigger than ephemeral "relative success" of the Greens, who are fated to collect less votes than Libertarians (they may have their best year in a long, long time).

    Of course, the "right wing of the left" discards party solidarity with ease. They more or less rejected McGovern and Carter. Hillary's health care reform had the same fate. But they have very hard time copying with change. Hillary basically promised good old times, and this is not good enough. I suspect that her game plan is to unload full blast of "Trump's corruption" ads closer to elections and keep the "positive tone" for now, and that may even work.

    But if she polls badly enough, Democratic establishment may see the light and go for Sanders.

    [Jul 15, 2016] Mike Pence Would Be A Terrible Choice For Trumps VP

    "Advisers and family members stressed to Mr. Trump that he was selecting a running mate to unite the party, not a new best friend, according to people briefed on the process."
    Mr. Pence, Indiana's governor, is a former congressman and radio host.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Reports that Mike Pence is set to be announced as Donald Trump's VP pick tomorrow have set off alarm bells amongst many Trump supporters because of the Governor of Indiana's pro-amnesty, pro-TPP advocacy. ..."
    "... While Trump has campaigned against job-killing foreign trade deals, Pence vehemently supports NAFTA, CAFTA, and the TPP. ..."
    "... As recently as December, Pence tweeted, "Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional." This completely contradicts Trump's policy of a temporary halt on Muslim immigration ..."
    "... Pence voted for the Iraq war and opposed a withdrawal date even after it became apparent that U.S. involvement in the country was a disastrous policy. ..."
    "... Pence is not a woman. Picking a female would have completely neutralized Hillary Clinton's sole campaign platform, one bolstered by the media, which is the fact that Hillary has a vagina. ..."
    "... The overwhelmingly negative reaction from many of Trump's hardcore supporters should serve as a big wake up call and hopefully lead to the announcement of someone other than Pence to be Trump's running mate. ..."
    YouTube

    http://www.infowars.com/mike-pence-wo...

    Reports that Mike Pence is set to be announced as Donald Trump's VP pick tomorrow have set off alarm bells amongst many Trump supporters because of the Governor of Indiana's pro-amnesty, pro-TPP advocacy.

    Here are more reasons why picking Pence doesn't make sense;

    – While Trump has promised to build a wall, Pence has been savaged by respected conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly for advocating "stealth amnesty" in the form of a guest worker program.

    While Trump has campaigned against job-killing foreign trade deals, Pence vehemently supports NAFTA, CAFTA, and the TPP.

    As recently as December, Pence tweeted, "Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional." This completely contradicts Trump's policy of a temporary halt on Muslim immigration

    Pence voted for the Iraq war and opposed a withdrawal date even after it became apparent that U.S. involvement in the country was a disastrous policy.

    – Pence once advocated "conversion therapy" for homosexuals. This will be exploited by the left to portray Pence as intolerant and bigoted, turning off many Bernie Sanders supporters who might have voted for Trump, as well as gays who were thinking about voting for Trump in the aftermath of the Orlando massacre.

    Pence is not a woman. Picking a female would have completely neutralized Hillary Clinton's sole campaign platform, one bolstered by the media, which is the fact that Hillary has a vagina.

    Hopefully, the Pence leak is just the Trump campaign testing the waters before a final call is made.

    Trump's campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that "a decision has not been made," and the Indianapolis Star did not provide a source for its Pence leak.

    The overwhelmingly negative reaction from many of Trump's hardcore supporters should serve as a big wake up call and hopefully lead to the announcement of someone other than Pence to be Trump's running mate.

    [Jul 15, 2016] Eleven Troubling Facts About Trumps VP, Mike Pence

    NYT: "Advisers and family members stressed to Mr. Trump that he was selecting a running mate to unite the party, not a new best friend, according to people briefed on the process."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is best known to voters as a man who wants to build a wall on the Mexican border, and Pence is no different – he previously voted to put a wall on the same border. Additionally, he has moved to end birthright citizenship to "anchor babies" and wanted to require that hospitals report undocumented patients to immigration officials. ..."
    "... Pence's small government, slash taxes and budgets approach to legislating has made him a favorite among Tea Party members. The Washington Post deemed him a "tea party Republican before there was a tea party." ..."
    "... When asked to describe himself, Pence says he is "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." In other words, he puts his faith first, which is probably why he can't get behind any socially liberal ideas. ..."
    www.truth-out.org

    ... .... ...

    3. He's Anti-Immigration

    Trump is best known to voters as a man who wants to build a wall on the Mexican border, and Pence is no different – he previously voted to put a wall on the same border. Additionally, he has moved to end birthright citizenship to "anchor babies" and wanted to require that hospitals report undocumented patients to immigration officials.

    Back in 2006 when the House and Senate were having a difficult time agreeing on immigration reform, Pence offered up a "compromise" bill that offered no amnesty to immigrants currently living in the country. That's hardly a compromise – that's a tougher stance than most conservatives take, actually.

    ... ... ...

    6. He's Buddies With the Koch Brothers

    "I've met David Koch on several occasions," Pence said. "I'm grateful to have enjoyed his support." In particular, he thanked the Koch brothers and their organization Americans for Prosperity for their "activism" in helping to reduce the income tax in Indiana and (supposedly) limiting the role of government.

    7. He's Frighteningly Anti-Choice

    While it may be too much to expect a pro-choice VP nominee from Trump, did he have to choose a man with such clear contempt for a woman's autonomy over her body? Indiana has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, thanks in large part to Pence's leadership on this issue.

    In addition to turning the defunding of Planned Parenthood into his personal hobby, Pence promoted laws designed to humiliate women and make abortion procedures less safe. Some of his own Republican colleagues disagreed with his ideas, worried that his emphasis was on punishing women rather than actually saving fetuses.

    8. He's a Tea Party "Hero"

    Pence's small government, slash taxes and budgets approach to legislating has made him a favorite among Tea Party members. The Washington Post deemed him a "tea party Republican before there was a tea party."

    ... ... ...

    11. He's Extremely Religious

    Pence was actually raised in a Catholic, apolitical household , but later became a born-again Christian after meeting his wife.

    When asked to describe himself, Pence says he is "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." In other words, he puts his faith first, which is probably why he can't get behind any socially liberal ideas.

    Pence is expected to be a big hit with evangelical voters who might be unconvinced of Trump's self-professed strong Christian faith.

    [Jul 15, 2016] US media trouncing Trump 24-7 proves democracy a charade by Finian Cunningham

    Notable quotes:
    "... The mainstream US news media have never liked the brash billionaire Trump. He makes good circulation figures for sure, but the large coverage the Republican contender has received from the outset is preponderantly negative. ..."
    "... Trump's campaign has instead been buoyed by the popular vote, not by endorsement from the elite establishment, including the Republican Party leadership and the corporate media. Now that the race for the presidency is turning into a two-horse contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump, the media's antipathy towards Trump is moving to an all-out barrage of attacks. Attacks, it has to be said, that are bordering on hysteria and which only a corporate machine could convey. ..."
    "... Trump vehemently rebuffed the claims. He said it was simply a star, like the ones that US Marshals use. When his campaign team reacted to the initial media furor by replacing the red star with a circle it only served to fuel accusations against Trump because he was seen to be acting defensively. However, he later defiantly rebuked his campaign team and said they should have stuck with the star image and let him defend that choice of image as simply an innocuous star shape. For what it's worth, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, subsequently rallied to the tycoon's defense and said he was not racist nor anti-Semitic and that the controversy was a media-contrived storm in a teacup. ..."
    "... Trump makes a valid point that Clinton's abuse of state secrecy – whether intentional or negligent – has in fact posed a national security threat. Yet the media focus is decidedly not on his Democrat rival. It is rather centered on overblown concerns about the wealthy real estate developer. ..."
    "... Trump is right. The political system in the US is rigged . Not just in terms of double standards of the justice system, but in the bigger context of how candidates are screened and vetted – in this case through undue vilification. ..."
    "... Trump's reactionary views on immigration, race relations and international politics are certainly questionable. His credibility as the next president of the US may be dubious. But is his credibility any less than that of Hillary Clinton? Her melding of official capacity with private gain from Wall Street banks and foreign governments acting as donors to her family's fund-raising Clinton Foundation has the pungent whiff of selling federal policy for profit. Her penchant for criminal regime change operations in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Ukraine speak of a political mafia don. ..."
    "... American politics has long been derided as a "dog and pony show" ..."
    "... But what we are witnessing is a brazen display of how the powers-that-be (Wall Street, media, Pentagon, Washington, etc) are audaciously intervening in this electoral cycle to disenfranchise the voting population. ..."
    www.rt.com

    RT Op-Edge

    Presidential hopeful Donald Trump is right: the 'system is 'rigged'. The media barrage against the billionaire demonstrates irrefutably how the power establishment, not the people, decides who sits in the White House.

    Trump is increasingly assailed in the US media with alleged character flaws. The latest blast paints Trump as a total loose cannon who would launch World War III. In short, a "nuke nut".

    In the Pentagon-aligned Defense One journal, the property magnate is described as someone who cannot be trusted with his finger on the nuclear button. Trump would order nuclear strikes equivalent to 20,000 Hiroshima bombings as "easy as ordering a pizza", claimed the opinion piece.

    If that's not an example of "project fear" then what is?

    The mainstream US news media have never liked the brash billionaire Trump. He makes good circulation figures for sure, but the large coverage the Republican contender has received from the outset is preponderantly negative.

    Trump's campaign has instead been buoyed by the popular vote, not by endorsement from the elite establishment, including the Republican Party leadership and the corporate media. Now that the race for the presidency is turning into a two-horse contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump, the media's antipathy towards Trump is moving to an all-out barrage of attacks. Attacks, it has to be said, that are bordering on hysteria and which only a corporate machine could convey.

    Like a giant screening process, the Trump candidacy and his supporters are being systematically disenfranchised. At this rate of attrition, by the time the election takes place in November the result will already have been all but formally decided – by the powers-that-be, not the popular will.

    The past week provides a snapshot of the intensifying media barrage facing Trump. Major US media outlets have run prominent claims that Trump is a fan of the former brutal Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Those claims were based on a loose interpretation of what Trump said at a rally when he referred to Saddam's strong-arm suppression of terrorism. He didn't say he liked Saddam. In fact, called him a "bad guy". But Trump said that the Iraqi dictator efficiently eliminated terrorists.

    A second media meme to emerge was "Trump the anti-Semite". This referred to an image his campaign team tweeted of Hillary Clinton as "the most corrupt candidate ever". The words were emblazoned on a red, six-pointed star. Again, the mainstream media gave copious coverage to claims that the image was anti-Semitic because, allegedly, it was a Jewish 'Star of David'.

    Trump vehemently rebuffed the claims. He said it was simply a star, like the ones that US Marshals use. When his campaign team reacted to the initial media furor by replacing the red star with a circle it only served to fuel accusations against Trump because he was seen to be acting defensively. However, he later defiantly rebuked his campaign team and said they should have stuck with the star image and let him defend that choice of image as simply an innocuous star shape.

    For what it's worth, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, subsequently rallied to the tycoon's defense and said he was not racist nor anti-Semitic and that the controversy was a media-contrived storm in a teacup.

    Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump. © Jim YoungLawsuit that may break The Donald's back: Virginia GOP delegate challenges Trump
    In the same week that the alleged dictator-loving, anti-Semitic Trump hit newsstands, we then read about nuclear trigger-happy Donald.

    Not only that but the Trump-risks-Armageddon article also refers to him being in the same company as Russian leader Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jung Un who, we are told, "also have their finger on the nuclear button".

    Under the headline, 'How to slow Donald Trump from pushing the nuclear button', a photograph shows the presidential contender with a raised thump in a downward motion. The answer being begged is: Don't vote for this guy – unless you want to incinerate the planet!

    This is scare-tactics to the extreme thrown in for good measure along with slander and demonization. And all pumped up to maximum volume by the US corporate media, all owned by just six conglomerates.

    Trump is having to now spend more of his time explaining what he is alleged to have said or did not say, instead of being allowed to level criticisms at his Democrat rival or to advance whatever political program he intends to deliver as president.

    The accusation that Trump is a threat to US national security is all the more ironic given that this week Hillary Clinton was labelled as "extremely careless" by the head of the FBI over her dissemination of state secrets through her insecure private email account.

    Many legal experts and former US government officials maintain that Clinton's breach of classified information is deserving of criminal prosecution – an outcome that would debar her from contesting the presidential election.

    Why the FBI should have determined that there is no case for prosecution even though more than 100 classified documents were circulated by Clinton when she was Secretary of State (2009-2013) has raised public heckles of "double standards".

    The controversy has been compounded by the US Attorney General Loretta Lynch also declaring that no charges will be pressed and the case is closed – a week after she met with Hillary's husband, Bill, on board her plane for a hush-hush chat.

    Trump makes a valid point that Clinton's abuse of state secrecy – whether intentional or negligent – has in fact posed a national security threat. Yet the media focus is decidedly not on his Democrat rival. It is rather centered on overblown concerns about the wealthy real estate developer.

    Trump is right. The political system in the US is rigged. Not just in terms of double standards of the justice system, but in the bigger context of how candidates are screened and vetted – in this case through undue vilification.

    Trump's reactionary views on immigration, race relations and international politics are certainly questionable. His credibility as the next president of the US may be dubious. But is his credibility any less than that of Hillary Clinton? Her melding of official capacity with private gain from Wall Street banks and foreign governments acting as donors to her family's fund-raising Clinton Foundation has the pungent whiff of selling federal policy for profit. Her penchant for criminal regime change operations in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Ukraine speak of a political mafia don.

    American politics has long been derided as a "dog and pony show", whereby powerful lobbies buy the pageant outcome. Trump's own participation in the election is only possible because he is a multi-billionaire who is able to fund a political campaign. That said, however, the New York businessman has garnered a sizable popular following from his maverick attacks on the rotten Washington establishment.

    But what we are witnessing is a brazen display of how the powers-that-be (Wall Street, media, Pentagon, Washington, etc) are audaciously intervening in this electoral cycle to disenfranchise the voting population.

    Clinton has emerged as the candidate-of-choice for the establishment, and the race to the White House is being nobbled – like never before.

    US democracy a race? More like a knacker's yard.

    [Jul 15, 2016] Sanders Prepares to Bow Down to Hillary, But Many of His Supporters Won't

    www.blackagendareport.com

    Black Agenda Report

    It is difficult to imagine how the Trump rank and file and the party's corporate "establishment" will paper over their irreconcilable differences, rooted in the party's failure to preserve skin privilege and good jobs in a White Man's Country.

    Just as brazenly, Trump, the rabble rousing billionaire, has violated the most sacred ruling class taboos by rejecting the national security rationale for the hyper-aggressive, ever-expanding, global U.S. military presence. If Trump fails to convincingly recant such heresies, the rulers will deal with him with extreme prejudice.

    [Jul 15, 2016] Trump needs an ambassador to what we might call the Parliamentary Republican Party

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
        1. Epistrophy

          Dear dear … not one single serious issue in that article … just divisiveness. Nothing about the economy, excessive corporate power, international trade treaties, widespread (illegal) surveillance, potential for war … nothing.

          Reply
          1. Lambert Strether Post author

            Well, there was some stuff. It seems to me that Trump needs an ambassador to what we might call the Parliamentary Republican Party - same wankers the Trump campaign went through like the Blitzkreig through the French in 1939 - but who still control levers of party power; I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they were trying to McGovern Trump by denying him a VP candidate at all, until Manafort whipped them like the curs they are.

            Dunno about the Kochs; from their quote yesterday ("Trump is a nice fellow") I doubt it. However, Ivanka has clevely gotten other donors dubious about Trump to contribute to other aspects of the campaign, so the Kochs might end up doing that.

            I used to love bilious pieces like that, and wrote plenty of them, too. It gets tiring, after awhile, getting all whipped up. I like more signal, less noise.

    1. EndOfTheWorld

      Trump picking Pence was a concession to the repug establishment so they will finally give up their idea of revolting against The Donald. Also he will always be there reminding Trump that many repugs would be very happy if Trump were assassinated, so The Donald will be careful.

      1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        They'd be wrong to think about assassinating him.

        And they'd be equally wrong to think about doing that to Sanders, or anyone else.

        Why only Trump is mentioned though? Is he most dangerous to them?

        Reply
        1. EndOfTheWorld

          No, I'm saying if Trump is prez with Pence as veep, he will have to be nice to the repug establishment, or else. Because Pence is preferable to them. But he had to do this, apparently, just to get past the convention in Cleveland. This is my opinion, only--I'm not saying I have inside info. A prez feels safer with a really dumb veep, like the first Bush with Quayle, since the establishment is not going to off the prez only to get an even worse one ascending from the veepship. Trump would have preferred Joni Ernst, probably, but she "declined." Yeah, right-she was ordered to decline, to make way for giving Trump a choice between Gingrich or Pence, so he chose the lesser of two evils. Trump is appeasing the repugs, playing ball, making deals.

          1. JTMcPhee

            The joke with Bush the First was that the Secret Svc had standing orders that if anyone shot the Bush, they were to turn and shoot some Quayle. Had this from a guy who used to work there.

          1. different clue

            Really? As dimm and dumm and sometimes nasty as Pence is? I would think Pence is anti-assassination insurance. " You kill the Donald, you get some Pence. You really want that?"

            1. EndOfTheWorld

              Maybe he is dumb-not that familiar with his brains or lack thereof. I know damn well nobody in his right mind would want Newt Gingrich sitting behind him in the veep slot, so The Donald made the right move in squelching that notion.

              Seems to me Pence may be dumb but very MALLEABLE and LOYAL to TPTB. He could be easily controlled, which is what the powers behind the throne love. Trump, not so much.

            1. EndOfTheWorld

              Pence may be a little dumb, but seems to be well under the thumb of the big shots in the repugs. Would go along with the program, unlike The Donald, who may or may not play ball at any given moment;

    [Jul 15, 2016] How Mike Pence and Donald Trump Compare on the Issues

    Notable quotes:
    "... The biggest difference between the Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence when it comes to foreign policy is their respective stances on the Iraq war. Mr. Pence supported it, while Mr. Trump claims that he was against it from the beginning. ..."
    "... While Mr. Pence has expressed support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, Mr. Trump regularly rails against it. Mr. Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on imports from foreign countries to protect American jobs. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    The New York Times

    Foreign Policy

    Mr. Pence's foreign policy views mesh well with Mr. Trump's "America First" framework, which is built around the idea of a robust American military. The Indiana governor called for big increases in military spending during a speech in 2015 and he has criticized Democrats who do not use the phrase "Islamic extremism" when discussing jihadists. As a member of Congress, where he was on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Pence was a strong supporter of Israel and a proponent of tough interrogation measures for prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. Mr. Pence voted to authorize military action in Iraq in 2002 and opposed proposals to set a date to withdraw troops from Iraq.

    Where they differ The biggest difference between the Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence when it comes to foreign policy is their respective stances on the Iraq war. Mr. Pence supported it, while Mr. Trump claims that he was against it from the beginning.

    ... ... ...

    Trade

    Mr. Pence has said he supports free trade, but he has also raised concern over the enforcement of trade agreements with China. Specifically, he asked the federal government to investigate allegations that Chinese steel companies were dodging tariffs in deals with American businesses. As governor, Mr. Pence visited nations like Japan and Germany on trade missions meant to stoke Indiana's trade relationships with international businesses.

    Where they differ While Mr. Pence has expressed support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, Mr. Trump regularly rails against it. Mr. Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on imports from foreign countries to protect American jobs.


    [Jul 15, 2016] On foreign policy, Donald Trump makes George W Bush look like a colossus

    Notable quotes:
    "... Just as George W. Bush was "wholly ill-suited" so is Mrs. Clinton. It was her policy which is mostly responsible for the refugee flood into Europe from both Libya and Syria. She treats foreign policy like it's a board game. She gets ideologically convinced that overthrowing Assad or Quadifi is a grand idea and starts the process. Neither she nor her advisers ever ask, basic questions about the mechanics of the "process." For example, as part of this "process" the population of Allepo (just Allepo without respect to all the other towns, villages and hamlets) will be reduced from a population of 1.1 million to less than 100,000 with the difference being refugees conscripts or dead. What do we plan to do with the 750,000 plus refugees? Talk about "wholly ill-suited." ..."
    "... I don't want to see Trump as President, however, the Dems have picked the one candidate who might actually lose to him. Clinton is not only demonstrably inept and widely recognized as dishonest, she has also contributed a great deal to the mess in the Middle East. ..."
    "... The only people currently doing the heavy lifting with cogent and perceptive commentary on serious issues and the systemic inability of political and economic institutions to embrace reality are professional comedians. John Oliver, Jim Jeffries et al are continuing the George Carlin tradition of pointing out the abject lunacy of our "leaders", whose words are reported by the mainstream media (corporate media that is, let's not forget to "follow the money") as if they were something other than delusional drivel. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    George W Bush showed himself wholly ill-suited to the presidency within nine months of his inauguration. Those of us who covered his campaign should have seen that moment coming, even if we had no idea about Osama bin Laden's plotting.

    On board his campaign plane, all Candidate Bush wanted to talk about was baseball statistics. If he talked about the world, it revolved around his vacations. Perhaps we should have realized he would find it hard to distinguish Afghanistan from Iraq, and Sunni from Shia.

    A charming cut-up as Texas governor, Bush's superficial grasp of policy didn't matter nearly as much as the fact that he seemed more entertaining than that earnest, wonkish Al Gore. At least that was the tenor of much of what passed for news analysis of the 2000 campaign.

    Bush projected the notion that he understood leadership; that his guts were greater than the facts. As Tony Blair discovered within a year of 9/11, Bush's leadership was reckless playacting, and the facts on the ground in Iraq were far more formidable than his gut instincts.


    FugitiveColors

    Another,be afraid of Donald Trump article. Lets settle this crap right here. Donald trump is a horrible SOB, even his supporters agree.
    Which matters not one iota. Much of America wants crap to change, even if it means using a wrecking ball.


    Bogdanich

    Just as George W. Bush was "wholly ill-suited" so is Mrs. Clinton. It was her policy which is mostly responsible for the refugee flood into Europe from both Libya and Syria. She treats foreign policy like it's a board game. She gets ideologically convinced that overthrowing Assad or Quadifi is a grand idea and starts the process. Neither she nor her advisers ever ask, basic questions about the mechanics of the "process." For example, as part of this "process" the population of Allepo (just Allepo without respect to all the other towns, villages and hamlets) will be reduced from a population of 1.1 million to less than 100,000 with the difference being refugees conscripts or dead. What do we plan to do with the 750,000 plus refugees? Talk about "wholly ill-suited."

    legalimmigrant

    Message to Richard Wolffe - you may enjoy sounding off in your echo chamber but that's all you're doing. The elites have had their day. The people demand something "different" and if that "different" is orange colored with a strange folicular arrangement then so be it. You can get back to frenziedly typing about what a devil DJT is now.

    Benjohn6379 -> legalimmigrant

    "People in this country have had enough of experts" - Brexit campaigner/propagandist and huge liar Michael Gove

    The anti-establishment movement is real and healthy and global. I can totally understand, as I'm also sick and tired of being lied to and told that the status quo is the only way. But don't kid yourself, Trump is one of these elites.

    He may seem "different" as you say, but that's only because he's a piece of shit openly as opposed to trying to hide it, like Hillary.

    Neither candidate has any desire to help the middle class.

    Confess -> Benjohn6379

    Open is good. Americans are sick and tired of being lied and having facts hidden from us. How can we progress when everything is covered up? Just give us the facts or a real god damn opinion. All the double talk and cover ups are tearing the country apart. Soon BLM will have the same amount of power as Muslims, no one can say anything bad about them, even when it's true. That is what's dangerous.


    Obelisk1

    I don't want to see Trump as President, however, the Dems have picked the one candidate who might actually lose to him. Clinton is not only demonstrably inept and widely recognized as dishonest, she has also contributed a great deal to the mess in the Middle East.

    Moreover, her refusal to speak about the ideological basis for so many of the terrorist atrocities in recent years should be enough to bar her from office.

    The US, and the world, is in danger as a result of the failures of both parties to pick reasonable candidates.


    Benjohn6379 -> ohyesHedid

    The "war-hawk" meme

    It's not a meme, it's reality. Her neo-conservative record speaks for itself. There is a very real fear that she will take us to war in Syria, as a no fly zone would require tens of thousands of ground troops in direct opposition to Russia, Assad and numerous terrorist cells.

    ISIS has to be stopped, absolutely, but war in Syria will be just another tragic foreign policy mistake.

    I think all this "Hillary hate" is disproportional, possibly sexist.

    Some of the "Hillary hate" is sexist, sure, but don't use this excuse as a blanket statement that covers people that have intelligent and well thought out criticisms of her policies and voting record.

    There are legitimate concerns with both candidates, come at it rationally and intelligently.


    Tom Jones

    Not a Trump fan. But he called out Bush in the debates.

    He wouldn't have invaded Iraq or Libya. War has caused most of these problems. The real scary part is that he is less of a war monger then Clinton!

    Gaurdian applogist pieces are almost as vile as the bigotry from Trump. In fact the bias in th MSM has led to a Trump.


    gunnison 5h ago

    Perhaps the voters are confused about how to rate these candidates because there is almost no coverage of national security and foreign policy. Nobody – except for rarities like NBC's Andrea Mitchell – wants to produce a block of TV on something that sounds as complicated as how to fight Isis in Syria.

    The only people currently doing the heavy lifting with cogent and perceptive commentary on serious issues and the systemic inability of political and economic institutions to embrace reality are professional comedians. John Oliver, Jim Jeffries et al are continuing the George Carlin tradition of pointing out the abject lunacy of our "leaders", whose words are reported by the mainstream media (corporate media that is, let's not forget to "follow the money") as if they were something other than delusional drivel.

    Our much-vaunted "free press" has degenerated into becoming a transcription service for power and privilege, with "journalists" now blatantly finessing the truth for fear of losing the "access" without which they would be consigned to the outer reaches of internet blogworld.

    Hell, if one sifts through the comment threads here or on other "reputable" news sites to eliminate the usual dross, there's one hell of a lot more accurate and thoughtful commentary happening down here in the cheap seats than in most of the articles to which those thread are appended.

    Trump is a showman and a conman and a buffoon, and Mike Pence is a rabid ideologue driven by religious zealotry and a profound misogyny and sexual squeamishness. Neither is the sort of person who should ever be placed in a position of authority. (None of this should be taken as covert support for Hillary Clinton. My comment history here exculpates me from any accusations of being a Clinton shill.)

    That's the reality. Presenting the evidence for that, and there is mountains of it, is the true function of a media which serves the public interest.

    Benjohn6379 -> gunnison

    Hell, if one sifts through the comment threads here or on other "reputable" news sites to eliminate the usual dross, there's one hell of a lot more accurate and thoughtful commentary happening down here in the cheap seats than in most of the articles to which those thread are appended.

    Your whole comment being a prime example of this, very well said.

    John Wilson

    And so what are you saying here Wolfe. That the alternative is Clinton? She'll be even faster to push the red button.

    [Jul 15, 2016] Mike Pence - Wikipedia

    Does not this guy make Trump a clone of Hillary in foreign relations: voting for Iraq war, pro-Israel stance, all war hawk attributes. In other words younger version of Senator McCain: "Pence chaired the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and was a prominent supporter of George W. Bush's Iraq War troop surge of 2007. At the time, Pence stated that "the surge is working" and defended the initial decision to invade in 2003"
    Notable quotes:
    "... Foreign Affairs, Judiciary, ..."
    "... Foreign Affairs ..."
    "... Foreign Affairs, Judiciary ..."
    en.wikipedia.org
    Elections

    Pence ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 1988 and 1990, losing to longtime Democratic incumbent Phil Sharp.[18] He later wrote an essay apologizing for running negative ads against Sharp.[14]

    In November 2000, Pence was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in Indiana's 2nd Congressional District after six-year incumbent David M. McIntosh (1995–2001) opted to run for governor of Indiana. The district (renumbered as the 6th District beginning in 2002) comprises all or portions of 19 counties in eastern Indiana. Pence was re-elected four more times by comfortable margins. In the 2006 House elections, he defeated Democrat Barry Welsh. In 2008, he was listed as one of the top ten legislators by Esquire magazine.[19]

    On November 8, 2006, Pence announced his candidacy for leader of the Republican Party (minority leader) in the United States House of Representatives.[20] Pence's release announcing his run for minority leader focused on a "return to the values" of the 1994 Republican Revolution.[21] On November 17, Pence lost to Representative John Boehner of Ohio by a vote of 168–27–1 (the one vote went to Representative Joe Barton of Texas).[22]

    Pence defeated Reverend Barry Welsh in the 2008 House election. In January 2009, Pence was elected by his GOP colleagues to become the Republican Conference Chairman, the third-highest-ranking Republican leadership position. He ran unopposed and was elected unanimously. He was the first representative from Indiana to hold a House leadership position since 1981.[2]

    In 2010, Pence was encouraged to run against incumbent Democratic Senator Evan Bayh.[23][24][25] According to Rasmussen polling done on January 21 and 24, 2010, Pence led Bayh by a three point margin.[26] On January 26, 2010, in an open letter to friends and supporters through his Facebook page, Pence announced his decision not to run for the Senate; he cited his role in the Republican leadership and the belief that Republicans would win back the House in 2010 as his reasons for staying in the House of Representatives.[citation needed]

    After the November 2010 election, Pence announced that he would not run for re-election as the Republican Conference Chairman.[27] On May 5, 2011, Pence announced that he would seek the Republican nomination for Governor of Indiana in 2012.[28][29]

    Tenure

    Pence served as the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative House Republicans, from 2005 to 2007.[30]

    His committee assignments in the House were the following:

    While in Congress, Pence belonged to the Tea Party Caucus.[37]

    During Pence's twelve years in the House, he introduced 90 bills and resolutions; none became law.[38]

    Foreign policy

    Pence supported the Iraq War Resolution, which authorized military action against Iraq.[45]

    During the Iraq War, Pence opposed setting a public withdrawal date from Iraq. During an April 2007 visit to Baghdad, Pence and John McCain visited Shorja market, the site of a deadly attack in February 2007, that claimed the lives of 61 people. Pence and McCain described the visit as evidence that the security situation in Iraqi markets has improved.[46] The visit to the market took place under large security including helicopters overhead, and the New York Times reported that the visit gave a false indication of how secure the area was due to the extremely heavy security forces protecting McCain.[47]

    Pence chaired the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and was a prominent supporter of George W. Bush's Iraq War troop surge of 2007. At the time, Pence stated that "the surge is working" and defended the initial decision to invade in 2003.[45]

    Pence has opposed closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and trying the suspected terrorists in the U.S.[48] Pence believes that "the Obama administration must overturn this wrongheaded decision".[48] As an alternative, Pence has said that the "enemy combatants" should be tried in a military tribunal.[48]

    Pence has stated his support of Israel and its right to attack facilities in Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons, has defended the actions of Israel in its use of deadly force in enforcing the blockade of Gaza, and has referred to Israel as "America's most cherished ally".[49] He visited Israel in 2014 to express his support, and in 2016 signed into law a bill which would ban Indiana from having any commercial dealings with a company that boycotts Israel.[50]

    [Jul 15, 2016] How Dissent Has Shaped the US An Interview With Author Ralph Young

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think that dissent will continue as long as the United States continues. We don't know exactly what forms it will take, or what causes dissenters will take up. But we do have a pretty good idea from history that dissenters will always push for more freedom, more liberty, more economic equality, and that there will be counter-dissenters who will seek to deprive them of these goals. There always seems to be that for every two steps forward, there's one step back. ..."
    www.truth-out.org

    What do you foresee as far as the future of dissent is concerned in the United States?

    I think that dissent will continue as long as the United States continues. We don't know exactly what forms it will take, or what causes dissenters will take up. But we do have a pretty good idea from history that dissenters will always push for more freedom, more liberty, more economic equality, and that there will be counter-dissenters who will seek to deprive them of these goals. There always seems to be that for every two steps forward, there's one step back.

    What is gained for leftist movements today by anchoring themselves a positive account of the nation's founding (accounts that suggest that this nation has leftist impulses at its core)?

    I think that leftist movements today have a deep, abiding faith in "democracy." And in that way, they are the true heirs of the American Revolution. Even if most of the "founding fathers" like [George] Washington and [Alexander] Hamilton and [Thomas] Jefferson were elites who distrusted the masses, they did give lip service to liberty and equality, and they did formulate fundamental arguments promoting the idea of a government of the people. Today, their ideas are more broadly conceived than they themselves conceived them. Because leftists today believe in the value of democracy, what they are in essence doing is holding America's feet to the fire. They are demanding that the United States live up to those ideals ensconced in our founding documents. "Be true to what you said on paper," as Martin Luther King Jr. expressed it in his last speech on April 3, 1968, in Memphis.

    What is inevitably lost or papered over when one embraces a positive founding narrative about a nation-state?

    What is papered over is that the majority of the "founding fathers" were slave owners. And the institution of slavery gave them the leisure time to devote to thinking and writing about such high-fallutin' and precious concepts as democracy, liberty and republican forms of government. Historian Edmund S. Morgan, in his book American Slavery, American Freedom, makes a compelling argument that the notions we have of freedom, that the basis for American freedom is slavery. If it weren't for slavery, we would never have developed as we have. So it is rather presumptuous of us, even for the left, to feel that we've embraced freedom and believe in equality for all. Still, despite that, it doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. What it does mean is that we should aspire to those ideals, even if the "founding fathers" didn't fully believe in them themselves, even if they were disingenuous hypocrites who framed a constitution solely to benefit and protect the property rights and aristocratic status of their class.

    Today, we need to take those ideals seriously and work toward making the reality of American society more closely resemble the ideals they espoused in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

    [Jul 14, 2016] Final nail in the coffin Green Partys Jill Stein to RT on Sanders endorsement of Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... "We have been offering Bernie Sanders, basically to sit down and talk and to explore how we might be collaborate, because I can't give away the nomination," ..."
    "... "could certainly work with him for all sorts of possibilities, including leading the ticket." ..."
    "... "truly saw the light," ..."
    "... "the green light, that we do need independent politics." ..."
    "... "the revolution is now being stuffed back into a counter-revolutionary party," ..."
    "... "leading the charge for Wall Street, for wars and for the Walmart economy." ..."
    "... "Bernie said let's forget the past, but I don't think people can forget this movement that they've worked so hard to build," ..."
    "... "there were a lot of people who were watching this endorsement in complete and utter disbelief." ..."
    "... "I think there are a lot of broken hearts out there among the Bernie campaign. A lot of people who are feeling burned by the Democratic Party, who are not going to simply resign themselves to an election that offers them either a billionaire, one hand, or a cheerleader for the billionaires," she added. ..."
    Jul 12, 2016 | RT America
    Following Sanders officially dropping out of the race, Stein reminded RT viewers of her proposal to step aside in order to offer him the nomination in her Green Party.

    "We have been offering Bernie Sanders, basically to sit down and talk and to explore how we might be collaborate, because I can't give away the nomination," Stein told RT, stressing that even though she cannot take the delegates' role of assigning nominations, she "could certainly work with him for all sorts of possibilities, including leading the ticket."

    This could be possible, she said, if Sanders "truly saw the light," meaning "the green light, that we do need independent politics."

    In Stein's view, "the revolution is now being stuffed back into a counter-revolutionary party," whose standard bearer, Clinton, she scorns for "leading the charge for Wall Street, for wars and for the Walmart economy."

    "Bernie said let's forget the past, but I don't think people can forget this movement that they've worked so hard to build," Stein said, adding that on Tuesday "there were a lot of people who were watching this endorsement in complete and utter disbelief."

    .... ... ...

    Sanders supporters have taken to social media in a stern backlash against the former Democratic presidential candidate.

    "They also can't forget Hillary Clinton's record, which is very much the opposite of what they have been working for the past year," Stein says.

    Dr. Jill Stein
    ✔ ‎@DrJillStein

    The truth is that we cannot have a revolutionary campaign inside a counter-revolutionary party. jill2016.com/steins_respons e_to_sanders_endorsement_of_clinton …

    2:45 PM - 12 Jul 2016

    "I think there are a lot of broken hearts out there among the Bernie campaign. A lot of people who are feeling burned by the Democratic Party, who are not going to simply resign themselves to an election that offers them either a billionaire, one hand, or a cheerleader for the billionaires," she added.

    She says that after primaries in California where "it became clear that the Democratic Party was really shutting [Sanders] out," her Green Party began to see people's interest surge.

    "We are seeing that now, in the last 24 to 36 hours as well, as people realize that the game is over," Stein said.

    @MajorCallowayLeader

    Well, now it's Stein or Trump - time will tell.
    Sanders is the worst kind of turncoat.
    How can he possibly support the Laughing Butcher of Libya? He must have been a lost soul to begin with, or sold it long ago.

    [Jul 14, 2016] Sanders Warmongering Corporate Sell-out - Arthur Schaper

    Notable quotes:
    "... In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman Bernie Sanders' Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves the "Instant Antiwar Action Group," we decided to bring our outrage at Bernie's escalating hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted in 15 of us being arrested for trespass. ..."
    "... Dissident Voices ..."
    "... Despite his own claims, Sanders has not been an antiwar leader. . . . His hawkish [stance] drove one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher, to resign from his staff. Brecher wrote in his resignation letter, "Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support?" ..."
    "... Dissident Voices ..."
    "... Under the Bush regime, Sanders' militarism has only grown worse. While he called for alternative approaches to the war on Afghanistan, he failed to join the sole Democrat, Barbara Lee, to vote against Congress' resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks. ..."
    "... After thousands of people are killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon, President George Bush and Congress declared war on Afghanistan. Sanders joined the bandwagon and voted to adopt the joint resolution that authorized the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals. ..."
    "... While Sanders voted against the original authorization to use military force against Iraq, he followed that vote with several subsequent votes authorizing funding of that war and the debacle in Afghanistan. ..."
    townhall.com

    What also stands out in the above criticism is that Sanders, seeking the Democratic nomination as a Tea Party of the Left outlier, has a long-standing history of supporting presidential military forays: anathema to aggressive progressives.

    In 1999, Congressman Sanders signed onto President Bill Clinton's military interventions into Kosovo. Peace activists crashed his Burlington, VT Congressional Office. One of the protesters commented on the Liberty Union Party website :

    In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman Bernie Sanders' Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves the "Instant Antiwar Action Group," we decided to bring our outrage at Bernie's escalating hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted in 15 of us being arrested for trespass.

    Dissident Voices blasted Sanders not just for cozying up with the Democratic Party, but war authorizations throughout his tenure in the House of Representatives.

    Despite his own claims, Sanders has not been an antiwar leader. . . . His hawkish [stance] drove one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher, to resign from his staff. Brecher wrote in his resignation letter, "Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support?"

    Click on this link for Brecher's letter of resignation.

    Dissident Voices continues:

    Under the Bush regime, Sanders' militarism has only grown worse. While he called for alternative approaches to the war on Afghanistan, he failed to join the sole Democrat, Barbara Lee, to vote against Congress' resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks.

    Indeed, Barbara Lee (D-CA) was the lone vote against granting this extended power to President Bush. Sanders joined with both parties on this issue. Of course. While Presidential candidate Sanders has relaunched his speech on the House floor opposing the War on Iraq in 2002, Counterpunch has already exposed Sanders' connections with Bush 43's military ventures:

    After thousands of people are killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon, President George Bush and Congress declared war on Afghanistan. Sanders joined the bandwagon and voted to adopt the joint resolution that authorized the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals.

    And then:

    While Sanders voted against the original authorization to use military force against Iraq, he followed that vote with several subsequent votes authorizing funding of that war and the debacle in Afghanistan.

    Sanders has followed a pattern of voting against initial efforts to expand government resources into the War on Terror, then voted for funding them afterwards.

    The Democratic Party's 2016 Presidential bench is a clown-car of political dysphoria. From Hillary Clinton's early yearning for Republican Barry Goldwater, to Lincoln Chafee's former GOP US Senator status, and Jim Webb's service in the Reagan Administration, now left-wing partisans can argue that "Weekend at Bernie" Sanders is right-wing warmonger .

    [Jul 14, 2016] Sanders endorses Clinton, reversing everything hes said about Wall Street candidate (QUOTES)

    RT America
    Sanders has spent a lot of time and energy convincing voters that Clinton had no place in the Oval Office.

    The following are just a few examples.

    1"Are you qualified to be President of the United States when you're raising millions of dollars from Wall Street whose greed, recklessness and illegal behavior helped to destroy our economy?" – Philadelphia rally, April 2016.

    However, Sanders may be singing a different tune when he is back in Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention. His change of heart Tuesday included telling the audience: "I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president."

    2 "I proudly stood with the workers. Secretary Clinton stood with the big money interests" – Youngstown, Ohio March 14

    Sanders has frequently attacked Clinton's use of Super PACs and potential interest from elite banks. While the former secretary of state has been endorsed by many unions, such as the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Sanders' speech swapped that rhetoric for something a little more flattering.

    In his endorsement speech, he said: "Hillary Clinton understands that we must fix an economy in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new wealth and income to the top one percent."

    3 "Do I have a problem, when a sitting Secretary of State and a Foundation ran by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign governments, governments which are dictatorship… um yeah, do I have a problem with that? Yeah I do."

    Sanders passionately attacked the Clinton Foundation in June, calling its reception of money from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia a "conflict of interest." However, on Tuesday he told the audience that Clinton "knows that it is absurd that middle-class Americans are paying an effective tax rate higher than hedge fund millionaires, and that there are corporations in this country making billions in profit while they pay no federal income taxes in a given year because of loopholes their lobbyists created."

    4 "She was very reluctant to come out in opposition. She is running for president. She concluded it was a good idea to oppose the TPP, and she did."

    Clinton's slow opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) raised the ire of both Sanders and his supporters. Perhaps through intense negotiations to make Clinton's campaign more progressive, he is now willing to focus more on Clinton's interior economy, saying, "She wants to create millions of new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure – our roads, bridges, water systems and wastewater plants."

    5 "Well, I don't think Hillary Clinton can lead a political revolution"

    Commenting on Clinton's potential to carry the torch for the political revolution he claimed he was spearheading, Sanders lacked faith in her ability to make the changes he deemed necessary back in June, when he was on CBS's "Face the Nation."

    However, perhaps through negotiating the terms of his endorsement, Clinton's platform sounds more and more like Sanders' when he talks about it. Describing new platforms such as lowering student debt and making free education attainable without accruing massive amounts of debt, along with expanding the use of generic medicine and expanding community health centers all sound like shades of Sanders.

    6 "When you support and continue to support fracking, despite the crisis that we have in terms of clean water… the American people do not believe that that is the kind of president that we need to make the changes in America to protect the working families of this country."

    Back in an April debate, many voters were frustrated when Clinton gave a lengthy, difficult explanation about her stance on fracking. Sanders, a longtime opponent of hydraulic fracturing.

    However, since the CNN Democratic Debate, Sanders and Clinton may have both shifted their positions on the matter that was once clear cut for the senator from Vermont.

    According to Sanders, "Hillary Clinton is listening to the scientists who tell us that if we do not act boldly in the very near future there will be more drought, more floods, more acidification of the oceans, more rising sea levels."

    7 "When this campaign began, I said that we got to end the starvation minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let's raise it to $12 ... To suddenly announce now that you're for $15, I don't think is quite accurate."

    At the same CNN debate in Brooklyn, Sanders hammered on Clinton's inconsistent stance on raising the minimum wage. While her opinion has shifted from debate to debate, it seems that Sanders' has as well.

    "She believes that we should raise the minimum wage to a living wage," Sanders said, without specifying what the minimum wage would be increased to under her more progressive campaign.

    8 "Almost all of the polls that… have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton."

    Sanders might be eating crow for this one. His entire endorsement speech often focused on the party's need to defeat presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump. Throughout the speech, Sanders contrasted the new and improved Clinton strategy that includes more of Sanders' talking points with those from Trump.

    Sanders went as far as to place the importance of the election on keeping Trump away from the Supreme Court, saying, "If you don't believe this election is important, take a moment to think about the Supreme Court justices that Donald Trump will nominate, and what that means to civil liberties, equal rights and the future of our country."

    9 "[Super predators] was a racist term and everybody knew it was a racist term."

    Clinton's involvement with the criminal justice reform of the 1990s that contributed to the mass incarceration has frequently been a contentious point in this election. In 1996, she went on to warn the public about the existence of "super predators," or children with "no conscience, no empathy, we can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel."

    However, both Clinton and Sanders have a track record of working with the civil rights movements, and now Sanders may not be so quick to put Clinton and racist in the same sentence.

    "Hillary Clinton understands that our diversity is one of our greatest strengths," he said Tuesday.

    READ MORE:

    [Jul 14, 2016] Hillary (while Sec. of State) forced the resignation, in June of 2012, of US Ambassador to Kenya J. Scott Gration for using unauthorized (personal) email account to conduct official government business

    This is from comments
    Notable quotes:
    "... I guess the ' Queen ' is exempt. ..."
    "... Source: Washington Post (hardly a conservative newspaper) June 29, 2012 ..."
    "... even her dumbest, I mean most loyal followers know she is a living double standard ..."
    "... 65% of americans (across the board) dont trust hillary........lmao ..."
    "... neither do the rest but cannot admit it ..."
    www.foxnews.com

    Sanders supporters lash out following Clinton endorsement Fox News

    GP Russell

    * This is the topper, on the whole email server issue -

    Interesting (and inconvenient) fact:

    Hillary (while Sec. of State) forced the resignation, in June of 2012, of US Ambassador to Kenya J. Scott Gration , (get this) after the Inspector General found that he was using an unauthorized (personal) email account to conduct official government business … sound familiar?!?

    I guess the ' Queen ' is exempt.

    Source: Washington Post (hardly a conservative newspaper) June 29, 2012

    viablanca

    @GP Russell well yeah, even her dumbest, I mean most loyal followers know she is a living double standard

    mryummie

    65% of americans (across the board) dont trust hillary........lmao

    viablanca

    @mryummie neither do the rest but cannot admit it

    [Jul 13, 2016] 'You Broke My Heart' Supporters of Bernie Sanders React to Endorsement

    Note the NYT was afraid to open comment section for this article :-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Intelligent Bernie supporters will NEVER support her because she stands for everything were fighting against," he said. "Just because Bernie has left our movement does not mean it is over." ..."
    "... Despite Hillary's penchant for flip-flopping rhetoric, she's spent decades serving the causes of the Wall Street, war, & Walmart economy. ..."
    Jul 12, 2016 | The New York Timeul

    Daniel Whitfield, of Discovery Bay, Calif., insisted that the political revolution Mr. Sanders had championed did not have to end just because the senator had given up. However, he said that voting for Mrs. Clinton was not an option.

    "Intelligent Bernie supporters will NEVER support her because she stands for everything were fighting against," he said. "Just because Bernie has left our movement does not mean it is over."

    ... ... ...

    Some of the lesser-known candidates running for president sought to capitalize on the moment.

    Jill Stein, the Green Party's presidential nominee, sent out a barrage of Twitter posts as Mr. Sanders made his endorsement arguing that Mrs. Clinton's policies were antithetical to a liberal progressive agenda.

    Dr. Jill Stein
    ✔ ‎@DrJillStein

    Despite Hillary's penchant for flip-flopping rhetoric, she's spent decades serving the causes of the Wall Street, war, & Walmart economy.


    Gov. Gary Johnson
    ✔ ‎@GovGaryJohnson

    If joining Sen. Sanders in the Clinton Establishment isn't a good fit, there IS another option... #afterthebern

    For those who believed that Mr. Sanders still had a chance to snatch the nomination at the convention in Philadelphia, it was too soon after his endorsement to consider alternatives. It would take time for the mix of anger and disbelief to subside.

    "You chose her over us," Jessica Watrous Boyer, of Westerly, R.I., wrote on Mr. Sanders's Facebook page, lamenting that he had broken his promise to take the fight to the convention. "Truly shocked and saddened by this."

    [Jul 13, 2016] Sanders supporters lash out following Clinton endorsement

    www.foxnews.com

    Fox News

    Some of Bernie Sanders' most loyal backers have turned into his biggest bashers on the heels of his Hillary Clinton endorsement.

    The Vermont senator, who slammed Clinton repeatedly during the presidential primary campaign, offered his unwavering support to the presumptive Democratic nominee at a rally in New Hampshire Tuesday.

    "Hillary Clinton will make a great president and I am proud to stand with her today," he said.

    What followed was an avalanche of angry tweets, blogs and other social media posts from those who had been feeling the 'Bern' -- and now just feel burned.

    In New York, Monroe County Sanders activist Kevin Sweeney told the Democrat & Chronicle he's shifting his donations to Green Party candidate Jill Stein. "A lot of Bernie supporters are making $27 donations to Jill Stein's campaign today," he said.

    Others were more direct, as the hashtag #SelloutSanders and others took off on Twitter....

    ... ... ...

    Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, jumped in on the action.

    He tweeted, "Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs. "

    brendajc

    Bernie supporters.......trump welcomes you

    1. We are and have been socialist since FDR....welfare...unemployment ...medicare....social security. ...,studebt loans....these a3 socialist programs.

    nobody wants these socialist programs gone

    We just don't want communism

    And we want fiscal responsibility.

    Come join us.

    are122

    I sometimes think Bernie was nothing more then a setup or a patsy encouraged to run by the DNC. With all the "superdelegates" supporting HC, the Bern had to know he virtually had no chance to win but put on a show anyway. He's suddenly very nice to all those that basically shafted him in advance.

    hotdogsdownhallways

    Cannot wait until we find out how much the Clinton Foundation gave him.


    [Jul 13, 2016] Bernie Sanders Wrong Beliefs, but Laudably Principled

    From Twitter: Bernie Sanders, We didn't donate $230M to vote for a warmonger with 4 superPACs, scam charity and $150M speeches who sabotaged your campaign
    Notable quotes:
    "... Today, you decided to officially express your support for Hillary Clinton in the race for president of the United States. Unlike many, I will not label you a "sellout." Though I'm disappointed in your decision, I would also like to thank you for your contribution to American politics. ..."
    "... But I reject the political hive-mind's notion that you had to endorse Hillary. You did not. You've been an independent for decades, refusing to officially associate yourself with a party that you didn't fully believe in. ..."
    National Review

    Dear Bernie,

    Today, you decided to officially express your support for Hillary Clinton in the race for president of the United States. Unlike many, I will not label you a "sellout." Though I'm disappointed in your decision, I would also like to thank you for your contribution to American politics.

    ... ... ...

    Like me and many other conservatives, your supporters now stand without a candidate to believe in. And, like me, they are disappointed in your decision to bow to the pressure exerted by the political muscle that the Clintons have been flexing for decades. I understand that your arm has been twisted by every establishment Democrat from the top down...

    But I reject the political hive-mind's notion that you had to endorse Hillary. You did not. You've been an independent for decades, refusing to officially associate yourself with a party that you didn't fully believe in. Throughout the campaign, you highlighted all of the problems with your opponent, and even went so far as to declare her "unfit" for the office of the presidency. You told America that you were starting a political revolution. By its very nature, though, a revolution refuses to be cowed by the protectors of the status quo. It can concede temporary defeat in certain battles, sure, but it can't survive if betrayed by its leaders. It is disingenuous for you to pretend that you will continue your revolution despite your endorsement - or even worse, imply that Hillary will. I thought you were better than that.

    ...During your endorsement speech, once more you called out the Wall Street billionaires for whom you've so often expressed unqualified loathing over the last 14 months. But this time, something was wrong: There stood, bobbing her head next to you, someone who has made a career out of selling favors to those very same billionaires. I thought you were someone who put principles before politics, and that you would never hesitate to stick to your guns, regardless of the pressure. I guess not. Despite feeling disappointed and deflated, I want to thank you for helping to rekindle my faith and interest in politics.

    ... ... ...

    Sincerely, Andrew - Andrew Badinelli is an intern at National Review.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437758/bernie-sanders-wrong-beliefs-ideologically-principled

    [Jul 12, 2016] Bernie betrays all his supporters

    www.armstrongeconomics.com

    Armstrong Economics

    Of course Bernie Sanders appears to have sold out emerging from a White House meeting with President Barack Obama vowing to work together with Hillary Clinton to defeat Donald Trump in November. Bernie would rather endorse a traitor who has sold her influence as Secretary of State just to save the Democratic Party. Obama assured Bernie, no doubt, that he would not allow Hillary to be indicted. And to further rig the game, the State Department refuses to release her emails until AFTER the election. But the actual date they gave was November 31st, 2016, which does not exist since November has only 30 days. Once she is president, no doubt they will vanish altogether.

    It appears that Bernie is betraying all those who supported him. Hillary will raise $1 billion to buy the White House. That kind of money does not come from bankers without strings. Wall Street supports Hillary – not Trump. That says it all. How Bernie can just give up is amazing. What happened to his "revolution" will never be discussed.

    [Jul 12, 2016] Was Sanders a sheepdog corraling voters for Hillary?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    Sanders and Clinton in New Hampshire

    So, what's happening with the Sanders list?

    "Text of Bernie Sanders' speech endorsing Hillary Clinton" [MarketWatch]. Lambert here: Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. The moment had to come, and now it has come. Will Sanders, in practice, have proven to be a sheepdog? Will Sanders' endorsement decapitate his movement? To me, the open question is what actions Sanders voters will take, going forward, beyond the ballot box, and as organizers. I'm not really sanguine about that, because the Chicago conference didn't give me confidence the left could unsilo itself, and distinguish itself, as a single institutional force ready to take power, from the (neoliberal) liberals (mostly Democrats) and the (neoliberal) conservatives (some Democrats, mostly Republicans). That said, the Sanders campaign did more than the left could have expected in its wildest dreams. To the text:

    [SANDERS:] I have come here today not to talk about the past but to focus on the future. That future will be shaped more by what happens on November 8 in voting booths across our nation than by any other event in the world. I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president.

    During the last year I had the extraordinary opportunity to speak to more than 1.4 million Americans at rallies in almost every state in this country. I was also able to meet with many thousands of other people at smaller gatherings. And the profound lesson that I have learned from all of that is that this campaign is not really about Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, or any other candidate who sought the presidency. This campaign is about the needs of the American people and addressing the very serious crises that we face. And there is no doubt in my mind that, as we head into November, Hillary Clinton is far and away the best candidate to do that.

    I'd prefer the position that Clinton hasn't won the nomination until there's a vote on the convention floor, which I had understood to be the position of the Sanders campaign.

    [SANDERS:] Hillary Clinton understands that we must fix an economy in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new wealth and income to the top one percent.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    [SANDERS:] This election is about the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality that currently exists, the worst it has been since 1928. Hillary Clinton knows that something is very wrong when the very rich become richer while many others are working longer hours for lower wages.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    [SANDERS:] I am happy to tell you that at the Democratic Platform Committee which ended Sunday night in Orlando, there was a significant coming together between the two campaigns and we produced, by far, the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party. Our job now is to see that platform implemented by a Democratic Senate, a Democratic House and a Hillary Clinton president - and I am going to do everything I can to make that happen.

    Platform as a highly inadequate baseline and a method to hold Clinton's feet to the fire? Yes. Not negligible, but not much. And Clinton immediately showed - before the rally! - that she didn't take it seriously.

    [SANDERS:] Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today.

    I don't see how the institutionalized corruption of both legacy parties generally and the Clinton Dynasty in particular make any of this possible. One door closes, another opens…

    "'I can't help but say how much more enjoyable this election is going to be when we are on the same side,' [Clinton] said. "You know what? We are stronger together!'" [CNN]. Whichever Clinton operative decided to deploy the "stronger together" slogan shouldn't be expected to have known that it's also a slogan developed by the military junta in Thailand. But whatever.

    "Tuesday's rally drew supporters of Clinton and Sanders, some of whom chanted 'Bernie' while others chanted 'unity.' Some Sanders supporters left their seats when Sanders endorsed Clinton. Earlier, when New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said 'we need to elect Hillary,' she was interrupted by shouts of 'No!' and chants of "Bernie, Bernie' [USA Today]. "But there were deafening cheers as Sanders said Clinton would 'make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today.'"

    "The most ringing portion of the endorsement came at the end, with Sanders bringing up some of the personal reasons why he had chosen to support Clinton. But even this portion felt a bit lifeless, with Sanders citing Clinton's intellect and passion on children's issues, and failing to address her integrity, which he directly challenged during the campaign and which will continue to be an issue the Republicans attack in the wake of the conclusion of the FBI's investigation into her email scandal" [Slate].

    And what happened here?

    Do we have any readers who were on that conference call?

    "[I]n a nod to Sanders's successful fundraising efforts that brought in millions of dollars from small donors, with at one time an average donation of $27, Clinton's campaign has made $27 an option on its online donor page" [CNN].

    "About 85 percent of Democrats who backed Mr. Sanders in the primary contests said they planned to vote for her in the general election, according to a Pew poll released last week. Yet she has struggled to appeal to the independents and liberals who rallied behind the senator's call for a 'political revolution' to topple establishment politicians, Mrs. Clinton included" [New York Times]. 85% of declared Democrats. Not such a good number from a third of the electorate.

    "I am not voting for Hillary Clinton, regardless of her endorsement by Bernie Sanders. My decision isn't because of the scandal around her emails or because of some concern over her character. My reasons are pretty straightforward. I don't agree with her ideologically" [Eddie S. Glaude, Time].

    The Trail

    "The final amendment to the Democratic Party platform was meant to sprinkle Hillary Clinton's name throughout the document, putting a contentious and drawn-out primary process to rest in favor of a unified party. It never came up for a vote" [Bloomberg]. "Despite having the support of both the Clinton and Bernie Sanders campaign staffs, the amendment hadn't been run by committee members or Sanders supporters in the audience, some of whom angrily shouted down the language because, they argued, Clinton isn't the official nominee yet. The moment highlighted the state of the party after a long weekend of intense debates in Orlando, Florida, that left some tempers frayed, and extensive back-room policy negotiations between the two campaigns…."

    "On Tuesday, the [Trump and Indiana Governor Mike Pence] will put their compatibility to the test when they appear together at a rally near Indianapolis, the latest in a string of public auditions for the running mate role" [RealClearPolitics].

    ""Hillary Clinton's campaign is vetting James G. Stavridis, a retired four-star Navy admiral who served as the 16th supreme allied commander at NATO, as a possible running mate" [New York Times]. From the Wikipedia entry, which seems to have been written by a Clinton operative: "Stavridis has long advocated the use of "Smart Power," which he defines as the balance of hard and soft power taken together. In numerous articles[17] and speeches, he has advocated creating security in the 21st century by building bridges, not walls." I mean, come on.

    jo6pac

    Those that sent money to Bernie please let Lambert and us know if dddc or dnc ask for $$$$$$. Then may be it will just be a letter from the foundation asking for $$$$$$$$$$$$.

    Roger Smith

    I will update should I receive anything. I am curious about the list as well.

    Arizona Slim

    I just unsubscribed from Bernie's e-mailing list.

    Rick

    As did I. I will keep the poster I bought from his campaign as a reminder of a now passed moment of hope.

    cwaltz

    The moment hasn't passed unless you were expecting Bernie Sanders to do all the heavy lifting.

    The reality is that each and every person disappointed today should make a concerted effort to let the DNC know in no uncertain terms did their lying, cheating and outright rigging of this primary mean that they'll be getting a vote this November. It also means that each and every person find their spine and support someone other than the Democratic nominee. Expect to hunker down for 4 years no matter what because if Clinton or Trump are the nominees then you can pretty much expect there won't be many benefits for average Americans.

    [Jul 12, 2016] Bernie Sanders Supporters: Bernie is a fraud

    Notable quotes:
    "... "A Sanders endorsement of Clinton would be the ultimate betrayal of his supporters, especially those of us that poured money into his campaign." ..."
    "... "Bernie, if you endorse Hillary Clinton, after is NOW A PROVEN FACT she lied to the American people, then you sir are a FRAUD." ..."
    "... "Bernie, endorsing Clinton destroys every point you made and everything you stood for in the race. You are letting the people who supported you down. You made a promise to fight in the end, but instead you are conceding. You are not the elected leader you lead us to believe in. Shame on you." ..."
    thebuzzinsider.com

    "Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today," Sanders said at the end of the rally.

    This proclamation is a far cry from how his stance was a couple months ago, when he claimed that Clinton wasn't qualified for the presidency.

    "I don't believe that she is qualified," Sanders said in a Philadelphia rally back in April, as reported by thinkprogress.org. "[I]f she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC."

    Trump was one of the first to call Sanders a sell-out on Twitter, comparing his endorsement of "Crooked Hillary Clinton" to Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs.

    "I am somewhat surprised that Bernie Sanders was not true to himself and his supporters," Trump tweeted. "They are not happy that he is selling out!"

    While some Democrats are happy that the party has seemed to have finally united, like the Communications Workers of America who have now changed their endorsement from Sanders to Clinton, other supporters share Trumps sentiments, feeling outraged and disappointed at Bernie's sudden change of heart.

    "A Sanders endorsement of Clinton would be the ultimate betrayal of his supporters, especially those of us that poured money into his campaign."

    "Bernie, if you endorse Hillary Clinton, after is NOW A PROVEN FACT she lied to the American people, then you sir are a FRAUD."

    "Bernie, endorsing Clinton destroys every point you made and everything you stood for in the race. You are letting the people who supported you down. You made a promise to fight in the end, but instead you are conceding. You are not the elected leader you lead us to believe in. Shame on you."

    These are just some of the comments people have been leaving on Sander's Facebook page, as reported on the Forward Progressives website.

    Other supporters have asked him to wait for the Democrats Party convention, to run in a third-party or to join Jill Stein in the Green Party ticket.

    Now that Sanders has endorsed Clinton, Clinton's campaign will most likely focus on convincing his supporters to join them in their fight for the presidency.

    [Jul 12, 2016] If that is not a betrayal of his supporters and his principles what is it then

    Bernie is anti war, anti Wall St., anti TPP. If that is not a betrayal of his supporters and his principles what is it then. Endorsing Clinton is like taking a job at Goldman-Sachs.
    www.theguardian.com
    Jul 12, 2016

    Potyka Kalman

    , 2016-07-12 19:30:33
    So why exactly he endorses her? We still don't know.

    The Democrats has good political operatives. There is Barack, the "change-no-change" "black not for blacks" candidate, and Bernie, The Revolutionary who stands staunchly behind Goldman Sachs and everything it presents.

    Of course the real governing task is delegated to Hillary Clinton and the "experts" from the banks.

    Hey guys. Good job. Just remember: ultimately there is that cliff you're marching towards.


    X Girl , 2016-07-12 19:18:28
    Why is he not doing as he promised and taking his message and challenge all the way to the convention? The super delegates are still an play and I doubt they've even finished counting California...This is very disheartening... Prepare for eternal war.


    CivilDiscussion , 2016-07-12 18:51:45
    Lyin' Bernie. A Trojan Horse for the corporate mafia from the very start.
    CrookedWilly99 , 2016-07-12 18:51:19
    I'd like to formally thank Bernie Sanders for endorsing my wife Hillary today. I know how tough it was for Bernie to stump for her today. Especially considering Hillary is even more crooked than my 4-inch yogurt slinger. As many of my young interns know, that's really crooked!

    I'd also like to formally apologize to Bernie for all the death threats and that severed horse's head my guys left in his bed. lol whoops! Ok, gotta go make another phone call to my good friend Trump now.....

    Itsyaboi , 2016-07-12 18:47:10
    You could just crawl back into your socialist hole and not say anything Bernie, but no, you're just another fool brought by Clinton because she needs your votes like she needs air. Congratulations on becoming another member of the Clinton foundations bankroll
    David Michael , 2016-07-12 18:37:02
    The problem isnt her most recent rhetoric, it is her person, and trusting to do the things she says (as she has held every side of every position). The endorsement doesn't fix the problem that we still don't want her... I think many of us will be looking for at the third party alternatives. If we give into this lesser of two evils every election cycle, we'll soon find candidates worse than Trump.
    Falanx , 2016-07-12 18:30:07
    1. Party platforms are consolation bullshit. They mean nothing, especially when the big money funding the campaign is against the platform. This is just a political fact.

    2. Therefore, Bernie's campaign has not started a revolution, but rather has dead-ended with a big bowl of nothing.

    3. Parties are the vehicles through which policies get pushed and accomplished. Since it was re-engineered by the Clinton's in the 1990's, the Democratic Party is like a vehicle with its steering welded to turn right.

    4. Therefore the only way to achieve a successful and peaceful political revolution is to re-engineer the vehicle; and this requires breaking it down and putting it back together.
    In other words, for the sake of progress, the D.N.C. as presently constituted and managed had to be destroyed.

    5. The only way to destroy the D.N.C. would have been to hand Hillary a defeat on a platter. This would have driven home, in the only way politicians understand, that progressive Americans will not be played and fooled.

    6. The willingness to do this requires strategic fortitude -- a willingness to think in long term objectives and to endure immediate and temporary inconveniences. Four years of Trump will not be the "sky-is-falling" disaster the Hillary Hens are clucking over. Eight years of Hillary will only solidify the grip corporations, banks and neo-con militarists, have on the country.

    7. Bernie should have run as an independent, precisely in order to defeat Hillary. Only then could a four year hiatus be used to clean out the D.N.C., and revitalize it with real progressive blood. Then and only then will progressives get the "platform" they want. Is four years of Clown Trump worth it? You bet.

    RobO83 , 2016-07-12 18:26:48
    Clintons character is as dubious as her husbands pants after an afternoon with Monica.
    pull2open RobO83 , 2016-07-12 18:31:36
    But in comparison to her opponent?
    YetAnotherSimon RobO83 , 2016-07-12 18:32:56
    Or one of his 26 flights on sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein's plane the 'Lolita Express'
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/bill-clinton-ditched-secret-service-on-multiple-lo /
    fedback gooner4thewin , 2016-07-12 18:36:37
    Bernie is anti war, anti Wall St., anti TPP. If that is not a betrayal of his supporters and his principles what is it then
    mikehowleydcu , 2016-07-12 18:25:02
    Chris Hedges was right all along.
    IanB52 mikehowleydcu , 2016-07-12 18:39:53
    I disagree. Chris Hedges believes that Sanders intended to mislead voters and intentionally funnel them back to Hillary Clinton under the belief that they would uncritically support her. That seems to be completely false, and even if it were true, it's seems he made a terrible sheepdog as many of us will not support Hillary. The problem was that although he saw no chance for an independent to win, the Democratic Party is a dead end for real change as well. I guess we all know that now.
    mikehowleydcu IanB52 , 2016-07-12 18:48:36
    Point taken.

    When it comes to intention I guess that I believed that he was genuine in his attempt to win and bring about change (except on the nation that cannot be criticised and on foreign policy) but the endorsement of HRC is another blow for the massive desire to remove these two corporatist parties.

    With the DNC having decided to support fracking, settlements etc the American people (and the world) are in for more of the same, war, privatisation, alienation of the poor, secret trade deals that give more power to corporations and environmental destruction etc. etc. etc

    mikehowleydcu IanB52 , 2016-07-12 18:52:33
    Here's what Chris said to Ralph Nader

    "He's lending credibility to a party that is completely corporatized. He has agreed that he will endorse the candidate, which, unless there is some miracle, will probably be Hillary Clinton."

    Jeff1000 , 2016-07-12 18:20:34
    Oh Bernie.

    You bottled it in the end. Sad. I never liked him much, but in running as an independent or siding with the Greens he could have showed that he stands for something. Endorsing Clinton is like taking a job at Goldman-Sachs.

    Hell, maybe that's where he's headed.

    Tuan Hoang hureharehure , 2016-07-12 18:58:45
    Oh, so he admitted it'd be better to support a lesser evil? How should you support an evil anyway? How about quietly withdrawing from the race and not saying anything that violates his own principles? I don't see what that's difficult to understand myself!
    novenator , 2016-07-12 18:20:35
    There was never a doubt that Democrats would eventually unite behind whoever ended up being the nominee. The problem is that all those NON-Democrats who so passionately supported Bernie will not. He was the real deal, and our best hope of actually engaging them, expanding our party, and having the wave election we need to actually get progress done.

    I have been actively trying to recruit folks like this into our ranks for many years now, so trust me when I tell you that we are in very serious trouble this year. No matter what Bernie says or does, these non-Dems will not feel the bern for her. We are heading to a low voter turnout election with two major candidates that have record low net favorability ratings, and Republicans usually do best in situations like that since they have the most reliable voting base.

    Tuan Hoang , 2016-07-12 18:20:01
    In my book, when you've run against somebody, you must think that guy would be a bad choice. When you think a person is a bad choice, how come you endorse that person? Bernie lost my respect (even though he doesn't care)!
    RankinRalph , 2016-07-12 18:15:59
    F*** this lesser-of-two-evils rubbish. We paid for his campaign, to resist this criminal and what she represents with every fibre of his body and he's sold us out. Jill Stein offered him something that could have brought real change and he sold us out. He is there because of the money and faith we put in him.
    What a turncoat bastard. I am disgusted.
    BennCarey , 2016-07-12 18:10:21
    For a vast library of information detailing the many crimes of the ghastly Clinton crime syndicate, please see the following link. http://www.arkancide.com
    DammitJim72 , 2016-07-12 18:10:05
    Super delegates have yet to vote, Hillary has not made it past the threshold, so if Sanders torpedos her, he gets booted out as a Dem nominee by party rules. So in order to stay to the convention he is doing what he has to.

    Has he conceded? No! If Bernie showed and asked me to vote for Hillary I would tell him no.

    Bernie or Jill, never Hill! Still Sanders!

    NoSerf , 2016-07-12 18:09:52
    Hillary is vetted by Netanyahu.
    wakeupbomb , 2016-07-12 18:08:41
    Another completely meaningless choice awaits the American people, how thrilling.
    Drewv , 2016-07-12 18:08:24
    At this point, Bernie's endorsement of Hillary does not matter at all. The genie of his movement is already out of the bottle, and it cannot be put back in.

    The movement never belonged to him, he belongs to the movement, and Bernie knows it. He knows it even as he pronounces the endorsement. He has played his enormously important part in that movement through his candidacy and now he will go back to fighting for the progressive cause from inside the Democratic party, because that is what he has been doing for twenty years and before he launched that candidacy. But the forces that he has unleashed will keep growing and gathering strength on their own.

    Never Hillary!!

    NadaZero , 2016-07-12 18:10:31
    Same old shit then. The Plutocrats won again and can freely go on selling 'war for profit' as 'fighting for freedoms.'

    Christ on a fucking cracker.

    ethane21 NadaZero , 2016-07-12 18:38:28

    Same old shit then. The Plutocrats won again and can freely go on selling 'war for profit' as 'fighting for freedoms.'

    With the useful benefit that La Clinton can now swan about on stage draped in a coat made from the hide of an old leftie.
    "We came, we saw we skinned it." And oh how the laughter rang out the entire length of Wall Street.
    Anjeska , 2016-07-12 17:51:27
    Trump has spoken against globalism. Trump has spoken against neocon wars. Trump wants to uphold our laws.

    Hillary is a globalist shill.
    Hillary is a warmongerer.
    Hillary thinks laws are for little people.

    The choice is simple.

    Merseysidefella , 2016-07-12 17:51:12
    Even if Hillary chooses Pocahontas as her running mate, they will lose because everyone is fed up with the Regime.
    The US is not a democracy
    CriticalThinking4000 , 2016-07-12 17:45:57
    So the warmongers and wall street win again. For the moment at least. The struggle continues. A new front opens under the banner of the Greens. In the UK the Grassoots on the left now have the whole power of the elite arrayed against them, with dirty tricks and media lies. The right wing blairites are using every trick in the book to split our Labouur Movement and remove our democratically elected Leader Corbyn. We are hanging in. Wish us luck, American friends! Looks like we are going to need it. No surrender!
    Jayarava Attwood CriticalThinking4000 , 2016-07-12 18:16:14
    There was never any doubt, in any election ever fought in the USA, that the military-industrial-financial complex would be the winner. They always are.

    The left in the UK are tearing themselves apart Life of Brian style (how prescient that film was!). It will be generations before they every wield power in this country, if ever. I'll probably see out my days under a vicious Tory administration.

    NullPointerException , 2016-07-12 17:44:50
    It's a shame it has come to this but kind of expected.

    Bernie wants to stop Trump now, and he believes that his is the way to do it. I don't personally this will have the desired effect enough people despise Clinton, but we will see.

    If I was a US citizen and had a vote, I would have thrown my full support behind Bernie, but this endorsement certainly would not make me vote for Hillary either (I certainly wouldn't support Trump, I'm not totally insane), I'd prefer to abstain completely.

    Strategic voting is an expression of support for the rigid, corrupt and self-serving political system that led to self-serving cretins like Trump and Clinton being among the elite ruling class in the first place.

    All it does is prolong the death rattles of the lower orders of society.

    Jedermann , 2016-07-12 17:44:33
    He closed, thumping the lectern and proclaiming: "Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her today."

    How can he say that? I feel so very let down.

    imithemountain , 2016-07-12 17:44:02
    Fellow Americans: Our country was demolished by Clinton, and Obama has been running a kill list for extra judicial killins, and he is the sitting president under wich a police force appears to be on a rampage to coloured people. The first black president leading a nation of multiple racist killings.

    Do
    Not
    Ever
    Vote
    Democrats
    Again

    The word lie doesnt cover it. The word lying says it doesnt want anything to do with Democrats. Trump, or any other republican, is a far better bet. bring back George Bush jr for all I care. Anyone but a Demorcratic president. Dont do it.

    SgtEmileKlinger , 2016-07-12 17:31:03
    To endorse Hillary Clinton is to be in alliance with a cynical and utterly corrupt liar who is willing to say anything to get elected. By endorsing Hillary you, Bernie, have become a part of everything you have been complaining about. Never mind. It never was about you and your endorsement isn't worth shit.
    jimithemountain , 2016-07-12 17:24:51
    Fuck you, Bernie Sanders, and fuck off.
    Mike5000 , 2016-07-12 17:20:54
    Why did you sell out before the convention, Bernie?
    fedback , 2016-07-12 17:20:42
    Bernie has to work hard to pay back the 200 mio. dollars supporters donated to his campaign. The money was not meant to go to a Clinton endorsement
    MaryElla22 , 2016-07-12 17:19:51
    And?

    If Brexit is any indicative: Trump won.

    Histfel , 2016-07-12 17:15:54
    After the progressive cause was successively sold out to Goldman Sachs by Paul Krugman, Gloria Steinem, John Lewis and the Congressional black caucus, Lena Dunham, Beyonce, George Clooney and Elizabeth Warren (Did I forget any of the earlier hate figures here?) it was inevitable that Bernie would ultimately also be revealed as a neoliberal sellout.
    NarodnayaVolya Porl D , 2016-07-12 17:08:47
    Has to be viewed in the context of the global threat of Donald Trump though

    yeah imagine anyone daring to public oppose further neo-conservative onslaught.
    Obviously the man's unhinged and has to be stopped pronto.
    fortunately bill kristol, victoria nuland, robert kagan et al are hot on the case and 100% on board with hillary (& bill) on this

    ID984302 , 2016-07-12 16:50:31
    Ah hello, Clinton Foundation?? Hasn't he read the FBI insider leaks??

    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/07/fbi-insider-leaks-all-clinton-foundation-exposed-involves-entire-us-government-3381515.html

    C'mon Putin, it's data dump time!!!

    Lafcadio1944 , 2016-07-12 16:45:40
    Sanders and Warren are now subsumed into the maw of the Empire of the Exceptionals and are pledging their loyalty to it. Just like Obama all hopie changie during campaigns but when the chips are down they show their true colors as Neoliberal sycophants and support every policy the claimed to oppose.
    Declan Mccann , 2016-07-12 16:42:11
    I for one will never support a now proven corrupt and dishonest career politician. Sorry Bernie, but the political revolution can never take place within a party as establishment focused as the Democratic Party. A sad and depressing time for all real progressives.
    Vulpes Inculta Tystnaden , 2016-07-12 16:49:22
    Hillary is more dangerous.

    Trump is a man whose uncompromising attitude means he'll get even less done than Obama. He'd be remembered as an ineffective washout of a president, unable to get anything done and sorely disappointing a lot of voters.

    Hillary is a smooth political operator who's in it for her own gain and will get an awful lot done - just not the things you want her to do. She'll be hawkish against Russia, interventionist against the Middle East, she'll throw her full weight behind the establishment in both America and Europe, and she'll make sure her paymasters at Goldman Sachs aren't disappointed in her.

    David Wiebelt II , 2016-07-12 16:39:40
    Bought and sold Bernie. Bernie shows his true political colors as a tool of the elite class.
    cidcid , 2016-07-12 16:38:37
    Chicken and traitor. Deceived millions of naive young people who believed him.
    Montezuma74 Tystnaden , 2016-07-12 17:06:27
    He's a little traitor. Spending donor's money on his own whims, then betraying the people he said he'd stick up for.

    Then, he joins the Goldman Sachs, George Soros, Saudi and Israeli owned Clinton, who, as Obama said, will promise everything and change nothing.

    Not to mention, FBI director Comey just testified in court that HRC gave classified documents to those who should not have seen them.

    Bernie sold out everyone who fought for him. Discusting, snivelling little coward. Unsurprising for most of us though.

    garrylee , 2016-07-12 16:38:10
    Oh,Bernie.What have you done?Legitimised a neo-liberal craven warmonger.You're not like Corbyn after all!
    LinearBandKeramik AndyCh , 2016-07-12 17:33:37

    Some people are just stupid.

    I suppose voting for Hillary to stop Trump might be an unavoidable course of action. But few people realize the danger Hillary represents to the United States... not because of what she will do, but because of what she won't do.

    Across the Western world, the centre is rapidly crumbling. Without a significant course correction, it will soon fall and what replaces it is hard to predict – but I doubt it will be pretty. Austria almost elected a far right president, the UK voted for Brexit, the GOP nominated Trump. You're a fool if you think this is the anti-establishment backlash... it's only the beginning, and these events are just canaries in the mine. The real backlash is yet to come.

    With 4-8 years of a Clinton-led status quo government, resentment will grow, inequality and hopelessness will increase... and eventually a right wing demagogue who is much smarter than Trump will see an opportunity and pounce. I suspect it'll happen right after the next market crash, which Clinton will do nothing to prevent.

    Historically illiterate people are constantly looking out for the "next Hitler" and so point their finger at the likes of Trump. But that's the wrong question. Anyone who understands the events that led to Nazism realizes the true question is who is the next Von Hindenburg . Clinton looks like a pretty good candidate in that respect.

    steveOhollywood , 2016-07-12 16:31:07
    OK. I am officially un-endorsing Bernie Sanders.

    [Jul 11, 2016] What is Peronism Analysis

    Notable quotes:
    "... Much of this has to do with Peronism's founder, and his ability to bring in broad sectors of Argentine society into his political program, broadly against imperialism and for nationalist workers rights and political sovereignty. ..."
    "... It is an idea founded on Christian social values that has three basic principles: social justice, political sovereignty and economic independence. ..."
    "... It was under Peron that a version of nationalized state capitalism, and an elimination of foreign investors was initiated in Argentina. He used nationalism, unlike his European counterparts, as a weapon of anti-imperialism. Peronism under Peron was Bonapartist in its manipulation of the social classes on behalf of industrializing an underdeveloped country and challenging dominant American imperialism. His style of leadership was one of a leader who took power in a power vacuum when no single class is in the position do so, and using reformist measures to win the radical support of the more populous class. ..."
    "... Peron and Peronism also has to be viewed as a stage in the battle of Latin America for economic independence which is still yet to be achieved with at home the oligarchical structures still intact, and foreign manipulation in the country. ..."
    teleSUR English
    Juan Peron is the most important political figure in Argentina, with reams of paper dedicated to himself and his followers, but surprising little ink has been spilled over his, and the movement named after him, Peronism's ideology. Perhaps because of its near undefinable nature, that it neither sits comfortably on the left, right nor center or because of the number of ideological disperse groups and politicians that call themselves Peronist.

    Much of this has to do with Peronism's founder, and his ability to bring in broad sectors of Argentine society into his political program, broadly against imperialism and for nationalist workers rights and political sovereignty.

    However there are a few key points behind the ideology of Peron himself and Argentina's most political movement Peronism that can be gleaned.

    Peron called his movement "Justicialism", a blending of the Spanish words for social justice and this is also the name of the party of Argentina's current president Cristina Fernandez.

    It is an idea founded on Christian social values that has three basic principles: social justice, political sovereignty and economic independence. To do this Peron said his movement was in a "third position" which counterposed itself equally to capitalism and communism. He also aimed to create a social model of an organized community with direct state intervention to mediate between labor and capital. Although not the same as a traditional Scandinavian welfare state, the model has similarities in its mixed economy and a central role for Unions.

    In a speech in the Congress in 1948, Peron himself said, "Peronism is humanism in action; Peronism is a new political doctrine, which rejects all the ills of the politics of previous times; in the social sphere it is a theory which establishes a little equality among men… capitalist exploitation should be replaced by a doctrine of social economy under which the distribution of our wealth, which we force the earth to yield up to us and which furthermore we are elaborating, may be shared out fairly among all those who have contributed by their efforts to amass it."

    The populist program of higher wages and better working conditions, which was actually developed by the Public Works minister Juan Pistarini could well be the classic ideological core of Peronism, but it was always dependent on the structural circumstance of Argentina. For example, in the late 1940s, Peronism was more concerned with the women's vote and the export market, and in the 1990s attempting to rebuild Argentina under a neo-liberal pro market guide.

    Indeed, over time it has been an odd mix of socialism, liberalism and populism Peron himself, and therefore the movement became a symbol of and a champion of what he called the "shirtless ones," (descamisados) appealing to the dispossessed, labor, youth and the poor.

    Peronism accepts that the state should coordinate society for the common good and that it can do this without serving class interests.

    Peron, and Peronism is hostile to many of the tenets of classic liberalism, although at times concedes such as considering that democratic and republican institutions are the only ones that can guarantee freedom and happiness for the people, and a political opposition is admitted as necessary.

    But Peron was also hostile to Marxism, thinking that "forced collectivism" robs individuals of their personality, even though he garnered many supporters from the communist left during the seventies thinking that he, and his ideology would be the only way for Argentina to implement a communist state. Yet Peron thought that class conflict could be transcended by a social collaboration mediated by the state.

    It was mostly through this ideological and structural blend that Peron was able to split every party and political formation from the extreme Catholic Right to the Communist Left and line up the dissidents behind his banner. As Carleton Beals wrote, his leading opponents had nothing to offer except to complain of the lack of civil liberties. Their cry for freedom was somewhat suspect, however, as they had never respected it when in office.

    It was under Peron that a version of nationalized state capitalism, and an elimination of foreign investors was initiated in Argentina. He used nationalism, unlike his European counterparts, as a weapon of anti-imperialism. Peronism under Peron was Bonapartist in its manipulation of the social classes on behalf of industrializing an underdeveloped country and challenging dominant American imperialism. His style of leadership was one of a leader who took power in a power vacuum when no single class is in the position do so, and using reformist measures to win the radical support of the more populous class.

    Peron and Peronism also has to be viewed as a stage in the battle of Latin America for economic independence which is still yet to be achieved with at home the oligarchical structures still intact, and foreign manipulation in the country.

    ... ... .. ...

    READ MORE:

    Peron, A History

    Eva Peron at the Heart of Women's Vote in Argentina

    [Jul 11, 2016] The History of Peronism (Part I)

    Notable quotes:
    "... The new regime sought to implement a change in the country's social and economic structures, based on strong State intervention, where the long-term goals of the workers coincided with the nation's need for economic development. Perón's work from the Labour Secretariat helped organise the workers' movement (until then divided into Communist, Socialist, and Revolutionary factions) into strong, centralised unions that cooperated with the government in solving labour disputes and establishing collective bargaining agreements, and whose leadership was under government influence. ..."
    "... It was during this time that Perón would establish a strong alliance with the unions, who would later become the backbone of peronism. Workers started seeing that many of their historic demands were finally being attended to, including severance pay, retirement benefits, and regulation for rural labour. ..."
    "... This new economic paradigm was based around the development of labour-intensive, light industry to create jobs and produce domestic goods for the internal market. The State played an important role in channelling income from agricultural exports to industry, raising import tariffs, and nationalising foreign-owned companies such as the railways, gas, phone and electricity. ..."
    "... The political model that accompanied these economic changes was based on a class alliance between the workers, industrial employers, the Armed Forces and the Catholic Church. However, this alliance excluded the old landowners -"the oligarchy" -- who would become the number one enemy of the new government. ..."
    "... In political terms, the heterogeneous support base of peronism started to disintegrate. Without Evita, the more combative unionists and political leaders were ousted by the conservative, bureaucratic sectors of the movement. ..."
    The Argentina Independent

    The coup d'etat that brought the so-called "Década Infame" to an end in 1943, was headed by a group of Army officials known as GOU (Grupo de Oficiales Unidos). General Pedro Ramírez became president after the coup, but was removed in 1944 and replaced by General Edelmiro Farrell. During Farrell's presidency, Colonel Juan Domingo Perón -- who was a member of the GOU -- became vicepresident, Minister for War and Labour Secretary (simultaneously).

    The new regime sought to implement a change in the country's social and economic structures, based on strong State intervention, where the long-term goals of the workers coincided with the nation's need for economic development. Perón's work from the Labour Secretariat helped organise the workers' movement (until then divided into Communist, Socialist, and Revolutionary factions) into strong, centralised unions that cooperated with the government in solving labour disputes and establishing collective bargaining agreements, and whose leadership was under government influence.

    It was during this time that Perón would establish a strong alliance with the unions, who would later become the backbone of peronism. Workers started seeing that many of their historic demands were finally being attended to, including severance pay, retirement benefits, and regulation for rural labour.

    These measures earned him the loyalty and support of the working masses, but strong opposition from the local bourgeoisie and existing political parties, whose core voters were largely middle class. The political opposition organised itself around the figure of US Ambassador Spruille Braden and found enough support from dissident groups within the Armed Forces to pressure Farrell into removing Perón. Eventually, Perón lost Farrell's support, resigned from all his positions on the 9th October 1945 and was jailed at the Martín García Island, then famous for hosting deposed politicians.

    The Federal Workers Confederation (CGT) had called for a strike for the 18th October to support Perón. However hundreds of thousands of workers spontaneously decided to gather at Plaza de Mayo a day earlier. On a symbolic level, the images of the workers taking over the heart and soul of Argentine political life -Plaza de Mayo-, making it their own, washing their feet in the fountains, became the expression of a new era in the country's social and political history. The relegated masses had made a triumphal entry into Argentina's political life, leaving behind decades of political isolation.

    The images of 17th October 1945 continue to depict the deeper historical meaning of peronism: the inclusion of the working class in the country's social, political and economic life.

    Due to popular pressure, Perón was released that same day and addressed the people from the balconies of the Casa Rosada in the evening, launching his presidential candidacy for the forthcoming elections.

    Perón's First Government (1946-1951)

    Perón was elected president in February 1946, winning 56% of the vote. He had the support of the Labour Party (which was formed by the unions after the 17th October) and a faction of the Radical party called UCR Junta Renovadora (Perón's eventual vicepresident, Hortensio Quijano, was from this breakaway). He'd run the presidential campaign around the slogan "Braden or Perón" -where Braden and the opposition parties centred around the Unión Democrática represented imperialism, while Perón maintained a nationalist stance.

    The period 1946-1955 marked a turning point in the economic development of the country. Up until that point, the economy had been characterised by a model based around agricultural exports, dominated by large landowners and a strong intervention of foreign companies-British, and increasingly from the US. This model had started to weaken during the 1930's, but it was not until the mid-1940s that it was replaced by what became known as "import substitution industrialisation" (ISI).

    This new economic paradigm was based around the development of labour-intensive, light industry to create jobs and produce domestic goods for the internal market. The State played an important role in channelling income from agricultural exports to industry, raising import tariffs, and nationalising foreign-owned companies such as the railways, gas, phone and electricity.

    The political model that accompanied these economic changes was based on a class alliance between the workers, industrial employers, the Armed Forces and the Catholic Church. However, this alliance excluded the old landowners -"the oligarchy" -- who would become the number one enemy of the new government.

    During this period, Perón's charismatic wife, Eva Perón (or "Evita" as her followers called her) played a prominent role, and it is widely acknowledged that she was the main link between the president and the workers' movement. Evita also had an active role in the development of womens' rights, such as the right to vote (1947) and the equality of men and women in marriage and in the care of children -- even fighting internal opposition to achieve these goals. The Eva Perón Foundation channelled the social policies of the government, emphasising the concept of social justice as opposed to charity. Evita was loved and admired by the people as much as she was derided by the opposition and by the more conservative factions within the peronist movement, whose power and influence in government were being diminished by her growing profile.

    The new role of the State and the rights acquired during this period were articulated in a new Constitution, adopted in 1949, which put social justice and the "general interest" at the centre of all political and economic activities. The new constitutional text included a range of "social rights" (the so-called second generation rights), related to workers, families, the elderly, education and culture.

    Perón's Second Government (1951-1955)

    Perón was re-elected in 1951, obtaining a massive 62% of the vote (which, for the first time, included the female voters). His second term, however, proved to be much more complicated than the first. The day he took office, 4th June 1952, was the last public appearance of Evita, who died of cancer the following month. The economic situation worsened, with a drop in the international price of agricultural products and severe droughts between 1949 and 1952 affecting domestic production.

    This prompted Perón to embrace austerity measures, putting the brakes on consumption and wealth redistribution, and improving the relationship with foreign companies -- such as the Standard Oil, which was awarded new contracts. All these measures contradicted the model that Perón himself had implemented, and divided opinion among his followers.

    In political terms, the heterogeneous support base of peronism started to disintegrate. Without Evita, the more combative unionists and political leaders were ousted by the conservative, bureaucratic sectors of the movement. At the same time, the relationship with the Church became increasingly frosty, before turning into an open conflict in 1954. In addition, some members of the industrial bourgeoisie, less favoured by the new economic reality, also started to abandon this alliance and join the ranks of the opposition, which now included some hardline sectors in the military. All these groups united against what was perceived as the increasingly authoritarian tendencies of the government, which had by this point closed down several media outlets and utilised public radio, television and print media for its own propaganda.

    On the 16th June 1955, the political opposition (conservative, radicals and socialists) together with the Navy and with the support of the Church, carried out a botched coup d'etat against Perón. Navy planes bombed Plaza de Mayo, where a rally was taking place, killing more than 300 people. Perón's attempt to appease the crowd failed and that very same night groups of peronist activists took to the streets of Buenos Aires and burnt several churches.

    After the failed coup, Perón tried to keep the situation under control and called for a truce with the opposition. However on 31st August, after talks with the opposition failed, the president hardened his position when, during a public speech, he pronounced the now famous phrase: "for each one of us who fall, five of them will follow". Seventeen days later, on the 16th September, a new military uprising -- led again by the Navy -- succeeded in deposing Perón, who asked for political refuge in Paraguay and left the country on the 20th of September. It would be 17 years until he stepped on Argentine soil again.

    Contradictions and Resistance: Peronism Without Perón (1955 – 1960's)

    By this time, the peronist movement was made up of a mixture of factions from different backgrounds: socialists, catholic nationalists, anarchists, yrigoyenist radicals, and conservatives, among others. From the beginning they co-existed in constant tension -a tension that could only be overcome by the dominant and unifying figure of Perón.

    With Perón in exile, the contradictions between all these factions bubbled to the surface. In a country now deeply divided by the peronism/anti-peronism dichotomy, new divisions started to emerge within the peronist side. These would not only mark the evolution of the peronist movement, but would also play a major role in Argentina's political life to this day. Perón's legendary pragmatism and political ability became very evident during these years, as even in exile he managed to mantain an important level of control over the situation, playing the different factions to his advantage.

    Two months after the coup, the liberal faction of the self-proclaimed "Liberating Revolution" took over the government and started a process of "de-peronisation". This involved dissolving the peronist party and banning any of its members from running for public office, banning the display of all the peronist symbols and any mention of the names of Perón or Evita, intervening in the CGT, and proscribing the unions' old leadership. The persecution of the CGT leaders and the weakening of the peronist unions left many workers once again unprotected and exposed to the abuses of some employers.

    It was in this context that the Peronist Resistance was born-an inorganic protest movement that carried out clandestine actions of sabotage (ranging from breaking machinery at the workplace to placing home-made bombs). The Resistance was an expression of the grassroots of the peronism: the workers who wanted their leader back and were fighting to protect the legacy of his government.

    One of the main organisers of the Resistance was John William Cooke, a left-wing peronist deputy who had been named by Perón as his personal representative whilst in exile. In 1956, peronist General Juan José Valle led an unsuccessful uprising against the government, which ended up with 30 people -- many of them civilians -- executed. The violent suppression of the uprising caused Perón and the Resistance to abandon the idea of armed struggle and focus on reorganising the unions.

    [Jul 11, 2016] Andrew Bacevich, Donald Trump and the Remaking of America

    Notable quotes:
    "... Andrew J. Bacevich, a ..."
    "... , is professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. He is the author of the new book ..."
    "... on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse's ..."
    "... , and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, ..."
    TomDispatch

    Juan and Evita in Washington?

    If Trump secures the Republican nomination, now an increasingly imaginable prospect, the party is likely to implode. Whatever rump organization survives will have forfeited any remaining claim to represent principled conservatism.

    None of this will matter to Trump, however. He is no conservative and Trump_vs_deep_state requires no party. Even if some new institutional alternative to conventional liberalism eventually emerges, the two-party system that has long defined the landscape of American politics will be gone for good.

    Should Trump or a Trump mini-me ultimately succeed in capturing the presidency, a possibility that can no longer be dismissed out of hand, the effects will be even more profound. In all but name, the United States will cease to be a constitutional republic. Once President Trump inevitably declares that he alone expresses the popular will, Americans will find that they have traded the rule of law for a version of caudillismo. Trump's Washington could come to resemble Buenos Aires in the days of Juan Perón, with Melania a suitably glamorous stand-in for Evita, and plebiscites suitably glamorous stand-ins for elections.

    That a considerable number of Americans appear to welcome this prospect may seem inexplicable. Yet reason enough exists for their disenchantment. American democracy has been decaying for decades. The people know that they are no longer truly sovereign. They know that the apparatus of power, both public and private, does not promote the common good, itself a concept that has become obsolete. They have had their fill of irresponsibility, lack of accountability, incompetence, and the bad times that increasingly seem to go with them.

    So in disturbingly large numbers they have turned to Trump to strip bare the body politic, willing to take a chance that he will come up with something that, if not better, will at least be more entertaining. As Argentines and others who have trusted their fate to demagogues have discovered, such expectations are doomed to disappointment.

    In the meantime, just imagine how the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library, no doubt taller than all the others put together, might one day glitter and glisten -- perhaps with casino attached.

    Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. He is the author of the new book America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History (Random House, April 2016).

    Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse's Tomorrow's Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

    Copyright 2016 Andrew Bacevich

    [Jul 09, 2016] Bernie Sanders Defeated on Trade in Democratic Platform Fight

    Notable quotes:
    "... the committee approved an amendment backed by organized labor that called for tough restrictions on trade deals, but did not explicitly oppose the trade pact with a dozen Pacific Rim nations that liberals say would hurt workers. ..."
    "... Sanders will now have to decide whether he wants to use a parliamentary mechanism to push the issue to a fight on the floor of the Democratic National Convention later this month in Philadelphia. ..."
    "... ...the Obama administration supports it. Establishment Democrats, including organized labor, sought to avoid embarrassing the president by allowing language in the party platform that would directly oppose the deal. ..."
    NBC News

    In a major defeat during an otherwise fruitful process for him, Bernie Sanders failed to get strong language opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership inserted in the draft Democratic platform at a party meeting here Saturday.

    Instead, the committee approved an amendment backed by organized labor that called for tough restrictions on trade deals, but did not explicitly oppose the trade pact with a dozen Pacific Rim nations that liberals say would hurt workers.

    Sanders will now have to decide whether he wants to use a parliamentary mechanism to push the issue to a fight on the floor of the Democratic National Convention later this month in Philadelphia.

    Sanders will now have to decide whether he wants to use a parliamentary mechanism to push the issue to a fight on the floor of the Democratic National Convention later this month in Philadelphia.

    "We are very disappointed," said Sanders top policy adviser Warren Gunnells. "The good news is that virtually everyone who spoke during the debate on trade made it clear that they opposed this unfettered free trade agreement."

    ...the Obama administration supports it. Establishment Democrats, including organized labor, sought to avoid embarrassing the president by allowing language in the party platform that would directly oppose the deal.

    [Jul 08, 2016] House Democrats Boo Bernie, He Answers With Why We Love Him

    Jul 7, 2016 | YouTube

    Bernie Sanders was booed while giving a speech to Democrats in Congress. As he has done his entire career, he didn't back down.

    Jimmy Dore breaks it down.

    Subscribe Here ▶ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...

    Full audio version of The Jimmy Dore Show on iTunes ▶ https://itunes.apple.com/podcast/the-...

    [Jul 08, 2016] State department reopens its own investigation into Hillary Clinton emails

    Notable quotes:
    "... But in a potentially destabilising move for the Democratic party, and an exciting one for Sanders' supporters, the Green party candidate said she was willing to stand aside for Sanders. ..."
    "... If he continues to declare his full faith in the Democratic party, it will leave many of his supporters very disappointed," she said. "That political movement is going to go on – it isn't going to bury itself in the graveyard alongside Hillary Clinton ..."
    "... Stein said the Democratic establishment had conducted "psychological warfare" against Sanders and "sabotaged" his attempts to gain the party's presidential nomination. Many of his young, progressive supporters are now moving over to the Green party rather than fall in behind Clinton ..."
    "... a less interventionist approach to foreign affairs than Clinton, the Greens have also pitched at voters who have been dubbed as being "Bernie or bust". ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Bernie Sanders has been invited to continue his underdog bid for the White House by the Green party's probable presidential candidate, who has offered to step aside to let him run. Jill Stein, who is expected to be endorsed at the party's August convention in Houston, told Guardian US that "overwhelming" numbers of Sanders supporters are flocking to the Greens rather than Hillary Clinton. Stein insisted that her presidential bid has a viable "near term goal" of reaching 15% in national polling, which would enable her to stand alongside presumptive nominees Clinton and Donald Trump in televised election debates.

    But in a potentially destabilising move for the Democratic party, and an exciting one for Sanders' supporters, the Green party candidate said she was willing to stand aside for Sanders.

    "I've invited Bernie to sit down explore collaboration – everything is on the table," she said. "If he saw that you can't have a revolutionary campaign in a counter-revolutionary party, he'd be welcomed to the Green party. He could lead the ticket and build a political movement," she said.

    Stein said she had made her offer directly to Sanders in an email at the end of the primary season, although she had not received a response. Her surprise intervention comes amid speculation that Sanders will finally draw a line under a bruising Democratic contest by endorsing Clinton's presidential bid next week.

    "If he continues to declare his full faith in the Democratic party, it will leave many of his supporters very disappointed," she said. "That political movement is going to go on – it isn't going to bury itself in the graveyard alongside Hillary Clinton."

    Stein said the Democratic establishment had conducted "psychological warfare" against Sanders and "sabotaged" his attempts to gain the party's presidential nomination. Many of his young, progressive supporters are now moving over to the Green party rather than fall in behind Clinton, Stein added.

    "I'm not holding my breath but I'm not ruling it out that we can bring out 43 million young people into this election," she said. "It's been a wild election; every rule in the playbook has been tossed out. Unfortunately, that has mainly been used to lift up hateful demagogues like Donald Trump, but it can also be done in a way that actually answers people's needs."

    Stein, a former Massachusetts doctor turned environmental activist, is attempting to woo young voters with a promise to make college free and, beyond what Sanders has pledged, to cancel all existing student debt through quantitive easing.

    With a more ambitious climate change policy (Stein favors getting to 100% renewable-powered electricity by the middle of the century) and a less interventionist approach to foreign affairs than Clinton, the Greens have also pitched at voters who have been dubbed as being "Bernie or bust".

    [Jul 05, 2016] Future candidates like Sanders will face same dilemma: Lose, party apparatchiks dance on your grave. Win, theyll try to put you in one.

    peakoilbarrel.com
    hightrekker23 , 06/19/2016 at 8:39 pm
    "future candidates like Sanders will face same dilemma: Lose, & party apparatchiks dance on your grave. Win, & they'll try to put you in one."

    [Jul 05, 2016] Meet the Academics Who Want Donald Trump to Be President

    Notable quotes:
    "... That assumption, he says, may stem from the sense of status that comes from being in academe. The idea that "if you're in this room, you're an elite - so you're not going to respond to things like trade policy and illegal immigration because these things largely don't affect you." ..."
    "... The academics who support Mr. Trump acknowledge that many of his ideas are dangerous. Outweighing that concern is the conviction that something has to change, and that there's no better alternative than a Trump presidency. ..."
    "... Compounding their support for the billionaire is a lack of other options. Mr. Van Horn says he would be open to voting for a Democrat, but he thinks the proposals of the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders are unrealistic. As for Hillary Clinton, he neither likes her nor trusts her. (When confronted with the fact that he also says he neither likes nor trusts Mr. Trump, Mr. Van Horn says the former secretary of state is more likely to be beholden to a "very narrow set of society.") ..."
    "... But two and a half years into the program, he has found that some academics can be even more closed-minded than people he grew up with. "I was this very liberal person where I was from, and then I come out here and they're all very, very liberal, and they're all very, very rigid." ..."
    "... And in political science, where this year's election is particularly relevant, the popular treatment of the Trump candidacy as a joke has made Mr. Van Horn wonder about the costs to scholarship: "How can you do objective scholarly research? You don't even treat American voters as people who are qualified to cast a ballot." ..."
    "... Mr. Van Horn still loves studying political science, and he still wants to be a professor. But he watches what he says, and he's more cynical about higher education. "It's a very closed community," he says. "It's like the smallest town in the world." ..."
    chronicle.com

    The Chronicle of Higher Education

    Conventional wisdom says poorly educated voters have fueled Mr. Trump's improbable rise. "I love the poorly educated," he proclaimed after winning Nevada's primary last month (though he also boasted of winning the votes of the well educated). "The single best predictor of Trump support in the GOP primary is the absence of a college degree," wrote Derek Thompson in The Atlantic this month.

    In academe - where professionals can have three, four, five degrees - Trump supporters may be hard to find. But they're out there.

    Like many people, Joseph Van Horn first treated Mr. Trump's candidacy as a joke. But as more-traditional candidates failed to outpace the billionaire, Mr. Van Horn, a Ph.D. student in political science at the University of California at Los Angeles, listened more closely.

    What he heard excited him - among other things, that Mr. Trump was willing to talk about narrow policy proposals rather than harp on conservative social issues. That willingness, coupled with his lack of attachment to the political establishment, made Mr. Van Horn think, "When's the last time I heard a candidate and thought, 'That could really happen'?"

    Mr. Van Horn doesn't like Donald Trump personally. And he doesn't find him all that trustworthy. "I wouldn't give him the key to my apartment," he says. But he's excited about the Trump movement, particularly how it has spurred higher turnout and more engagement with the election.

    When he brings up that sense of excitement in an academic setting, however, he gets shut down, he says. "I was kind of shocked at how staunchly anti-Trump people are," he says. Many of his peers are willing to issue a blanket condemnation of Mr. Trump's candidacy as racist and nativist, Mr. Van Horn says, but "shouting 'racists' and 'bigots' and 'he's Hitler' is just not productive."

    "The reaction of everyone in the audience was, you know, chuckling, the implication being that no one in this room could possibly take Trump seriously."

    It's not as if those terms are not warranted at times. Mr. Trump has been shocking and crass, suggesting, for example, that Mexican immigrants are responsible for widespread rape. "He's certainly playing to people's prejudices," Mr. Van Horn says, adding that he doesn't share those prejudices. He hates the proposal to bar Muslims from entering the country ("I think it's really shameful that we have Muslims in the armed forces that have to listen to this stuff") but thinks such extreme proposals are unlikely to become policy.

    Sharp rhetoric aside, he says, shouldn't a political-science department be willing to take seriously the merits of a formidable political movement? Mr. Van Horn says the popular dismissal of the Trump campaign has been disheartening and reflective of a broader bias against right-leaning ideas.

    Linda Grochowalski, a Trump supporter who teaches English part time at Assumption College and Quinsigamond Community College, in Worcester, Mass., encountered that bias once upon moving into a new office. A previous occupant's poster still hung on the back of the door.

    "It essentially said, You have to be pretty stupid to vote for a Republican," she says. "I guess the writing's on the wall, or the door."

    That bias manifests itself in large groups, too. Mr. Calautti recalls attending a colloquium on civility in public discourse at which the speaker used as an example of uncivil discourse - surprise! - Mr. Trump's performance in the Republican debates. "The reaction of everyone in the audience was, you know, chuckling," he says, "the implication being that no one in this room could possibly take Trump seriously."

    That assumption, he says, may stem from the sense of status that comes from being in academe. The idea that "if you're in this room, you're an elite - so you're not going to respond to things like trade policy and illegal immigration because these things largely don't affect you."

    Gina Marcello, an assistant professor of communication at Georgian Court University, in New Jersey, says she hasn't often heard the election come up as a topic of conversation on her campus. "If it does come up," she says, "it's dismissive of Donald Trump." The subtext, which helps prevent her from talking politics with her colleagues, comes through loud and clear: "You'd have to be out of your mind to support a Trump candidacy."

    Why Trump?

    The academics who support Mr. Trump acknowledge that many of his ideas are dangerous. Outweighing that concern is the conviction that something has to change, and that there's no better alternative than a Trump presidency.

    Ms. Grochowalski says eight years of the Obama administration left her with $8,000 in medical bills. The Affordable Care Act, she says, forced her and her husband off their preferred health-insurance plan. And she's been disturbed by President Obama's use of executive orders to bypass Congress.

    Ms. Grochowalski, who worked as a marketing and communications director in the private sector, acknowledges that Mr. Trump lacks experience in public office. But she trusts that he would surround himself with smart people because of his business experience.

    His lack of political experience could be an asset, Ms. Marcello says, enabling him to appoint the "very best people" to advise him instead of bestowing political patronage.

    Compounding their support for the billionaire is a lack of other options. Mr. Van Horn says he would be open to voting for a Democrat, but he thinks the proposals of the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders are unrealistic. As for Hillary Clinton, he neither likes her nor trusts her. (When confronted with the fact that he also says he neither likes nor trusts Mr. Trump, Mr. Van Horn says the former secretary of state is more likely to be beholden to a "very narrow set of society.")

    As for those of Mr. Trump's ideas that Ms. Grochowalski calls "pretty outrageous," legal and constitutional checks are there to stymie any truly devastating plans, she says. "He probably can't do 30 percent of them, even if he wanted to."

    'The Smallest Town'

    For Mr. Van Horn, academe's reaction to the Trump candidacy has been a particularly disappointing sign of a larger problem. The 29-year-old grew up in Louisville, Ky., which he calls a "small city in the South." He enrolled in the University of Kentucky when he was 18, but struggled and dropped out after two years. He then became an electrician, but after a few years of doing that, he wasn't satisfied. "You can always make a lot of money as an electrician, but learning about the world is something different," he says.

    "I was this very liberal person where I was from, and then I come out here and they're all very, very liberal, and they're all very, very rigid."

    So he returned to school, finishing his undergraduate education at Indiana University-Southeast. He then applied to the political-science program at UCLA. He was over the moon about getting to follow his passion for a living - and to broaden his horizons beyond what his upbringing had restricted him to.

    But two and a half years into the program, he has found that some academics can be even more closed-minded than people he grew up with. "I was this very liberal person where I was from, and then I come out here and they're all very, very liberal, and they're all very, very rigid."

    And in political science, where this year's election is particularly relevant, the popular treatment of the Trump candidacy as a joke has made Mr. Van Horn wonder about the costs to scholarship: "How can you do objective scholarly research? You don't even treat American voters as people who are qualified to cast a ballot."

    Mr. Van Horn still loves studying political science, and he still wants to be a professor. But he watches what he says, and he's more cynical about higher education. "It's a very closed community," he says. "It's like the smallest town in the world."

    [Jul 05, 2016] Trump The College Years

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate, ..."
    "... To the extent that Mr. Trump found inspiration in the classroom, Ms. Blair continues, it was in those courses with the clearest connections to building and real estate. "He said the only thing he was interested in was geometry," Ms. Blair says. "It had something to do with buildings, it had something to do with spaces. That interested him." ..."
    "... "Perhaps the most important thing I learned at Wharton was not to be overly impressed by academic credentials," Mr. Trump wrote in The Art of the Deal. ..."
    "... On their first day of classes together, when a professor asked the students why they had come to Wharton, Mr. Calomaris recalls Mr. Trump saying, "I'm going to be the next Bill Zeckendorf," referencing a prominent New York City developer, "but I'm going to be better." ..."
    "... From the beginning, it was clear to Mr. Trump's classmates that Mr. Trump's relationship with Penn would be a transactional one; he would learn what he thought he needed to learn, and skim the rest. ..."
    "... Mr. Trump "never prepared for study group," says Mr. Calomaris, a restaurant owner and consultant, who says he is considering a vote for Mr. Trump. "He was not an intellectual, and you see that now. He doesn't prepare for speeches. He doesn't prepare himself. He doesn't have a battle plan. But he certainly knows what he wants to do. He wanted to win the nomination and now the presidency." ..."
    "... "He was a real-estate expert; he really was," recalls Mr. Sachs, who has worked in finance and consulting. "He would talk about major developers around the country. He knew the history and properties where I was from, which was Chicago. I was very amazed with his command of the subject and his interest in it. He knew the history of high-rise developers like a textbook." ..."
    "... "because he didn't care a whit about the technicalities of the real-estate business, just as today he doesn't care about the technicalities of virtually anything. He's a big-picture person." ..."
    July 03, 2016 | The Chronicle of Higher Education

    By Donald J. Trump's own account, he saw higher education as a means to an end. Fordham University and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where Mr. Trump transferred to complete a bachelor's degree in economics, were essentially credential factories. To become the real-estate mogul he envisioned, he needed these institutions - but in the same dispassionate way that a mechanic, say, needs a socket wrench.

    "In my opinion, that degree doesn't prove very much, but a lot of people I do business with take it very seriously, and it's considered very prestigious," Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, wrote in his book The Art of the Deal. "So all things considered, I'm glad I went to Wharton."

    ... ... ...

    In her book, The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate, Ms. Blair stops short of saying that Donald Trump owed his Penn admission to family connections. But she reports that, before Mr. Trump's transfer, he interviewed with a "friendly Wharton admissions officer" who was a high-school classmate of Mr. Trump's older brother, Freddy.

    "He acknowledged he wasn't much of a student," Ms. Blair, an adjunct professor in Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, said in a recent interview. "He wasn't interested in school. Let me be clear: He never said he was a poor student. He never said he was poor at anything."

    To the extent that Mr. Trump found inspiration in the classroom, Ms. Blair continues, it was in those courses with the clearest connections to building and real estate. "He said the only thing he was interested in was geometry," Ms. Blair says. "It had something to do with buildings, it had something to do with spaces. That interested him."

    Mr. Trump, who did not respond to interview requests, has said he was unfazed by the supposedly elite crowd he found at Penn.

    "Perhaps the most important thing I learned at Wharton was not to be overly impressed by academic credentials," Mr. Trump wrote in The Art of the Deal. "It didn't take me long to realize that there was nothing particularly awesome or exceptional about my classmates, and that I could compete with them just fine."

    One of those classmates was Louis J. Calomaris, who was among about a half-dozen students, along with Mr. Trump, in the real-estate concentration of Wharton's business program. Mr. Calomaris remembers well the first time he laid eyes on Mr. Trump, who had a "big blond mop of hair" and an ego to match. On their first day of classes together, when a professor asked the students why they had come to Wharton, Mr. Calomaris recalls Mr. Trump saying, "I'm going to be the next Bill Zeckendorf," referencing a prominent New York City developer, "but I'm going to be better."

    The professor peered over his horn-rimmed glasses and asked for the name of this cocksure young man. "And that was our introduction to Donald Trump," Mr. Calomaris says.

    From the beginning, it was clear to Mr. Trump's classmates that Mr. Trump's relationship with Penn would be a transactional one; he would learn what he thought he needed to learn, and skim the rest.

    Wharton's small group of real-estate majors met regularly for a study group, Mr. Calomaris says, often at the home of Joseph M. Cohen, a future television-sports impresario who lived in Society Hill Towers, a high-rise condominium.

    "That degree doesn't prove very much, but ... it's considered very prestigious."

    Mr. Trump "never prepared for study group," says Mr. Calomaris, a restaurant owner and consultant, who says he is considering a vote for Mr. Trump. "He was not an intellectual, and you see that now. He doesn't prepare for speeches. He doesn't prepare himself. He doesn't have a battle plan. But he certainly knows what he wants to do. He wanted to win the nomination and now the presidency."

    Another of Mr. Trump's classmates, Edward M. Sachs Jr., recalls the future candidate for his uncommon knowledge of developers across the nation.

    "He was a real-estate expert; he really was," recalls Mr. Sachs, who has worked in finance and consulting. "He would talk about major developers around the country. He knew the history and properties where I was from, which was Chicago. I was very amazed with his command of the subject and his interest in it. He knew the history of high-rise developers like a textbook."

    Mr. Sachs was unaware that Mr. Trump's father was a wealthy real-estate developer. The former classmate remembers Mr. Trump as a low-key guy, who liked to break away on Fridays for fried-oyster sandwiches at Howard Johnson's.

    "Even though he was from New York, you could have sold him in some small town in Indiana," Mr. Sachs says. "He had a common touch at that time."

    ... .. ...

    There was much in college that did not seem to interest Mr. Trump, but he did latch on to a favorite lecture of one of Wharton's professors, who argued that the essence of good business was to understand the desires and even the psychologies of those on the other side of the negotiating table. Are they young and aggressive? Are they conservative and more interested in steady, predictable returns? This, the professor argued, was often more important than statistical analysis or actuarial appraisal.

    "Trump certainly took that to heart," Mr. Calomaris says, "because he didn't care a whit about the technicalities of the real-estate business, just as today he doesn't care about the technicalities of virtually anything. He's a big-picture person."

    On the campaign trail, Mr. Calomaris continues, "you're seeing an extension of what was there when he was 19 or 20 years old. It's a very accurate picture. It's Trump."

    [Jul 04, 2016] We want to end the rapid movement that we are currently experiencing toward oligarchic control of our economic and political life

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Sanders is not just a 'lesser evil'. His proposals and policies are good In addition, Sanders seeks to change the current electoral process based on money coming from corporations, political action committees and wealthy individuals. Changing this system is the first step...." ..."
    "... The November election will be a referendum on the neolibcon establishment in the U.S. as much as the Brexit vote was for the EU. The Brexit vote showed that people are so fed up that they aren't listening to establishment fear-mongering. ..."
    "... No matter how Democratic Party loyalists try to spin it, the blame for a Trump win will fall on the corrupt Democratic Party establishment. It is no accident that the vast majority of Super-delegates have steadfastly stood by Hillary, warts and all. ..."
    "... Bernie the sheepdog has failed his movement but the Greens and true progressives will continue. ..."
    "... It says a great deal about both Warren and the Democratic Party, in which she is the most high-profile "left" politician, that she never endorsed Bernie and has now enthusiastically endorsed Hillary. It would not be a stretch to say that had Warren endorsed and campaigned for Sanders, it could well have been the difference needed to defeat Clinton in the primary. But she did not. ..."
    "... Because of course the problem is much larger than just Warren, Clinton, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz. At the heart of the matter is a political party that is thoroughly undemocratic and corrupt to its very core – one that answers to Wall Street, not working people. It's the second most pro-capitalist party in the world, after the Republican Party. ..."
    "... Yes it is the Washington Post, but the point stands: it is a strange place for a 'revolutionary' to deliver his message. Unless that message is one of capitulation (it is) . ..."
    Jun 25, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Alternet

    Seems you mean the Washington Post, not the WSJ. Alternet seems to like it.

    "What do we want? We want to end the rapid movement that we are currently experiencing toward oligarchic control of our economic and political life," Sanders concluded. "As Lincoln put it at Gettysburg, we want a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That is what we want, and that is what we will continue fighting for."

    in re 83 --

    What does that even mean, "links not employed"?

    This might not be very funny, but it did bring a smile to my face - Why Trump Is Faltering Since He Locked Up Nomination.

    rufus magister | Jun 24, 2016 8:02:34 AM | 86 rufus magister | Jun 25, 2016 9:11:21 AM | 94

    This post at Countepunch takes on the "dog" analogy, arguing that "Sanders is not just a 'lesser evil'. His proposals and policies are good In addition, Sanders seeks to change the current electoral process based on money coming from corporations, political action committees and wealthy individuals. Changing this system is the first step...."

    There are any number of arguments that Sanders has changed and will continue to change the political dyanmics. More and in a different direction might be nice. But after decades of neo-liberal assaults on the working class, let's not have the best be the enemy of the good.

    Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis holds that:

    Sanders' meteoric rise is evidence that unabashed progressive politics is an effective antidote to the far-right xenophobia on the rise across the developed world. "Every time we have a spasm of capitalism, whether this is the 1930s or now, the seeds of vulgar ultra-right-wingness sprout into a very ugly tree," Varoufakis said....

    "I am very impressed by his capacity to rise from almost complete marginality to the center of the debate," Varoufakis continued. "And if you look at the discussion he has invigorated, or reinvigorated, in the Democratic Party, that just goes to show that it is perfectly possible to excite young people....

    Yeah, he botched with Syriza in Greece. But he was principled enough to resign and move on politically. I don't know with what sort of success his proposed organization met.

    Alternet offers a handy list of things Sanders has already changed about American politics. I particulary note points 5 and 6, on princples and issues, but the author notes he has brought progressives together, shown popularly-funded campaigns to be viable, and made socialism respectable. "Not too shabby."

    Politics isn't for the meek, but it doesn't have to be all mud all the time like the GOP's nominating contest, and Sanders has shown that in state after state....

    The passion and public purpose of his campaign has struck deep and wide notes precisely because of that. More than anything, Sanders has reminded vast swaths of the country that his democratic socialist agenda is exactly what they want America to be-a fairer and more dignified, tolerant, responsible and conscientious country.

    I have previously noted, the consensus amongst the pundit class is that Sanders is a principled politician. The conduct of his campaign reflects these principles. I do not agree with them, but I respect that he has been consistent in their application throughout his political career.

    Ah, but "what is to be done" with all of the passion aroused? Sanders clearly intends to keep the pressure on within the Democratic Party. Though doubtless, it will not all remain there.

    I keep hearing that "things" are different, post-Occupy, etc., and that some sort of Green/Libertarian/Trump miracle is possible. It is also possible, and historically conditioned, that these pressures will in fact push the Democrats to the left.

    This would be good, in and for the short-term. Revolutionary change takes patient work, especially in early stages. We're quite a "Long March" away, and these are useful baby-steps.

    So this whole notion that but the hopes of the masses and left wing of the Democratic Party, we'd have our Utopia by now, us a cheap alibi as to why the divided left (as "b" very accurately describes) can't make any headway, even after the economy nearly repeated the Great Depression.

    The nerve of those damn proles, hoping for short-term improvement! What about the intersectionality?

    You know, I don't think "Suck it up and butch it out 'til after The Revolution, you ignorant, evil, unenlightened over-privileged sell-outs" is really that attractive as politics. Maybe that overstates this argument, but probably not too much. "The Greens know that someone is in the buff but the Sanders gang has yet to catch on that their emperor has no clothes" does strike a rather condescending tone, sure to win friends and influence people.

    Somewhat at odds with the next paragraph, though. But is topic is the "Green Machine."

    Second, and more importantly, Marsh has left out a key point in his analysis. The Greens just passed a major benchmark to gain federal funding.

    Is that lime Kool-Aid then?

    Jackrabbit | Jun 25, 2016 11:00:34 AM | 97
    rufus @93-4

    LOL! Don't hurt yourself.

    Your dismissing of 'collusion' for lack of a smoking gun ignores much circumstantial evidence:

    > Sanders has been a Democrat for many years in all but name;
    - he has an arrangement with the Democratic Party whereby he runs in Vermont Democratic Primaries but will not accept the Democratic nomination and the Democratic Party will not fund candidates that oppose him;

    - Obama campaigned for him, Schumer and Reid endorsed him, he calls Hillary "a friend", etc.

    > He pulled punches in his campaign - refusing to attack Hillary or Obama on issues that could've made a big difference for his campaign, like:

    - when Hillary defended taking money by pointing to Obama who has clearly been pro-Wall Street;

    - Obama's record on the economy and black issues (Obama's support has helped Hillary to win over blacks) ;

    - his slowness to criticize Hillary-DNC collusion;

    - on Hillary's emails after the State Dept IG report;

    - he all but endorsed Hillary from the start.

    The November election will be a referendum on the neolibcon establishment in the U.S. as much as the Brexit vote was for the EU. The Brexit vote showed that people are so fed up that they aren't listening to establishment fear-mongering.

    No matter how Democratic Party loyalists try to spin it, the blame for a Trump win will fall on the corrupt Democratic Party establishment. It is no accident that the vast majority of Super-delegates have steadfastly stood by Hillary, warts and all.

    Bernie the sheepdog has failed his movement but the Greens and true progressives will continue. Here is what Kasama Sawant has to say at Counterpunch today :

    If Bernie refuses to break from the Democratic Party, our movement should back Jill Stein as the strongest left alternative in the presidential election ... Stein deserves the strongest possible support from Sandernistas .... With Bernie stepping out of the race, and likely endorsing Clinton, it will be up to us to continue the political revolution and to stand up against both Clintonism and Trump_vs_deep_state.
    And drives home the point with:
    It says a great deal about both Warren and the Democratic Party, in which she is the most high-profile "left" politician, that she never endorsed Bernie and has now enthusiastically endorsed Hillary. It would not be a stretch to say that had Warren endorsed and campaigned for Sanders, it could well have been the difference needed to defeat Clinton in the primary. But she did not.

    It says a great deal about the whole of the Democratic Party leadership – which claims that its key priority is to defeat Trump – that it has fiercely backed Clinton in spite of the fact that the polls have shown Sanders to be the far stronger candidate in every matchup.

    Because of course the problem is much larger than just Warren, Clinton, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz. At the heart of the matter is a political party that is thoroughly undemocratic and corrupt to its very core – one that answers to Wall Street, not working people. It's the second most pro-capitalist party in the world, after the Republican Party.

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    @86 Yes it is the Washington Post, but the point stands: it is a strange place for a 'revolutionary' to deliver his message. Unless that message is one of capitulation (it is) .

    [Jul 04, 2016] What Trump Gets Right on Immigration

    The American Conservative

    While Trump's proposed blanket ban on Muslim travelers is both constitutionally and ethically wrongheaded and, in my opinion, potentially damaging to broader U.S. interests, his related demand to temporarily stop travel or immigration from some core countries that have serious problems with militancy is actually quite sensible. This is because the United States has only a limited ability to vet people from those countries. The Obama administration claims it is rigorously screening travelers and immigrants-but it has provided little to no evidence that its procedures are effective.

    The first step in travel limitation is to define the problem. While it is popular in Congress and the media to focus on countries like Iran, nationals of such countries do not constitute a serious threat. Shi'a Muslims, the majority of Iranians, have characteristically not staged suicide attacks, nor do they as a group directly threaten American or Western interests. The Salafist organizations with international appeal and global reach are all Sunni Muslim. In fact, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, and al-Nusra all self-define as Sunni Muslim and regard Shi'as as heretics. Most of the foot soldiers who do the fighting and dying for the terrorist groups and their affiliates are Sunnis who come from Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, and even the homegrown Europeans and Americans who join their ranks are Sunni.

    It is no coincidence that the handful of Muslim countries that harbor active insurgencies have also been on the receiving end of U.S. military interventions, which generate demands for revenge against the West and the U.S. in particular. They would be the countries to monitor most closely for militants seeking to travel. All of them represent launching pads for potential attacks, and it should be assumed that groups like ISIS would be delighted to infiltrate refugee and immigrant groups.

    U.S. embassies and consulates overseas are the choke points for those potential terrorists. Having myself worked the visa lines in consulates overseas, I understand just how difficult it is to be fair to honest travelers while weeding out those whose intentions are less honorable. At the consulate, an initial screening based on name and birth date determines whether an applicant is on any no-fly or terrorism-associate lists. Anyone coming up is automatically denied, but the lists include a great deal of inaccurate information, so they probably "catch" more innocent people than they do actual would-be terrorists. Individuals who have traveled to Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since 2011, or who are citizens of those countries, are also selected out for additional review.

    For visitors who pass the initial screening and who do not come from one of the 38 "visa waiver" countries, mostly in Europe, the next step is the visitor's visa, called a B-2. At that point, the consulate's objective is to determine whether the potential traveler has a good reason to visit the U.S., has the resources to pay for the trip, and is likely to return home before the visa expires. The process seeks to establish that the applicant has sufficient equity in his or her home country to guarantee returning to it, a recognition of the fact that most visa fraud relates to overstaying one's visit to disappear into the unregistered labor market in the U.S. The process is document-driven, with the applicants presenting evidence of bank accounts, employment, family ties, and equity like homeownership. Sometimes letters of recommendation from local business leaders or politicians might also become elements in the decision.

    [Jul 03, 2016] Donald Trump's Appeal to Rust Belt Workers by STEVEN GREENHOUSE

    Notable quotes:
    "... "It's either you stick with the establishment or you go for change. People want change. A guy like Donald Trump, he's pushing for change." ..."
    "... The blue-collar counties of western Pennsylvania have largely swung Republican as unions have grown weaker and evangelical churches stronger. Despite overwhelmingly endorsing Hillary Clinton, labor unions face a big challenge with frustrated workers like Mr. Haines. That many white male union members are embracing Mr. Trump doesn't necessarily mean overall union membership is moving right, however. In recent years, as unions have organized more government employees and low-wage workers, the percentage of union members who are black, Hispanic or female has risen - and those groups are solidly anti-Trump. ..."
    "... The A.F.L.-C.I.O. has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, calling her "an unstoppable champion for working families" while dismissing Mr. Trump as "an unstable charlatan who made his fortune scamming them." ..."
    "... On Tuesday, Mr. Trump spoke to applauding workers at a scrap-metal plant in Westmoreland County. He denounced "failed trade policies," saying he would renegotiate Nafta and scrap the proposed Trans-Pacific trade deal. He also borrowed Mr. Sanders's arguments to attack Mrs. Clinton from the left, saying she "voted for virtually every trade agreement." He added that she has betrayed American workers in favor of "Wall Street throughout her career." ..."
    "... Mike Podhorzer, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s political director, estimated that around one-third of union members back Mr. Trump. ..."
    "... ...some voters are reluctantly backing Mr. Trump simply out of frustration with the status quo. "We need someone who will say things are wrong and will push hard to fix them," said Paul Myers, a 50-year-old steelworker. "Trump might be lying about bringing jobs back, but at least he'll try to." ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    Greensburg, Pa. - THIS faded mining town east of Pittsburgh seems right out of "The Deer Hunter," one of many blue-collar, gun-loving communities that dot western Pennsylvania. For Donald J. Trump, such largely white, working-class towns are crucial to his hopes in the presidential campaign - and that's one reason he campaigned in this region on Tuesday. By rolling up large enough margins in former industrial strongholds like Greensburg - not just in Pennsylvania, but also in Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin - he might offset expected losses in cities like Philadelphia, Detroit and Cleveland, enabling him to capture those pivotal states.

    Mr. Trump's "Make America Great Again" message resonates with many of this region's workers, whose wages - and hopes - have been tugged downward by the abandoned steel mills and coal mines. Take Dennis Haines, 57, thrown out of work in January when the printing plant where he worked for 30 years closed. Mr. Haines, a member of the machinists union, said: "It's either you stick with the establishment or you go for change. People want change. A guy like Donald Trump, he's pushing for change."

    ... ... ...

    The blue-collar counties of western Pennsylvania have largely swung Republican as unions have grown weaker and evangelical churches stronger. Despite overwhelmingly endorsing Hillary Clinton, labor unions face a big challenge with frustrated workers like Mr. Haines.

    That many white male union members are embracing Mr. Trump doesn't necessarily mean overall union membership is moving right, however. In recent years, as unions have organized more government employees and low-wage workers, the percentage of union members who are black, Hispanic or female has risen - and those groups are solidly anti-Trump.

    ... ... ...

    The A.F.L.-C.I.O. has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, calling her "an unstoppable champion for working families" while dismissing Mr. Trump as "an unstable charlatan who made his fortune scamming them."

    ... ... ...

    On Tuesday, Mr. Trump spoke to applauding workers at a scrap-metal plant in Westmoreland County. He denounced "failed trade policies," saying he would renegotiate Nafta and scrap the proposed Trans-Pacific trade deal. He also borrowed Mr. Sanders's arguments to attack Mrs. Clinton from the left, saying she "voted for virtually every trade agreement." He added that she has betrayed American workers in favor of "Wall Street throughout her career."

    Late this summer, unions will mobilize a nationwide campaign to knock on doors, mail out pro-Clinton literature and speak to members at their workplaces.

    Tim Waters, the political director of the United Steelworkers, said his Pittsburgh-based union will warn its members that Mr. Trump isn't pro-worker: "He's a wolf in sheep's clothing."

    Unions have compiled a long list of objections to Mr. Trump. In one debate, he said wages were too high. Many workers have sued his companies for cheating them on wages. His Las Vegas hotel is battling unionization.

    "Every opportunity he's had to help American workers or American jobs, he did the opposite," Mr. Waters said. "He has had Trump-brand suits, shirts and ties made in Bangladesh, China and Honduras, everywhere but the U.S. He has imported workers to work at his facilities in Florida."

    Mike Podhorzer, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s political director, estimated that around one-third of union members back Mr. Trump.

    ... ... ...

    ...some voters are reluctantly backing Mr. Trump simply out of frustration with the status quo. "We need someone who will say things are wrong and will push hard to fix them," said Paul Myers, a 50-year-old steelworker. "Trump might be lying about bringing jobs back, but at least he'll try to."

    [Jul 03, 2016] Hillary tried to swift boat Sanders

    Notable quotes:
    "... This article is a thinly disguised anti-Sanders spiel. The first quote is from a Dem elite Hillary supporter Barney Frank, who turns logic its head by declaring the Sanders supporters are well-off white people who won't be hurt much by a GOP presidency compared to Hillary's working class rainbow coalition. ..."
    "... The fact that race has become a talking point for her surrogates reinforces my belief that this is all a swift boat campaign. Clinton's record on race is actually bad compared to Sanders: ..."
    "... The Democratic base constantly votes against it's own interest in primaries due to unsubstantiated beliefs about electability , which explains Talking Points Memo. ..."
    "... Electability was used by Clinton in 2007. It may have been a dog whistle for Obama, but Hillary and her cronies are repeating the same attacks they used then. It may have been in play early, but New Hampshire is basically white Alabama. ..."
    July 22, 2015 | naked capitalism
    Sanders

    Talking Points Memo reader survey: Readers support Sanders (44.8% to 36.6%) but think Clinton will win (78% to 16.5%) [Talking Points Memo]. Not a representative sample, but influencers.

    "Sanders' supporters, who number among the most intense partisans in the primary, have not helped close the gap" [WaPo].

    The S.S. Clinton

    Clinton suggests the minimum wage is a local issue [Truth Digest]. Eesh. "Leave it up to the states"?

    Quinnipiac poll: "Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is behind or on the wrong side of a too-close-to-call result in matchups with" Rubio, Bush, and Walker [Quinnipiac]. The election is 474 days away; I don't think these top-line numbers mean much, especially in state polls. It's Clinton's persistently poor trust numbers that might be more concerning to her campaign. But despite them, people seem willing to vote for her anyhow. Lowered expectations?

    "A day after proposing higher capital gains taxes on short-term investors, Clinton raised at least $450,000 last night at the Chicago home of Raj Fernando, a longtime donor. His firm, Chopper Trading, specializes in high-frequency transactions and was recently purchased by Chicago-based competitor DRW" [Crains Chicago Business]. "Clinton's summertime fundraising circuit highlights a central tension of her campaign: how to encourage financial executives to open their wallets for her presidential effort even as she comes out with plans aimed at reining in multimillion-dollar paychecks."

    Transcript of recent Iowa survey of Democrats [Bleeding Heartland].

    Brindle, July 22, 2015 at 2:21 pm

    re: /bernie_sanders. WaPo

    This article is a thinly disguised anti-Sanders spiel. The first quote is from a Dem elite Hillary supporter Barney Frank, who turns logic its head by declaring the Sanders supporters are well-off white people who won't be hurt much by a GOP presidency compared to Hillary's working class rainbow coalition.

    This is WaPo after all, and they have been quite obvious in their preference of a Bush/Clinton election.

    Ditto, July 22, 2015 at 2:27 pm

    The fact that race has become a talking point for her surrogates reinforces my belief that this is all a swift boat campaign. Clinton's record on race is actually bad compared to Sanders:

    http://www.salon.com/2015/07/22/20_examples_of_bernie_sanders_powerful_record_on_civil_and_human_rights_partner/

    Several are policies created by her husband and iothers are policies she supports

    Brindle, July 22, 2015 at 3:07 pm

    Yea, I noticed some weeks ago that Hillary insider Joan Walsh was re-tweeting various "Sanders doesn't connect w/ Black voters" lines. It's probably been in the works for awhile.

    different clue, July 22, 2015 at 3:29 pm

    I hope the Sanders group can spare some money/time/people to do "mortal combat" quality opposition research on the black "protesters" for use against them if they are deployed again against Sanders at future Sanders events. I hope the Sanders group also does very careful psychological studies and psy-ops war-gaming to advise Sanders on how to look better than the "protesters" the next time the Clintonites send them. And Sanders should figure out how to look totally innocent of any oppo knowledge or psy-war skills throughout the whole thing.

    Llewelyn Moss, July 22, 2015 at 2:37 pm

    Also no mention in Wapo that article of that Bernie drew 11,000 people to the rally in Phoenix. Sounds more like pervasive voter disgust and anger with the status quo and not just a bunch of "intense partisans". Dem voters just haven't yet realized that Hillery IS THE STATUS QUO.

    Arizona Slim, July 22, 2015 at 4:36 pm

    I was at that rally. More than 11,000 of us in a convention center exhibit hall that could have held three times as many people.

    And, for some STRANGE reason, there is very little media mention of this event.

    different clue, July 22, 2015 at 6:28 pm

    The media can only drop a Cone Of Silence over the Sanders events. They can't stop people from attending and they can't stop attendees from socially mediacasting the true extent of Sanders's visible support.

    And there are still land lines, index cards, and other physical tools and technologies left over from an earlier analog era which political campaign organizers could use to propel Sanders just as an earlier generation of such organizers/workers used them to propel McGovern into the Nomination.

    Ditto, July 22, 2015 at 2:22 pm

    The Democratic base constantly votes against it's own interest in primaries due to unsubstantiated beliefs about electability , which explains Talking Points Memo. It's a habit that the base devekoord from the 70s -90s but I question whether it still makes sense. Is the base really any good at picking candidates based on electability ?

    NotTimothyGeithner, July 22, 2015 at 2:53 pm

    Electability was used by Clinton in 2007. It may have been a dog whistle for Obama, but Hillary and her cronies are repeating the same attacks they used then. It may have been in play early, but New Hampshire is basically white Alabama.

    And as far as Hillary's surrogates or any surrogates opining about electability, no one cares. After all, conservative darling endorsed Mittens, and Trump's current supporters voted for Santorum. There are a few exceptions. I can't think of a living American who could make a difference.

    My guess is Liz Warren supporters and anti-Hillary types cover a similar field. Who knows or cares who Barney Frank is? This is a country where people cant find Iran on a map. As long as Hillary only fields elite surrogates and cant draw crowds, the electability issue wont enter the general discussion.

    Hillary will have a real problem with her declining numbers over the last two years. She is already a lower despite every advantage. Frauds like Rubio are outperforming her.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL, July 22, 2015 at 4:55 pm

    Won't matter, demographics and the Electoral College means it's just a zombie-walk to Hilary's coronation:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTC06FmFNCY&feature=youtu.be

    Oh, goody, expanded corporo-fascism and "Change We Can Believe In", only this time with a dissociated old woman who will need to "prove her manhood" with lots of shiny new wars.

    MT, July 22, 2015 at 7:34 pm

    I don't buy the argument that demographics will lead to Democratic inevitability. It is an argument that is popular with the front page writers of DailyKos, and I believe it is popular because it fits within the racial/social framing that allows the party to ignore economic matters and continue with their kayfabe. In fact, some of the more interesting side-stories of the 2014 midterm elections were the elections of Republicans from minority communities that were nearly indistinguishable in economic or social policy from current Democrats.

    I think the demographics argument is wrong for other reasons as well. A growing number of Hispanics are conservative: No one would mistake Jeb Bush's children (who are Hispanic) for Democratic Party supporters. Furthermore, the different demographic groups that are currently Democratic supporters are facing increasingly diverging interests. One example is affirmative action for college admissions, which the Asian-American community is opposing with more focus. (As an aside, the SCOTUS blog has had an interesting series of postings about the long-term prospects of affirmative action for admissions.)

    ifthethunderdontgetya, July 22, 2015 at 6:36 pm

    It's also a product of "Thanks Ralphing."

    Blame Ralph Nader for G.W. Bush, don't dare question your right-wing, less-evil-by-as-little-as-they-can-get away-with Dems.

    (This in spite of the fact that Nader was well down the list of reasons that G.W. Bush was installed in 2001…it's the narrative that counts.)

    [Jun 14, 2016] Fear and Loathing at Saint Anselm The Donald Gives a Presidential Speech on National Security

    Notable quotes:
    "... what the candidates actually say ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    Because coverage for Trump, as with Sanders, has been vile piece of jobbery by our Acela-rising press scorps, I'm going to quote great slabs from Trump's remarks. I'll briefly compare and contrast what the press said to what Trump's words were. I may add brief commentary of my own. I'm not going to quote the whole speech. Instead, I'm going to quote three topic areas[2] from his prepared remarks. (The transcript of the speech as delivered, sadly in ALL CAPS, is here). The topics:

    1. Diversity and Multiculturalism
    2. Blowback
    3. War and Peace

    So let's look at what Trump has to say;

    1. Diversity and Multiculturalism

    After calling for a moment of silence, Trump says[3] this:

    TRUMP: Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's LGBT Community.

    This is a very dark moment in America's history.

    A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation.

    It is a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation.

    It is an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want and express their identity.

    It is an attack on the right of every single American to live in peace and safety in their own country.

    We need to respond to this attack on America as one united people – with force, purpose and determination.

    Let's put aside the question of sincerity: that would require us to treat whatever Manafort and Stone have cooked up, versus whatever Clinton's focus groups have emitted, as commensurate; but that's not possible. Let's focus on the fact that Trump, remarkably for a Conservative Republican, puts "solidarity" (!!!) with "the members of Orlando's LGBT Community" up front, and treats the ability of people to "love who they want" at "the heart and soul of who we are as a nation." That's what we used to call, back in the day at Kos, performative speech; it changes who the Republicans are as a party by virtue of having been said.[4] Now, politically I'd guess that Trump won't be winning a lot of votes in the LGBT community over this any time soon, let alone turning around his unfavorables. I'd also guess there will be real, and more subtle, effects: Trump is disempowering certain Republican factions (especially the "Christian" right, proven losers), and empowering his own base not to act hatefully toward gays (and if you believe that Trump voters are authoritarian followers, that's important)[5].

    That said, it's quite remarkable to hear the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party say that he "stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's LGBT Community." I'd even go so far as to say it's newsworthy. WaPo did; Bloomberg did; the conservative hive mind managed to emit a "viral" pro-Trump letter by an anonymous gay person; but Times stenographers Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, in an Op-Ed somehow misfiled as reporting, omit to mention this portion of the speech altogether. Sad!

    More seriously, Dylann Matthews of Vox does real reporting, connecting Trump ideologically to the European right, starting with the Netherlands' Pim Fortuyn, gay himself, who combined support for LGBT rights with a blanket ban on Muslim immigration, and moving on through Marine LePen, concluding that Trump's support is "a smokescreen through which to advocate anti-Muslim policies."

    But Fortuyn was open about his support of gay rights; and open about banning Muslim immigration, so isn't "smokescreen" itself a smokescreen, begging the question? What Matthews really seems to mean is that Fortuyn's support for LGBT rights is incompatible with Fortuyn's support for banning Muslim immigration. Empirically, that doesn't seem to be the case; Matthews certainly doesn't document any decrease in LGBT rights after Fortuyn's rise. So where is the incompatibility? At this point, we note that Trump shares, with Clinton's liberals, and apparently with Fortuyn, although not with the left, the idea that to "express identity" is the essence of a "free people." Speculating freely, we might imagine that Matthews believes that Muslims, like LGBT people, must also to be free to express their identities, and that to prevent them from doing so is "Islamophobia," along the lines of homophobia.

    Here identity politics founders on its own contradictions, as identities clash on both values and interests; identities cannot all be silo-ed in their own "safe spaces." For example, immigration, like globalization, creates public goods but has economic costs that some classes disportionately bear, and economic benefits that some classes disproportionately accrue, as blue collar workers know but professional economists are only belatedly discovering. Does the expression of identity trump those costs? Why? And whose identity? One does not sense, for example, that liberals are fired with concern for heartlanders who identify as Christians (unless Christians serve a geopolitical purpose in faraway Syria), or with men who identify as gunowners. So if what liberals (and conservatives) mean by identity politics is really just power politics and the upward distribution of wealth, straight up, that's fine and clarifying, but wasn't the alpha and omega supposed to be justice? Even love?

    Of course, by now we are far afield from Trump; but as far as accepting LGBT people as fully human, can't liberals take yes for an answer?

    2. Blowback

    Trump says:

    America must do more – much more – to protect its citizens, especially people who are potential victims of crimes based on their backgrounds or sexual orientations.

    It also means we must change our foreign policy.

    The decision to overthrow the regime in Libya, then pushing for the overthrow of the regime in Syria, among other things, without plans for the day after, have created space for ISIS to expand and grow.

    These actions, along with our disastrous Iran deal, have also reduced our ability to work in partnership with our Muslim allies in the region.

    For instance, the last major NATO mission was Hillary Clinton's war in Libya. That mission helped unleash ISIS on a new continent.

    (I think the Iran deal is one of the few good things that Obama has done.) Trump is describing what Chalmers Johnson called "blowback." Isn't it remarkable the Trump is the only candidate - including, AFAIK, Sanders - who's even mentioning it? (See here for Clinton's pivotal role in promoting the LIbya debacle in the Obama administration.) And if you want a good view into the heart of the foreign policy establishment, try the Foreign Policy podcast. They think Obama was weak because he didn't put "boots on the ground" in Syria; they love Clinton because they think she'll be "muscular"; and they hate Trump, and think hes's a lunatic. Well, what's more lunatic then setting the Mediterranean littoral on fire, and provoking a refugee crisis in the European Union? Moar blowback, anyone?

    3. War and Peace

    With respect to a military response to "radical Islamism," the difference between Trump and Clinton can be summed up most effectively in the form of a table. (I've taken Clinton's words from this transcript.)

    Figure 1: Recommended Military Action Against "Radical Islam"

    Trump Clinton

    The attack in Orlando makes it even more clear: we cannot contain this threat – we must defeat it.

    The good news is that the coalition effort in Syria and Iraq has made real gains in recent months.

    So we should keep the pressure on ramping up the air campaign, accelerating support for our friends fighting to take and hold ground, and pushing our partners in the region to do even more.


    (Clinton's speech was delivered at a Cleveland company that makes military helmets. Military Keynesianism, anyone?) AP [***cough***] labels Trump's speech as "aggressive," by contrast to Clinton's, without mentioning (a) that Trump is conscious of blowback and (b) only Clinton recommends airstrikes and an "accelerated" ground war; ditto Politico; ditto The Economist. WaPo, omitting the same two points, labels Clinton as "sober." I guess a couple three more Friedman Units should do it…

    Conclusion

    Just as a troll prophylactic, let me say that this post is not an endorsement of any candidate (not even Sanders, who snagged an F-35 base for Vermont). I'm not sure how to balance charges of racism, fascism, and corruption in the context of identity politics, when clearly all three are systemic, interact with each other, and must be owned by all (both) candidates. (Do the bodies of people of color char differently because they are far away? Doesn't a "disposition matrix" sound like something Adolf Eichmann might devise?)

    Rather, this post is a plea for citizens to "do their own research"[6] and listen to what the candidates actually say, put that in context, and try to understand. The press, with a few honorable exceptions, seems to be gripped by the same "madness of crowds" that gripped them in 2008 (except for Obama, against Clinton) or in 2002-2003 (for WMDs, and for the Iraq War). Only in that way can we hope to hold candidates accountable.

    APPENDIX I

    Some brief remarks on Trump's advance work:

    1) Trump still needs practice with his teleprompter;

    2) The mike was picking up Trump's breathing;

    3) The staging looks like Dukakis (that is, provincial). It should look like Reagan (national);

    4) Trump's website is simple and easy to use and looks like it was designed for a normal person, not a laid-off site developer. However, it looks low budget. Hmm.

    APPENDIX II

    Here's why I skipped Trump on guns and the NRA. To frame this in partisan terms: From Democrats, what I consider to be a rational policy on guns - taxing gun owners for the externalities of gun ownership combined with Darwin Awards over time, and ridicule - is not on offer, so it's foolish to waste time with whatever ineffective palliative they propose, especially while they continue to take money from private equity firms that own gun manufacturers, and arrange overseas contracts for those same manufacturers. As for Republicans, it's impossible to see how the country could be more awash in guns than it already is. So if you want to argue about guns, don't do it here. There's plenty of opportunity in both Links and Water Cooler.

    NOTES

    [1] And don't tell me all Republicans are crazy, because Clinton's trying to appeal to them.

    [2] Except for Section 3, "War and Peace," I'm not going to compare Clinton's foreign policy speech today to this speech by Trump, because I've analyzed several Clinton speeches already, and presumably NC readers already know how to parse her.

    [3] I'm not going to analyze Trump's rhetoric in in this post, but note the anaphora: "It is… It is.. It is…." Notice also the simple, declarative sentences, which Trump uses very effectively as hammer blows; the most complicated sentence we get in this passage is the parallel construction of "not only because… not because." And note the sound patterning from the sentence containing that phrase, gutturals like gunfire: "A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation." Whoever Trump hired to write his speeches, they're doing an excellent, and unobtrusive, job.

    [4] That's not to give the parties, let alone Trump, credit; they follow and don't lead. LGBT people led, in particular the now almost erased ACT-UP, with its non-violent direct action.

    [5] And if you're extremely cynical, you might see Trump as posthumously rehabilitating Roy Cohn. But today is my day to be kind.

    [6] See PBS, CBS, and *** cough *** AP on fact-checking. Sometimes, of course, facts are "facts"; more importantly:

    WANTED: CEO

    Must be detail oriented

    Said no search firm ever.

    Which is better: The candidate who gets the big picture right, and details wrong, or the candidate who's great with detail, and bounces from one clstrfck to another? You tell me.

    [Jun 13, 2016] Trump wont win. In fact, the US could be on the brink of a [neo]liberal renaissance

    Notable quotes:
    "... And if you consider Hillary's centre-right politics "liberal," there would indeed be a "liberal renaissance." But unfortunately, Democrats are now neoliberal "New Democrats" in the service of upper-middle-class professionals. They talk a good line about strengthening the (now practically nonexistent) middle class and addressing the concerns of working families, but don't hold your breath. ..."
    "... "We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism" - DJ Trump ..."
    "... and SHILLary would say something like this : " Oh yes Dr Kissenger yes we will get rid of the 2nd amendment and mud up the population of the US, don't worry we will bring in lots of illegals to bankrupt the US and push us forward (er backward)..' ..."
    "... Trump was never the issue. The issue is the DNC & their unfair, undemocratic system. it begins with big money, super pacs and super delegates. The DNC has left the utmost basic principle of democracy somewhere in neverneverland, namely 1 woman/man = 1 vote. instead the DNC, over the decades, has instituted a system of undeclared monies, undeclared contributors, perhaps accepting money from foreign countries (for an American election) ... who really knows. ..."
    "... Well said !! Clinton is part of the elitist establishment who are the ones who truly govern the US. Crooked ..."
    "... She's liberal in the same way that Richard Nixon was liberal. And he really was, y'know, in some small and superficial ways. But he was also Richard Nixon. ..."
    "... So many guardian articles presenting Clinton as some kind of progressive hero who would be less (a) less conservative and (b) less awful than Trump, but I'm still waiting for anyone to give any kind of reason why we should ignore all the available evidence suggesting she is just as bad. ..."
    "... ha and how many people would vote Obama again? Only those living off the government teat by choice, that's who or the very uneducated! ..."
    "... I am basing my statement on HRC's militarily aggressive rhetoric and actual record in cabinets that used military intervention; converesely Trump's rhetoric has been conciliatory to Russia and Syria. ..."
    "... Remember Vietnam? The US intervention was by Executive Order, and Congress financed it because by not doing so it would have endangered even more the lives of US military personnel. ..."
    "... The USA hasn't fought a "war" since WW2 - all other conflicts have been fought under "presidential orders". Even Vietnam, in US history all Govt references are always to the Vietnam "conflict" precisely because legally war was never actually declared. HRC's record is far more aggressive that Trump's policies, she is far more likely to go to war than DT. ..."
    "... Root causes. Saudi Arabia is the largest global funder of fundamentalism. As long as they are allowed to continue, all the rest is just ongoing effects and details of a monstrous strategy, that clinton happily ignores. ..."
    "... Clintons message yesterday : "To the LGBT community: please know that you have millions of allies across our country. I am one of them." On a platform funded by Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is punishable by death. You're dreaming if you think Hillary will bring about a liberal renaissance. She's not about values, she's about her getting rich & powerful. ..."
    "... That slightly over looks the fact that America is an extremely violent country when compared to any of the worlds other developed economies, (granted compared to Mexico and Iraq things don't look so bad). The homicide rate in the US, down to firearms is off the scale. ..."
    "... Well, the answer is simple. Young people do not see any possibility that policy can improve something in their lives, because in the end it all comes down to the same and the preservation of the status quo. And, by losing faith that they can change something with political means, they are turning to violence and destruction. Some resort to violence against themselves, such as drug addicts, some resort to violence against others, as criminals, and some do both at the same time as this young man who committed mass murder in Orlando. ..."
    "... Notice how the G4S gunman who ran amok chose a gun free zone. There he was, licensed by the State of Florida to carry firearms on the job and employed by the British G4S security company for almost 9 years and when he had a bad couple of days he selected a nightclub for his target. No guns there except for the off duty cop outside whose fire forced him back in the club when he was trying to run away after his first kills. Cops always choosing the worst possible time to open fire. He should have waited until the guy was a few more feet away from the door. ..."
    "... Tanya, I wrote a message about campaigning Humanism instead of gay rights, because every human life is valuable. So, this is what happens when this liberal progressive group tries to sensationalize their campaign of new world order/one world government. ..."
    "... This article is nothing but an exercise in wishful thinking. Hillary is a very weak, heavily compromised candidate. And she still has the FBI investigation hanging over his head. ..."
    "... Trump is just the symptom of a sick, elitist system. As is Sanders to a less alarming extent. ..."
    "... American values were already down the toilet before any influence of muslims. Sold to the highest bidder. The creation of a working poor class, reduction of access to health care and education to only those who can afford it, rule of the gun replacing rule of law - and special" rules"/treatment under law for rich ..."
    "... You know why Trump will win the general election? JOBS- that's the number one issue in the United States. ..."
    "... If Hillary is promising more of the same with the TPP and TTIP crap (Her husband already screwed over the US with NAFTA and China's accession to the WTO) then she will lose. (38,000 jobs created in the last quarter suggests that Obama's legacy on the economy is going to be shit). ..."
    "... She doesn't lie - I love your qualification - "as much" ..."
    "... Yes the Clinton's brought in NAFTA and the laws that have led to the explosion of the prison system in the US. She destroyed Libya, supported the Coup D'etat in Honduras (and then edited it out of the second volume of her autobiography). Trump is a terrible option but the way the US has been run for the past 30 years is also terrible and the world is paying and will pay a terrible price for this. You say Clinton. Others say Trump. I say neither. ..."
    "... You apply to Trump attributes that could equally fit Hillary Clinton ..."
    "... What has the US been doing towards Russia and China in this period of Democratic governance? Have they continued to knock off countries that don't follow their dictates? Do they sell weapons to those who give them to ISIS or those who bomb and murder civilians (Saudi Arabia - Israel etc) ..."
    "... Liberal Renaissance! Gee, how come Hillary did not thought to adopt this as its election slogan? Anyway, what was the election slogan of Hillary Clinton? I don't remember that she had any.:-) ..."
    "... The author isn't impartial. He has an agenda. A cursory reading of his twitter account confirms his politics and his bias. And this explains why he has misrepresented Trump's attack on Judge Curiel's - It is for political purposes. Trump accused the Judge of being racist. I don't know if that was wise or fair but that was what Trump did - He didn't make a racist attack on the judge instead he accused the Judge of being racist. ..."
    "... Certainly you are not looking to Hillary to lead a liberal renaissance. Hillary is not a liberal is the a leading neoliberal. Neoliberalism believes that markets are self-sufficient unto themselves, that they do not need regulation, and that they are the best guarantors of human welfare. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has been the most perfect embodiment of neoliberalism among all the candidates, she is almost its all-time ideal avatar, and I believe this explains, even if not articulated this way, the widespread discomfort among the populace toward her ascendancy. Hillary Clinton is one of the founders of neoliberal globalization, one of its central historical figures (having accelerated the warehousing of the poor, the attack on trade unions, and the end of welfare and of regulatory prowess), while Trump is an authoritarian figure whose conceptions of the state and of human beings within the state are inconsistent with the surface frictionlessness neoliberalism desires ..."
    "... Neocon/neoliberal...is there a difference? Both lead to the same place. However, neocon is more precisely what Clinton is since she's always been far more of a conservative than liberal. ..."
    June 11, 2016 | theguardian.com

    nnedjo 12 Jun 2016 17:51

    Yeah, there are people who think that Hillary Clinton is a lesser evil than Trump. And there are some other people who think that Hillary Clinton is just evil. As this one, for example: Hillary Clinton is Evil! (REMIX) by placeboing

    And I think that the latter are at least more creative, don't you think? :-)

    ID8667623 12 Jun 2016 19:34

    All true. And if you consider Hillary's centre-right politics "liberal," there would indeed be a "liberal renaissance." But unfortunately, Democrats are now neoliberal "New Democrats" in the service of upper-middle-class professionals. They talk a good line about strengthening the (now practically nonexistent) middle class and addressing the concerns of working families, but don't hold your breath.

    Ezra Pound jamietintin 12 Jun 2016 19:49

    He isn't perfect but here ya go

    "We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism" - DJ Trump

    and SHILLary would say something like this : " Oh yes Dr Kissenger yes we will get rid of the 2nd amendment and mud up the population of the US, don't worry we will bring in lots of illegals to bankrupt the US and push us forward (er backward)..'

    hadeze242 12 Jun 2016 19:36

    Trump was never the issue. The issue is the DNC & their unfair, undemocratic system. it begins with big money, super pacs and super delegates. The DNC has left the utmost basic principle of democracy somewhere in neverneverland, namely 1 woman/man = 1 vote. instead the DNC, over the decades, has instituted a system of undeclared monies, undeclared contributors, perhaps accepting money from foreign countries (for an American election) ... who really knows. Voters (independents) are denied access to a vote, registration takes place the year before a Primary, voting poles close early ... if this is "progressive" or democratic, then my name is Rumpelstilzchen.

    Joe Thruter -> GoodbyeEurope 13 Jun 2016 08:24

    Well said !! Clinton is part of the elitist establishment who are the ones who truly govern the US. Crooked Hillary or Trump for that matter will follow the script given to them by their "Masters" !!

    Drewv D Flynn 13 Jun 2016 04:46

    She's liberal in the same way that Richard Nixon was liberal. And he really was, y'know, in some small and superficial ways. But he was also Richard Nixon.

    MrRico1 13 Jun 2016 05:19

    So many guardian articles presenting Clinton as some kind of progressive hero who would be less (a) less conservative and (b) less awful than Trump, but I'm still waiting for anyone to give any kind of reason why we should ignore all the available evidence suggesting she is just as bad.

    Ezra Pound -> bolshevik96 12 Jun 2016 20:24

    ha and how many people would vote Obama again? Only those living off the government teat by choice, that's who or the very uneducated!

    BrunoForestier -> Defiini 13 Jun 2016 00:19

    I am basing my statement on HRC's militarily aggressive rhetoric and actual record in cabinets that used military intervention; converesely Trump's rhetoric has been conciliatory to Russia and Syria. Trump has seen the light on the Middle East and wants America to disengage and be free of the region's constant trouble.
    The best the West can do is to become oil independent of the ME and just leave the people there to keep killing each other without exporting the problems our way.

    AngryExpat -> Defiini 13 Jun 2016 00:10

    Remember Vietnam? The US intervention was by Executive Order, and Congress financed it because by not doing so it would have endangered even more the lives of US military personnel.

    BrunoForestier -> AngryExpat 13 Jun 2016 00:02

    The USA hasn't fought a "war" since WW2 - all other conflicts have been fought under "presidential orders". Even Vietnam, in US history all Govt references are always to the Vietnam "conflict" precisely because legally war was never actually declared. HRC's record is far more aggressive that Trump's policies, she is far more likely to go to war than DT.

    Kevin P Brown GoodbyeEurope 13 Jun 2016 07:06

    Root causes. Saudi Arabia is the largest global funder of fundamentalism. As long as they are allowed to continue, all the rest is just ongoing effects and details of a monstrous strategy, that clinton happily ignores.

    GoodbyeEurope 13 Jun 2016 06:36

    Clintons message yesterday : "To the LGBT community: please know that you have millions of allies across our country. I am one of them." On a platform funded by Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is punishable by death. You're dreaming if you think Hillary will bring about a liberal renaissance. She's not about values, she's about her getting rich & powerful.

    nnedjo -> jamie_qwerty 13 Jun 2016 09:07

    You're welcome!

    I'd just like to add something. Hillary's statement, "We came, we saw, he died," is in fact a paraphrase of the statement of the famous Roman emperor Julius Caesar, who once said, "I came, I saw, I conquered." Thus, in the twisted mind of Hillary Clinton, there is nothing wrong with the fact that America is now starting military campaigns, not to conquer, but only to kill the leader of another country. Well, I would say that nevertheless there was more honor in Caesar's wars to conquer than in this Clinton-Obama war in Libya for the sole purpose of killing.

    Andy Mills -> GlennHughes2016 13 Jun 2016 06:07

    That slightly over looks the fact that America is an extremely violent country when compared to any of the worlds other developed economies, (granted compared to Mexico and Iraq things don't look so bad). The homicide rate in the US, down to firearms is off the scale. But heah, why should we care, if you want to go on butchering each other by the tens of thousands, year in , year out why should the rest of the world give a damn Just don't export your stupid obsession with firearms to the rest of the world thank you very much.

    nnedjo -> philipsiron 12 Jun 2016 20:00

    What's the motive behind Orlando shooting?

    I think you need to watch some videos of the Bernie Sanders rallies, to understand the "motives" behind Orlando shooting.

    So, Bernie was talking all the time about it; Young people do not see their place in politics, and they flee from politics in flocks.

    And why is that?

    Well, the answer is simple. Young people do not see any possibility that policy can improve something in their lives, because in the end it all comes down to the same and the preservation of the status quo. And, by losing faith that they can change something with political means, they are turning to violence and destruction.
    Some resort to violence against themselves, such as drug addicts, some resort to violence against others, as criminals, and some do both at the same time as this young man who committed mass murder in Orlando.

    You can understand that I am right, if you notice that he was a registered voter of the Democratic Party and was employed by renowned security company, which means that he was trained to defend unarmed people, and not to kill them. So, one could say that he was on the right track to make something positive of his life. But then, what could turn him from the right track?

    Well, I think I've already answered that question up above, and you consider for yourself.

    AlfredHerring -> Ezra Pound 12 Jun 2016 18:30

    Seriously. Notice how the G4S gunman who ran amok chose a gun free zone. There he was, licensed by the State of Florida to carry firearms on the job and employed by the British G4S security company for almost 9 years and when he had a bad couple of days he selected a nightclub for his target. No guns there except for the off duty cop outside whose fire forced him back in the club when he was trying to run away after his first kills. Cops always choosing the worst possible time to open fire. He should have waited until the guy was a few more feet away from the door.

    philipsiron -> tanya44 12 Jun 2016 19:23

    Tanya, I wrote a message about campaigning Humanism instead of gay rights, because every human life is valuable. So, this is what happens when this liberal progressive group tries to sensationalize their campaign of new world order/one world government.

    peter nelson 13 Jun 2016 13:16

    This article is nothing but an exercise in wishful thinking. Hillary is a very weak, heavily compromised candidate. And she still has the FBI investigation hanging over his head.

    Meanwhile Trump's racism and bigotry pays well to an American audience, and events like the one in Orlando only gain him adherents. The author is making the same mistake contest other pundits did throughout the election, of underestimating him. What's amazing is that unlike those other pundits, this one has the benefit of hindsight and still makes it.


    Angelaaaa -> hadeze242 12 Jun 2016 19:56

    The GOP are no strangers to big money and super pacs either. Undeclared monies, undeclared contributors, the influence of foreign countries (Papa Saud, anyone?), voters denied access to a vote ... these are the hallmarks of both sides of politics.

    The issue is the evolution of politics away from a fair, democratic system.

    Trump is just the symptom of a sick, elitist system. As is Sanders to a less alarming extent.

    swmbo2 -> tanya44 12 Jun 2016 19:46

    American values were already down the toilet before any influence of muslims. Sold to the highest bidder. The creation of a working poor class, reduction of access to health care and education to only those who can afford it, rule of the gun replacing rule of law - and special" rules"/treatment under law for rich and preferably male, white people. Oh don't forget a multiple times bankrupt running for President - who along with his supporters also takes great pleasure in the cold blooded murder of 50 precious lives. American values down the toilet because of muslims - don't think so. To resort to biblical references - let those without sin cast the first stone…….

    And finally, in case your bigotted mind didn't know, islam is very much anti-gay - which aligns nicely with what appear to be your values.

    ShaneFromMelbourne -> phillyred 13 Jun 2016 12:30

    You know why Trump will win the general election? JOBS- that's the number one issue in the United States. Forget all the other bullshit, at the end of the day it is all about feeding yourself and keeping a roof over your head.

    If Hillary is promising more of the same with the TPP and TTIP crap (Her husband already screwed over the US with NAFTA and China's accession to the WTO) then she will lose. (38,000 jobs created in the last quarter suggests that Obama's legacy on the economy is going to be shit). If Trump can convince the voter that he will create more jobs by imposing tariffs then he will win. (It doesn't have to economically true, just plausible)

    Diniz Ramos -> De Deus John Kennedy 13 Jun 2016 13:01

    Hillary is a dead horse triangulator.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/13/the-politics-of-triangulation-surrender-or-resist/

    mikehowleydcu -> Wagthedogagain 13 Jun 2016 07:41

    She doesn't lie - I love your qualification - "as much" but only about
    Her racist laws
    Her emails

    She has experience

    Yes the Clinton's brought in NAFTA and the laws that have led to the explosion of the prison system in the US. She destroyed Libya, supported the Coup D'etat in Honduras (and then edited it out of the second volume of her autobiography). Trump is a terrible option but the way the US has been run for the past 30 years is also terrible and the world is paying and will pay a terrible price for this. You say Clinton. Others say Trump. I say neither.

    John Kennedy 13 Jun 2016 12:23

    It could be, it is about 50/50 either way. Just remember one thing, Trump supporters are reliable voters. Hillary will only win if she can drive turn out.

    RollTide16 -> Milney 13 Jun 2016 12:54

    Yes. Like voting for the disastrous Obama twice.

    DanielWebster1 -> daveinbalmain 13 Jun 2016 11:33

    Read the Art of the Deal. Ask for the extreme and then negotiate down to something manageable and more reasonable. Then everybody feels like they won something and walk away happy.

    mikehowleydcu -> GCBN 13 Jun 2016 12:47

    Natural Society "abismal"

    Chris Hedges a conspiracy theorist (Now you are showing your ignorance)

    William Engdahl a conspiracy theorist (Throwing the label conspiracy theorist is a cheap shot that avoids having to actually have to answer anything relevant)
    Vandana Shiva

    One of the most deluded and comprehensively debunked manipulative and greedy know-nothing

    The organisation that you refer me to: The Genetic Literacy project is funded by ... .none other than MONSANTO! (how unfortunate)
    Out of all of the points I made to you you choose to reply to only one... Monsanto suing farmers.
    You ignored:

    To try to ban it is to condemn people to unnecessary deaths and to do unnecessary environmental damage due to the lower yields from non-GMO crops and the consequentially greater amount of land needed.

    Do you truly understand the nature of weeds and how they grow resistant to pesticides and ever greater quantities are needed over time thus poisoning the land, water and population more and more over time. Not to mention that these Biotech companies want to prevent their products being labelled. I wonder why?

    You mock even those not quoted in order to give your argument (singular) legitimacy and even bring in David Icke. Ignore 90%, focus on something you think you can win. Mock, ridicule, sneer, discredit, include others not mentioned and presume that you are replying to my posts while in truth as I have said you missed most of the points made.

    You apply to Trump attributes that could equally fit Hillary Clinton

    Trump represents incipient fascism in a large, hugely-armed country with the potential to end human life on earth. And no, that is not hyperbole. If he does half of what he is threatening this world will become massively more dangerous and frightening even than it already is.

    What has the US been doing towards Russia and China in this period of Democratic governance? Have they continued to knock off countries that don't follow their dictates? Do they sell weapons to those who give them to ISIS or those who bomb and murder civilians (Saudi Arabia - Israel etc)

    Nah... just focus on Monsanto.. .that rather dull seed company!

    marshwren -> marshwren 13 Jun 2016 14:37

    Vincent Bugliosi begs to disagree: http://www.thenation.com/article/none-dare-call-it-treason/

     1. Under Florida statutory law, when the Florida Supreme Court finds that a challenge to the certified result of an election is justified, it has the power to "provide any relief appropriate under the circumstances" (§ 102.168(8) of the Florida Election Code). On Friday, December 8, the Florida court, so finding, ordered a manual recount (authorized under § 102.166(4)(c) of the Florida Election Code) of all disputed ballots (around 60,000) throughout the entire state. As a New York Times editorial reported, "The manual recount was progressing smoothly and swiftly Saturday…with new votes being recorded for both Vice President Al Gore and Governor George W. Bush…serving the core democratic principle that every legal vote should be counted" when, in midafternoon, the US Supreme Court "did a disservice to the nation's tradition of fair elections by calling a halt" to the recount. The stay (requested by Bush), the Times said, appeared "highly political."4

    Under Supreme Court rules, a stay is supposed to be granted to an applicant (here, Bush) only if he makes a substantial showing that in the absence of a stay, there is a likelihood of "irreparable harm" to him. With the haste of a criminal, Justice Scalia, in trying to justify the Court's shutting down of the vote counting, wrote, unbelievably, that counting these votes would "threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [Bush]…by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election." [Emphasis added.] In other words, although the election had not yet been decided, the absolutely incredible Scalia was presupposing that Bush had won the election–indeed, had a right to win it–and any recount that showed Gore got more votes in Florida than Bush could "cloud" Bush's presidency. Only a criminal on the run, rushed for time and acting in desperation, could possibly write the embarrassing words Scalia did, language showing that he knew he had no legal basis for what he was doing, but that getting something down in writing, even as intellectually flabby and fatuous as it was, was better than nothing at all. (Rehnquist, Thomas, O'Connor and Kennedy, naturally, joined Scalia in the stay order.)

    The New York Times observed that the Court gave the appearance by the stay of "racing to beat the clock before an unwelcome truth would come out." Terrance Sandalow, former dean of the University of Michigan Law School and a judicial conservative who opposed Roe v. Wade and supported the nomination to the Court of right-wing icon Robert Bork, said that "the balance of harms so unmistakably were on the side of Gore" that the granting of the stay was "incomprehensible," going on to call the stay "an unmistakably partisan decision without any foundation in law."

    The fact is the only genuine answer to 'who won' would have been the results of the State Supreme Court-ordered recount, which the USSC stopped 154 votes short of Bush losing (from the 1,500+ he started with), with tens of thousands of ballots left uncounted. Other news organizations conducted their own recounts and came up with radically different conclusions. If you have have complaints or counter-arguments to make, take them up with Bugliosi; i have nothing more to add to his deconstruction of the decision and its motives.

    RogTheDodge 13 Jun 2016 13:57

    Recent polls show that Hillary Clinton scores higher than Trump among women voters by more than 20 points.

    Yes, but this is not because Trump is bad or Clinton good. Any woman against any man would attract a huge girl-power vote, so only a 20% bump is pretty poor. Any other woman would probably be 30-40%

    marshwren -> BostonCeltics 13 Jun 2016 13:35

    Actually, it was FL Democrats--300,000+ of them--who voted for Bush that "lost" the state for Gore. Democrats still blame Nader (94K votes statewide) for that because it's easier to kick a scapegoat around for decades than to spend five minutes in honest contemplation.

    Mindilu -> Heath Morley 12 Jun 2016 19:10

    No nation has 100% voter participation - except North Korea. It's true that the US does have low voter participation compared with other nations, but I don't think that's why they ended up with a choice between Trump and Clinton. More than any other nation, politics is about money in the United States.

    The Scandinavia countries and New Zealand have impressively high voter participation - higher than 'compulsory voting' Australia & Belgium. Even the politically cynical United Kingdom generally has a higher voter participation than the United States. It would be interesting to see how these nations encourage voter interest.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout

    nnedjo 12 Jun 2016 19:04

    Trump won't win. In fact, the US could be on the brink of a liberal renaissance

    Liberal Renaissance! Gee, how come Hillary did not thought to adopt this as its election slogan? Anyway, what was the election slogan of Hillary Clinton? I don't remember that she had any.:-)


    Woodenarrow123 12 Jun 2016 18:27

    The author isn't impartial. He has an agenda. A cursory reading of his twitter account confirms his politics and his bias. And this explains why he has misrepresented Trump's attack on Judge Curiel's - It is for political purposes. Trump accused the Judge of being racist. I don't know if that was wise or fair but that was what Trump did - He didn't make a racist attack on the judge instead he accused the Judge of being racist.

    Again Trump's opponents call him a racist but as soon as he alleges that someone is engaged in racism against him, uproar ensues.

    His political opponents are hypocritical and operate in an irony free zone.

    Ezra Pound -> bobbejaan19 12 Jun 2016 17:12

    It means more debauchery, a normalization of transgendered people, pedophilia, less "whiteness" and more BS wars, and massive debt. No way the US survives a second clinton

    BIll signed NAFTA and glass-stegall , both disasters for the US. A national approach is good

    TRUMP!

    outfitter 12 Jun 2016 16:23

    Certainly you are not looking to Hillary to lead a liberal renaissance. Hillary is not a liberal is the a leading neoliberal. Neoliberalism believes that markets are self-sufficient unto themselves, that they do not need regulation, and that they are the best guarantors of human welfare. Everything that promotes the market, i.e., privatization, deregulation, mobility of finance and capital, abandonment of government­ provided social welfare, and the reconception of human beings as human capital, needs to be encouraged, while everything that supposedly diminishes the market, i.e., government services, regulation, restrictions on finance and capital, and conceptualization of human beings in transcendent terms, is to be discouraged.

    Hillary Clinton has been the most perfect embodiment of neoliberalism among all the candidates, she is almost its all-time ideal avatar, and I believe this explains, even if not articulated this way, the widespread discomfort among the populace toward her ascendancy. Hillary Clinton is one of the founders of neoliberal globalization, one of its central historical figures (having accelerated the warehousing of the poor, the attack on trade unions, and the end of welfare and of regulatory prowess), while Trump is an authoritarian figure whose conceptions of the state and of human beings within the state are inconsistent with the surface frictionlessness neoliberalism desires

    The danger for neoliberalism -- as is clear from the support of millions of displaced human beings for Trump -- is that with each crisis neoliberalism sheds more workers, makes individuals and firms more "disciplined," narrows the scope of opportunity even further.

    apacheman -> Uillecc MacUillecc Dubh 12 Jun 2016 16:21

    Neocon/neoliberal...is there a difference? Both lead to the same place. However, neocon is more precisely what Clinton is since she's always been far more of a conservative than liberal. It isn't a purity issue, but a pragmatic one. Baby steps to the left don't counter massive slides to the right, as we've sen these last forty years..

    [Jun 13, 2016] Libertarian Gary Johnson: Jeb Bush and anti-Trump Republicans will vote for me

    www.theguardian.com

    The third-party nominee Gary Johnson believes former Republican candidates for president, Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham among them, will defect at the polls this November rather than vote for Donald Trump. He expects they'll vote Libertarian instead.

    "When it's all said and done, they'll pull the Johnson-Weld lever because it's a real choice," the former governor of New Mexico told the Guardian in a wide-ranging interview this week. Johnson said he founded his prediction "on instinct", but that he was confident that he had high-profile Republican votes – "whether they say so or not is another story".

    Johnson may already have at least one Republican leader knocking on his door. Mitt Romney, the party's 2012 nominee, told CNN on Friday that he was considering casting his lot with the Libertarians.

    "If Bill Weld were at the top of the ticket, it would be very easy for me to vote for Bill Weld for president," he said. Weld is Johnson's running mate and preceded Romney as governor of Massachusetts.


    Johnson, who is at 12% in a recent national poll, hopes that by winning voters disaffected by Trump and Hillary Clinton, he can establish his party as a political force to be reckoned with.

    In particular, Johnson insisted that he is a fit for supporters of a Democrat – the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders – who may be less than enthused about Clinton's nomination for the party. He cited an online quiz in which he sided with the Vermont senator 73% of the time, adding: "We're on the same page when it comes to people and their choices."

    "Legalizing marijuana, military intervention and that crony capitalism is alive and well," he said, rattling off issues of concern that he and the progressive Sanders share. "People with money are able to pay for privilege, and they buy it."

    [Jun 08, 2016] Stephen Colbert has made no attempt on to hide the fact that he isn't a big fan of Donald Trump.

    decider.com

    Stephen Colbert has made no attempt on to hide the fact that he isn't a big fan of Donald Trump. Jokes are frequently made at the Republican Presidential candidate's expense on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert. However in last night's monologue, Colbert's jokes about Trump were downright scathing.

    Colbert - refreshed from a recent 10 day hiatus - started the monologue off in earnest with some jibes about Burger King's new Whopperrito. But then he tore into Trump with jokes that ripped his intelligence and racism, calling the mogul's own recent statements to the press, "Proof Donald Trump doesn't like Mexico and can't name another country."

    However, the most scathing parts came with Colbert alluded to Trump' record of offending just about every major demographic - except for white supremacists and the KKK. He cheekily checked off all the groups Trump has offended and offered a solution that wound up being quite an indictment:

    "Trump's point is he cannot be judged by a member of any group he has offended. So that means no Mexican judges, no Muslim judges, no Asian judges, no women judges - unless she's a 'ten.' Trump's insulted the Pope, so no Catholic judges. He called everyone in Iowa 'stupid,' so no judges that eat corn. You know what? Maybe Trump might be more comfortable if he couldn't tell the judge's race or gender. Maybe cover the judge up in an unbiased robe. Make it a white robe - maybe with a matching hood. That seems about right. Don't know who it is!"

    Then, Colbert doubled down on Trump's racism by comparing his recent controversial comments about "my African-American" at a rally with Thomas Jefferson's history of slave-owning.

    Colbert said, "Trump did say he was going to start acting 'presidential,' and 'Look at my African-American' does sound like something Thomas Jefferson might have said."

    If these are the salvos the late night host is lobbing against Trump in June, then it looks like we're in for quite the election year.

    [Jun 08, 2016] Trump's Lack of Credibility on Libya The American Conservative by Jesse Walker

    Notable quotes:
    "... The position Trump is now taking on Libya is not that different from the one that liberal hawks took when the Iraq war started to go badly. They wanted "credit" for supporting regime change and war, but also wanted to be able to second-guess how Bush managed the war. So once things started going wrong, they said they favored invading but disagreed with the way Bush had gone about it. Ritual paeans to the importance of multilateralism usually followed. That put them in the rather absurd spot of attacking Bush for mishandling the illegal, unnecessary war that he started, as if it would have been all right if it had just been managed more competently. ..."
    "... This sort of criticism, like Trump's complaint about Libya, takes for granted that there was nothing inherently destabilizing and dangerous in overthrowing a foreign government that better management couldn't have fixed. That misses the crucial point that forcible regime change and its consequences can't be "managed" successfully because so many of its effects are out of the control of the intervening government(s) and some can't be anticipated in advance. ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com
    comments on Trump's latest position on the Libyan war:

    I'm sure the Libya hawks in the Hillary camp would also prefer a timeline where their war went off without any bad bits. But if Trump has any ideas about how the Pentagon could have "take[n] out Qaddafi and his group" without creating a situation where Libya is "not even a country anymore," he didn't share them. Instead he's basically saying I'm for a Libya war that worked out better, without Benghazi and all that. Which is a bit like saying The Iraq war was a great idea, except for the insurgency or Going into Vietnam was wise, as long as we could've had a quick victory.

    The position Trump is now taking on Libya is not that different from the one that liberal hawks took when the Iraq war started to go badly. They wanted "credit" for supporting regime change and war, but also wanted to be able to second-guess how Bush managed the war. So once things started going wrong, they said they favored invading but disagreed with the way Bush had gone about it. Ritual paeans to the importance of multilateralism usually followed. That put them in the rather absurd spot of attacking Bush for mishandling the illegal, unnecessary war that he started, as if it would have been all right if it had just been managed more competently.

    This sort of criticism, like Trump's complaint about Libya, takes for granted that there was nothing inherently destabilizing and dangerous in overthrowing a foreign government that better management couldn't have fixed. That misses the crucial point that forcible regime change and its consequences can't be "managed" successfully because so many of its effects are out of the control of the intervening government(s) and some can't be anticipated in advance. If Trump was fine with removing Gaddafi from power by force, and he admits that he was, he can't credibly complain about the chaos that followed when the U.S. did exactly that. Trump has the same problem on Libya that Romney and all other hawkish candidates have had, which is that he cannot challenge Clinton on the decision to intervene because he ultimately agreed with that decision and supported joining the conflict at the time.

    Posted in foreign policy, politics. Tagged Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Jesse Walker, Libyan war, Muammar Gaddafi.

    [Jun 07, 2016] Bernie Sanders Vows Fight to Convention as Hillary Clinton Wins a Primary - The New York Times

    www.nytimes.com

    Mr. Sanders, however, insists that the convention will be contested because he is still lobbying superdelegates - party officials and state leaders who cast their final votes at the convention - to withdraw support from Mrs. Clinton and back him instead. He plans to make the case that he is a stronger candidate against Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee. A number of polls, he said, show he can beat Mr. Trump by larger margins than Mrs. Clinton can.

    On Sunday, Mr. Sanders opened a new line of attack against Mrs. Clinton, criticizing donations made by foreign governments while she was secretary of state to the Clinton Foundation, the organization founded by former President Bill Clinton.

    When Mr. Sanders, who greeted fans in West Hollywood, was asked by reporters if he remained committed to pushing for a contested convention, he said he "absolutely" was.

    [May 24, 2016] Bernie Sanders: I will not support Democratic party chair in her primary

    Notable quotes:
    "... With help from Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC, Clinton, having w/ her husband had more than two decades to build-up a political patronage system within the southern Democratic Party, was able to tap her contacts and bring-out the vote in very large numbers before few had even heard of Sanders. ..."
    "... Good on you, Bernie. As they say in Florida, "It's tough to clean up the swamp when you're up to your ass in alligators." Alligator Debbie going down. ..."
    "... A female president would be a great thing. But not Hillary. We can do better. Maybe Jill Stein or Elizabeth Warren. ..."
    "... Obama's and Clinton's policies are criticized precisely because they're a continuation of Bush policy, while Bill's policies led the economic meltdown of 2008. ..."
    "... And deregulation! Before I watched the video of that Hillary Clinton campaign event, I had never heard someone denounce deregulation and hail the economic achievements of Bill Clinton in the same speech. That kind of mental combination, I've always assumed, puts you in danger of spontaneous combustion or something. After all, Bill Clinton is America's all-time champion deregulator. He deregulated banks. He deregulated telecoms. He appointed arch deregulators Robert Rubin and Larry Summers to high office, and he re-upped Ronald Reagan's pet Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan. He took some time out to dynamite the federal welfare system, then he came back and deregulated banks some more. And derivative securities, too. ..."
    "... Wasserman Schultz will follow her mentor's lead and play the victim. ..."
    "... Clinton will swoop in and support her with money and the "woman card" nonsense. ..."
    "... Even those facts understate the problem as many of these corporate owned Dems are voting the Historical Republican policies favoring the wealthy power brokers. B. Clinton was known as Republican Lite. ..."
    "... 'Yes there is incessant complaining about the party, "corporate democratic whores."' ..."
    "... Elect The Warmonger Killary And You Will Have Victoria Nuland As Secretary Of State Says David Stockman And The Result Will Be World War III Says PCR ..."
    "... "And that brings us to the deplorable Kagan clan-–Washington's leading resident family of war-mongering neo-cons. The odds are that, if elected President, Hillary would likely choose one of them--her protégé during her stint in the Obama administration, Victoria Nuland-– as Secretary of State. Yet that would be lights out for any hope of caging Washington's imperial ambitions and reducing the massive and utterly unnecessary burden of current defense spending. The truth is, there are fewer greater menaces in the Imperial City today than Victoria Nuland. ..."
    "... He is not competitive because the DNC is controlled by the Reagan Neo-cons, Hillary the chief marionette among them. To understand, just reflect on Hillary's relationship with Neo-con Victoria Nuland, Assistant Sec. of State under Hillary who previously worked for Dick Cheney. Two party system is a shill and anachronism; ..."
    "... The Neo-con AIPAC agenda is world hegemony; New World Order and Hillary is the pre-annointed. Trump may not be a surprise but Sanders certainly is independent and thankfully a chance for Americans to voice their frustrations at the loss of their civil rights and democracy. ..."
    "... The whole electoral system is corrupt, Democrats and Republicans work for the oligarchs they betray the people. ..."
    "... BTW: No one knew before Sanders entered that the DNC would call for "Temporary Rules" changes and votes on the floor of state conventions, which is precisely what happened in Nevada. ..."
    "... This woman voted FOR a bill that supports rip-off pay day lenders rather than poor working class people. Pay day lenders charge astronomical rates to lend people small amounts of money to pay for a car repair or a dentist visit that they can't cover because they are trying to survive on 7 or 8 dollars an hour, working two or three jobs to get by ..."
    "... DWS has done terrible damage to Hillary's chances against Trump. Her blatant rigging of the process against Sanders will be a barrier to their ever supporting Clinton. If it was believed that she one a fair fight, I think most would accept the outcome. But only the most credulous can now believe that it was a fair fight. ..."
    "... Sanders has been remiss in confronting Hillary with the evil she has wrought, genocide on Iraq, Syria, and most obviously in turning top standard of living Libya into a failed state. ..."
    "... Sanders ha failed to give Hillary the downbraiding she deserves as a budding NWO fascist and apologist for Wall St. and Netanyahu, etc. Despicable woman, much like Margret Thatcher and Madeline Albright. Destroyers; bad at diplomacy and quick on murderous war. Demagogue Hillary will escalate US hegemony and bring on Armageddon for the Christian Zionists; WWIII. Why did Sanders not play his trump card at the beginning of the campaign? ..."
    "... Maybe it isn't fair, but if Bernie wanted to change it he should have started a lot earlier. ..."
    "... Clinton only leads by 274 pledged delegates. ..."
    "... It is a sad and sorry day that you can't recognize a democrat any more. Yes, he's not a "party faithful". Apparently you haven't noticed that "the party" has become about "the party". ..."
    "... The problem with Bernie Sanders is he makes Hillary look like the elite disconnected republican that she is. ..."
    "... It's so like the current crowd of jerks running the Democratic party to see them start pointing fingers at Bernie for what they can see is their coming defeat in November. They had the chance to back Bernie. They can still do it, but they are all too invested in their own interests to care about anything but their own interests, and so they won't pick up on the best chance to have a Democratic landslide since 1964. ..."
    "... Debbie Wasserman Schultz represents the continued failure of the Democratic Party and as such should be replaced. ..."
    "... The Democratic Party began to die during Bill Clinton's regime. Bill Clinton in his own way conducted a regime change of the Democratic Party from Main Street and Unions to Wall Street. The results have not been good: ..."
    "... The State Parties are ALSO CONTROLLED by the DNC. The kick back monies insure that the DNC is in control of WHO they select rather then open elections. You can lie to yourself however, WE know the truth of how this corrupt system works. WRITE IN Bernie in Nov. I am! ..."
    "... Very few outside the Democratic Party establishment seem to like these superdelegates. Abolish them and pledged delegates too while you're at it. ..."
    "... Gore did win Florida-- exit polling, which was uncannily accurate, showed that, but it was the Supreme Court that stopped the recount. (OTOH, some post-election analyses, including by the Washington Post, concluded Gore lost.) ..."
    "... Debbie Wasserman Shultz, champion of the PAYDAY LOAN SHARKS. DWS helped defeat the Sen. Warren legislation to limit the interest rates to 30% FROM 3000%. DWS and the Clintons take campaign funds and support the loan sharks bleeding economically challenged communities across the U.S. Write IN Bernie in Nov. I am! ..."
    "... Bill Moyers has been one of the most respected journalists. Please read what he says about DWS: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36991-democrats-cant-unite-unless-wasserman-schultz-goes ..."
    "... The chairperson of the DNC is bound to remain impartial, as is clearly stated in the party rules. There is now ample evidence that Ms Schultz has repeatedly broken that rule throughout the campaign cycle and is therefore unfit to remain chairperson of the DNC. If she is not replaced by an impartial chairperson for the convention it will undermine the legitimacy of the nomination process. ..."
    "... There's some debate about the world's oldest democracy, but it ain't the United States (which, btw, is a republic). ..."
    "... Iceland has had a parliament since the year 930 and the oldest continuous parliament since 979 is on the Isle of Man. Universal adult suffrage was established in New Zealand in 1893, although NZ doesn't elect its Head of State. ..."
    "... He sure does know what is best for the party, and it isn't endless war, Wall St. and Wall Mart. ..."
    "... You sound as bright as the half-wit who told me last summer that Sanders couldn't win Vermont's primary. ..."
    "... It is a sad commentary on our economy when people are so hard up for money that they will troll for a woman who is a Neocon warmonger for money. ..."
    "... Senator Sanders is serving this country well by bringing out years of anger and frustration about all the money going to the too 1%, serfdom for working families for the past 30 years, serfdom for those who dare to incur debt to go to college and the endless expensive wars. He is a hero. ..."
    "... Despite her promises to be tough on Wall Street, a new report has found that groups supporting Hillary Clinton have received $25 million from the financial industry using so-called shadow banks. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has received a new waffle iron for opening a savings account. ..."
    "... Were you one of the medical "professionals" at Guantanamo Bay by any chance? I hear they strongly support Clinton as well. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    astbayradical , 2016-05-22 04:09:44
    Clinton supporters, most of whom don't even try to put forward a persuasive case for her candidacy, often point to the fact that Clinton has received a few million more votes than Sanders, but they rarely want to account for those votes, most of which can be attributed to massive landslide victories in the early days of the primary season in the South.

    With help from Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC, Clinton, having w/ her husband had more than two decades to build-up a political patronage system within the southern Democratic Party, was able to tap her contacts and bring-out the vote in very large numbers before few had even heard of Sanders.

    And you can be sure that when she spoke before black church congregations, affecting a southern drawl, she didn't tout her support for the death penalty or the private prison industry or the destruction of welfare or deregulation of the investment banks or the Iraq War or NAFTA and TPP or the bail-out of Wall Street.

    No, no, no-of course she didn't draw attention to her actual record. She wanted their votes, after all.

    ExcaliburDefender drpage1 , 2016-05-22 04:09:10
    Bernie is a good man, maybe a great man to some, he 'sold out' throughout his career and advocated lesser evilism to support Democrats over Independents.

    Bernie is the 'good' pragmatist, no more no less.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/11/15/a-socialist-in-the-senate /

    daWOID , 2016-05-22 05:02:32
    Good on you, Bernie. As they say in Florida, "It's tough to clean up the swamp when you're up to your ass in alligators." Alligator Debbie going down.
    L0ki86 aldebaranredstar , 2016-05-22 04:24:06
    A female president would be a great thing. But not Hillary. We can do better. Maybe Jill Stein or Elizabeth Warren.
    TheBaffler MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-22 04:07:35
    Thanks, but I've read every issue since the first one almost thirty years ago.

    Obama's and Clinton's policies are criticized precisely because they're a continuation of Bush policy, while Bill's policies led the economic meltdown of 2008.

    The level of your reading comprehension is lacking.

    Here's Thomas Frank's most recent piece on the Clinton's, right here on The Guardian .

    Take her apparent belief that balancing the federal budget is a good way to "revitalize" an economy stuck in persistent hard times. Nostalgia might indeed suggest such a course, because that's what Bill Clinton did in the golden 90s, and those were happy days. But more recent events have taught us a different lesson. Europe's turn toward budget-balancing austerity after the financial crisis is what made their recession so much worse than ours. President Obama's own quest for a budget-balancing "grand bargain" is what destroyed his presidency's transformative potential. There is no plainer lesson from the events of recent years than the folly of austerity and the non-urgency of budget-balancing.

    And deregulation! Before I watched the video of that Hillary Clinton campaign event, I had never heard someone denounce deregulation and hail the economic achievements of Bill Clinton in the same speech. That kind of mental combination, I've always assumed, puts you in danger of spontaneous combustion or something. After all, Bill Clinton is America's all-time champion deregulator. He deregulated banks. He deregulated telecoms. He appointed arch deregulators Robert Rubin and Larry Summers to high office, and he re-upped Ronald Reagan's pet Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan. He took some time out to dynamite the federal welfare system, then he came back and deregulated banks some more. And derivative securities, too.

    elaine layabout ExcaliburDefender , 2016-05-22 04:06:42
    Oh, look! Nurse Ratchet Troll is getting desperate for attention and she's resorting to tired old lies.

    Bernie Sanders EARNED the goodwill of Howard Dean and the Democratic Party by voting with the Party more often than the average Democrat (95% vs 80%) and supporting many of its candidates.

    That is why the Democratic Party has awarded Bernie Sanders subcommittee leadership roles while in the House and the Senate, even promoting him over their own members. And it is why, in 2006, Vermont Democratic Party leaders " spearhead[ed] efforts to gather signatures to put Sanders on the ballot as a Democrat ," even though Sanders informed them that he would turn down the nomination if he won the Democratic primary. The Democratic Party persisted, however, because Bernie was too popular in Vermont for a Democrat to beat him, and they did not wish to split the vote and end up with a Republican in the Senate.

    "Bernie Sanders has by far the best chance of winning, and would work closely with and would respect Democratic leadership in Washington," Ian Carleton, the chairman of the Vermont Democratic Party, said. "Anyone who takes a practical look at Vermont politics will say that this is the best thing to do for the greater good here."

    Bernie Sanders did, indeed, win the Democratic primary, and true to his word and as expected, he declined its nomination.

    Did this work to the Democratic Party's detriment or its benefit? Well, I would assume that it was the latter, since the Vermont Democratic Party made the SAME EXACT ARRANGEMENT when Sanders ran for reelection to the Senate in 2012.

    So Howard Dean and the Democratic Party thought they could use Bernie Sanders' popularity to further their own agenda and only their own agenda. But Bernie's loyalty is to the People first. Too bad the Democratic Party's isn't as well, because then they would have supported the Democratic candidate who isn't distrusted and despised by the majority of American voters.

    Jack Nostrand nolashea , 2016-05-22 17:08:24
    Wow. So every candidate, athletic club, and army that is not predicted to succeed should just lay down their fight and not even try? In Europe a football club with 500-1 odds won the tournament. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team. The English scoffed at the Americans attempt at revolution.

    I would say those who can't accept a challenge to their beliefs are losers. You fail because you will never become better. In roulette, you have stopped spinning, the ball has landed in its numbered slot where it will remain for eternity unless you challenge yourself to move once again.

    Dino Martinez , 2016-05-22 16:56:20
    It's pretty obvious how this one will end.

    1) Wasserman Schultz will follow her mentor's lead and play the victim.
    2) She will then use it to fundraise ("Angry white men out to get me! Send money!).
    3) Clinton will swoop in and support her with money and the "woman card" nonsense.
    4) Panicked rich white people, DWS's Florida constituency, will rush to her aid and easily defeat the far more qualified Canova.
    5) Business as usual.

    lancemaxwell Jack Nostrand , 2016-05-22 16:55:59
    I think it has always been this way, elections are manipulated. It is a part of every democracy. At what point does it become exposed and at what point after its exposure do people have the courage to admit, like you have, that the U.S. election system is already rigged and is being continually adjusted to rig results in the future.

    A few years ago at a discussion I attended the blow hard filmmaker Michael Moore said he thought the two party system was in Americas DNA and there was no way around that. I realized then how ignorant he was. This election cycle we are clearly seeing the two party system is not in our DNA, but is a construction of the ruling class to keep opposing voices out of the mainstream.

    Yeah, it is disturbing, but it's sadly nothing new. The oligarchics aren't going anywhere either.

    lostinbago MonotonousLanguor , 2016-05-22 16:55:42
    Even those facts understate the problem as many of these corporate owned Dems are voting the Historical Republican policies favoring the wealthy power brokers. B. Clinton was known as Republican Lite.
    garth25 suddenoakdeath , 2016-05-22 16:48:22
    'Yes there is incessant complaining about the party, "corporate democratic whores."'
    Not by me. I don't like DWS.

    "If the party represents everything that is reprehensible, why are you here? "
    Here is a newspaper website. Not the Democrat party forum pages.

    "Go green, go Jill. "
    Why? I've been a Democrat for 16 years. why would I change that and offer a vote towards Trump?

    "Bernie has taken money from the party the money that he maligns."
    Yes, it's called constructive criticism. It has a mandate of several million registered Democrat members throughout the primaries. Should they all leave and vote Green? How's that electoral college majority looking now? I seem to remember the same was said to Ralph Nader in 2000. Great job Donna Brazille. President Gore thanks you for your service.

    "I don't care who you vote for."
    Same here.

    Ussurisk , 2016-05-22 16:43:13
    Elect The Warmonger Killary And You Will Have Victoria Nuland As Secretary Of State Says David Stockman And The Result Will Be World War III Says PCR

    "And that brings us to the deplorable Kagan clan-–Washington's leading resident family of war-mongering neo-cons. The odds are that, if elected President, Hillary would likely choose one of them--her protégé during her stint in the Obama administration, Victoria Nuland-– as Secretary of State. Yet that would be lights out for any hope of caging Washington's imperial ambitions and reducing the massive and utterly unnecessary burden of current defense spending. The truth is, there are fewer greater menaces in the Imperial City today than Victoria Nuland.

    Not only does she happen to be married to Bob Kagen, the leading neocon guru of global interventionism and regime change, but she earned her spurs as a key aid to Dick Cheney.

    No matter. When the American public naively thought it elected the "peace" candidate in 2008, Nuland just changed her Jersey, joined Hillary's team at State, and by 2013 was assistance secretary for European Affairs.

    And that's when Nuland's rampage of everlasting shame began. She was the main architect of the coup in Kiev in February 2014 that overthrow the constitutionally elected government of the Ukraine, thereby commencing the whole sequence of confrontations with Russia and the full-throated demonization of Vladimir Putin that has followed."

    Michronics42 atlga , 2016-05-22 16:42:56
    And keep reminding me that Clinton Democrats-and their supporters-are nothing more than thinly-disguised Republicans. And like dinosaurs, your days are numbered.
    Ussurisk lowliferatface , 2016-05-22 16:42:12
    He is not competitive because the DNC is controlled by the Reagan Neo-cons, Hillary the chief marionette among them. To understand, just reflect on Hillary's relationship with Neo-con Victoria Nuland, Assistant Sec. of State under Hillary who previously worked for Dick Cheney. Two party system is a shill and anachronism; a Punch and Judy Show.

    The Neo-con AIPAC agenda is world hegemony; New World Order and Hillary is the pre-annointed. Trump may not be a surprise but Sanders certainly is independent and thankfully a chance for Americans to voice their frustrations at the loss of their civil rights and democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century Agenda of New World Order cofounded by Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland Biography of Nuland

    MacWisconsin atlga , 2016-05-22 16:41:34
    The entire Nevada democratic convention was videoed and is available. Please post one video or clip of "violence", real or "perceived". There was none. There was one arrest for violence however and that was Clinton supporter, Wendell Pierce, who was arrested for battery against two Sanders supporters. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/16/wendell-pierce-actor-and-social-activist-arrested-for-allegedly-attacking-bernie-sanders-supporter /

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=435x0dQ5Lzg What this wrap-up doesn't show is the Chair refusing to allow the Minority Report to be read after 58 Sanders delegates were not allowed to show their credentials. That report was eventually read when another delegate ceded his time.

    The reporter--Jon Ralston--who reported the chairs being thrown incident has admitted he wasn't there when that incident didn't happen. No violence. No arrests--despite the calls for that when calls came for revotes. And this got repeated without being fact checked. Pretty embarrassing for the media who repeated it ad nauseam. Whole "violence" issued debunked---but you keep repeating it. Even Jon Ralston who relied another another reporter's statement, couldn't find one clip of violence. Plenty of foul language, but no violence. Please….post a clip.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/18/the-faux-fracas-in-nevada-how-a-reporters-pack-of-lies-ran-riot-in-the-fact-averse-media /

    vineyridge , 2016-05-22 16:39:35
    Anyone here old enough to remember the results when Teddy Kennedy contested the 1980 convention? Anyone here old enough to remember 1968? Anyone here old enough to remember all the years of Republican presidents pushing America to the right?

    Anyone here ever studied history or lived through it?

    FactsnReason Murphy1983 , 2016-05-22 16:36:06
    Clinton will not win the general election. Her trustworthiness polls at 36%, tied with Trump. Sanders, on the other hand, has increased his trustworthiness up to 84% as people have been introduced to him despite the virtual media blackout.
    We don't see the media talking about that, do we?
    Nor do we see the media quoting John Boehner's comment that Sanders is the most honest person in Washington.
    We also do not see the Clinton Media Cabal discussing her legal issues, which are quite serious and real, unless they find some "unnamed source" to downplay the investigations into her multiple crimes. They ignore the other "unnamed sources" who claim people in the FBI will go rogue with details if there is a failure to indict by Loretta Lynch, who is a Clinton Supporter, by the way...
    Juan Reynoso AmyInNH , 2016-05-22 16:34:15
    The whole electoral system is corrupt, Democrats and Republicans work for the oligarchs they betray the people. We The People believe that in a democracy, the people are sovereign and the people are the ultimate source of authority. We believe that truth transforms lives. That self-scrutiny is not treason, self-examination is not disloyalty. Truth and knowledge diffused among the people are necessary for the reclamation and preservation of our Democracy, freedom, liberties and rights. Now is the time to expose this system of corruption. We must work in solidarity to promote and protect the natural rights of the people and the following: Public Health, Education, Housing, food and water safety, Jobs and income, cultural heritage and public safety.

    We accomplish that by advocating for strengthening the rights of the people and laws and regulations designed to protect the natural rights of the American people, ensuring the Constitutional rights of the people and the enforcement of existing laws that protect these rights, also alerting the people to impending threats and mobilizing the public to address these issues.

    We must take peaceable nonviolent actions to address issues of concern to Americans and permanent residents of our country; we believe that to serve that purpose, we as individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve our own lives and our human dignity.

    Michronics42 eastbayradical , 2016-05-22 16:32:42
    Thanks for your heartwarming reply. If Bernie loses, I have no intention of voting for Clinton: I'll either write in or vote for Jill Stein.
    Michronics42 annasview , 2016-05-22 16:30:25
    Thanks, I always confuse him with author, Tom A. Canova.
    aguy777 Martha Carter , 2016-05-22 16:28:36
    "All this is going to to is fracture the Democratic party and let Trump get the presidency."

    I was with you up to this.

    It's only May. The vast majority of the Left and Center will pull together to stop this neo-fascist conman.

    aguy777 Ussurisk , 2016-05-22 16:26:34
    Completely over-the-top and destructive nonsense ...

    Clinton does not resemble Thatcher in the least, and only an unhinged person would imagine so. Nor is she personally to blame for intractable problems in the Middle East.

    In reality (a place some Sanders followers should visit more often ...) she closely resembles other mainstream Democrats such as Bill Clinton (her husband) and Obama (her former boss). Why, of course.

    If the self-proclaimed "radical left" keeps pretending that the Moderate Left is really the same as the Far Right, then it will only help Trump. And needless to say, that's as anti-Progressive as it gets ...

    joAnn chartier Martha Carter , 2016-05-22 16:26:22
    And Trump is now being coddled by Repub leaders without examining their own failed candidates and their completely devastating policies that put Party Power over The People.
    MacWisconsin Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:25:58
    Corrupt systems need to end---the "it's always been wrong" argument doesn't serve any longer. BTW: No one knew before Sanders entered that the DNC would call for "Temporary Rules" changes and votes on the floor of state conventions, which is precisely what happened in Nevada.
    joAnn chartier , 2016-05-22 16:24:17
    This woman voted FOR a bill that supports rip-off pay day lenders rather than poor working class people. Pay day lenders charge astronomical rates to lend people small amounts of money to pay for a car repair or a dentist visit that they can't cover because they are trying to survive on 7 or 8 dollars an hour, working two or three jobs to get by.

    What a nasty example of a Dem party leader- --

    MacWisconsin Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:23:47
    Ann Dash, you correct, Bernie Sanders and those who support his platform are issued based, not "party faithful". When you put party over country you loose. You've also chosen a candidate to support who has two active FBI investigations--one into violations of the Espionage Act and one into corruption of the Clinton Foundation during Clinton's tenure as SOS. There are former Clinton aides being deposed now in two separate FOIA lawsuits as well. When your "party" aligns itself with such open corruption, it and its preferred candidate deserve the animus both have created through their own actions.
    Juan Reynoso Ussurisk , 2016-05-22 16:23:27
    By Juan Reynoso. Political activist – www.represent.us
    We must defend our U.S. Constitution and our God given rights "Natural rights"
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/constitution
    [email protected]
    The 2016 U.S. Elections is a war to protect our country's future, the economic and welfare of the American youth and our future generations. Liberalism, Government corruption, the U.S predatory corporate system of monopoly, crony capitalism, the corrupt U.S. Financial system and the greedy super rich are like termites that are destroying the core and the foundation of our country's moral values; by bribery and deception they have transform our country into a plutocracy system of government and place money and power before the will of the people and the future of the American people.

    The war has begun and we may lose this battle; but we will win the war, knowledge and solidarity in America society will prompt the American youth to fight for their future and the future of America. The collapse of the empire is imminent, God always give the fighters for social justice the wisdom and courage to destroy the evil enslavers of humanity, history will be repeated again. So don't be overwhelmed if we lose this battle. We have learned from the battle and will take that new-found knowledge into the next battle. But we will never consider the possibility of defeat and we will join the glorious ranks of those who have gone before us – those who won wars against oppression and tyranny.

    Let's place the people's human rights, freedom and dignity before money and power. Fear is our worst enemy. A most insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as common sense or even wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant or futile the small, daily acts of courage which help to preserve man's self-respect, freedom and their God given human rights and dignity. It is not easy for people conditioned to fear by the main stream news media the propaganda machinery of this corrupt system of government, that might is possible for people to free themselves from the enervating oppressive of fear, that under the most crushing police state machinery, our courage will rises up again and again, because fear is not the natural state of civilized man.

    Join the fight for America's future and economic freedom. Solidarity for social justice will win this war against tyranny and economic slavery.

    Requiem for the American Dream, the truth about the demise of our freedom and the making of our economic slavery. Every American must see this film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWD8Wksx_zI

    The 1923 meeting at the Edgewater Beach hotel in Chicago was about the U.S. economic Control. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/01/23/what-the-richest-men-in-the-world-dont-know.html

    Hillary Clinton's Neocon Legacy
    http://therealnews.com/t2/component/content/article/170-more-blog-posts-from-david-william-pear/2458-hillary-clintons-neocon-legacy-coups-dictators-corruption-chaos-executions-and-assassination

    The Making of American Capitalism.
    http://www.salon.com/2014/09/07/we_still_lie_about_slavery_heres_the_truth_about_how_the_american_economy_and_power_were_built_on_forced_migration_and_torture /
    You must see this.
    http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/requiem-for-the-american-dream-2016
    Please pass this on, We all count; united for the future of our country and our freedom.
    http://www.rumormillnews.com/MEDIA_EMAIL_ADDRESSES.htm

    modeleste , 2016-05-22 16:22:45
    DWS has done terrible damage to Hillary's chances against Trump. Her blatant rigging of the process against Sanders will be a barrier to their ever supporting Clinton. If it was believed that she one a fair fight, I think most would accept the outcome. But only the most credulous can now believe that it was a fair fight.
    Jack Nostrand , 2016-05-22 16:22:24
    It seems Ross Perot did have an impact on the Presidency. After him they began changing the rules of election participation. Ralph Nader then didn't meet the requirements to be heard. The RNC and DNC thought they had formed eternal victories for establishment candidates. When Obama beat Clinton they changed the rules even more. Now outsiders Sanders and Trump taking victories despite the changes. What's up there sleeves for the next election? No more voting? Litmus tests? Only candidates with 7 letters in their first and last names? In 2000, "hanging chads" were used to determine the outcome. Does anyone else agree that the election process has become a little disturbing?
    Juan Reynoso Martha Carter , 2016-05-22 16:18:34
    By Juan Reynoso – WTP- activist. www.represent.us
    [email protected]
    The fact is that most Americans are being brainwash and indoctrinate into believing that Capitalism and the neo liberalism economic system is better than Democrat socialism.
    The Neo-Liberalist, place money and power before the people, they believe that the private sector "Corporations, the Banking system and all services including the communication system should be privatized to benefit the investors and owners and not the general public; they believe that every man is responsible for their economic and welfare and that they do not have any responsibility toward the community and the citizens of this country, they do not want any government controls so they can exploit the community to enrich themselves. The result of this ill system was the economic catastrophe of 2008 and the continuation of this ill system will be the down fall of the Dollar and the world economic, in 2016 - 2017.
    Now Democrat socialism is placing the people before money and power for the few oligarchs and corporate elite. This economic system is essential to stop the concentration of wealth and benefit the whole country by promoting education, good quality of life, and health and minimize poverty. The Neo-liberalism was implemented by Ronald Reagan and followed by all presidents, this economic system give control of the country to the oligarchs and the elite multinational corporations to enrich themselves, making millions of Americans economic slaves by controlling labor the income of the American working class and the market place. Neo-Liberalism opens the gate for the greedy corporations to monopolized, control commerce and destroys small business to eradicate competition. America today is a conglomerate of elite business monopoly that controls our economic and destroyed the dream of millions of Americans that today live in poverty and extreme poverty. The choice is ours; to continue on this path of self-destruction and continue promoting this Neo-Liberalist system of greed and destruction or change to a Democrat more social economic system that will be beneficial to all Americans and not the few oligarchs that control our country.
    Democrat socialism.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-nordic-countries/473385/#article-comments
    We can learn a lot about public policy from the Nordic nations
    http://theconversation.com/we-can-learn-a-lot-about-public-policy-from-the-nordic-nations-32204
    Better education for all
    https://dianeravitch.net/2016/03/22/what-we-can-learn-from-nordic-nations /
    U.S. Politicians from both right and left could learn from the Nordic countries
    http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel
    The Nordic countries could teach us about teamwork in education
    http://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/oct/05/education-policy-nordic-countries
    vineyridge SocalAlex , 2016-05-22 16:18:15
    The GOP happens to be in the MAJORITY in Congress.
    vineyridge BerrySam , 2016-05-22 16:16:02
    Nader never ran as in one of the major parties. Bernie has 45% of a primary vote. There are many, millions of Americans who only vote in general elections.
    MacWisconsin Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:14:36
    Ann Dash, the "winning" the popular vote argument leaves out some important figures. 7.2 million people live in Washington state. Sanders won Washington by 71% and yet none of those votes have been counted in the popular vote. Sanders won Alaska by 81%--none of those votes are figured into the "3 million" votes either. 3 million Independents weren't allowed to vote in NY alone. Clinton, "won" Kentucky by 1923 votes---less than 1/2 of One percent. When you add actual caucus votes and those who will vote in November, Clinton doesn't fare very well. The popular vote argument holds no water.
    Martha Carter , 2016-05-22 16:13:51
    This is the way the system has worked. Maybe it isn't fair, but if Bernie wanted to change it he should have started a lot earlier. If he were winning now I'll bet he wouldn't be so unhappy with it.
    Bernie is evokes a lot of passion in his followers. They want him to win so badly they will disrupt the Democratic convention. All this is going to to is fracture the Democratic party and let Trump get the presidency. The Democrats are like people in a canoe arguing about who gets to paddle just as they are about to go over the falls.
    Murphy1983 Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:13:38
    Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll

    Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-points-new-nbc-n577726?cid=eml_nbn_20160522

    Murphy1983 Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:12:26
    Sanders is the strongest candidate against Trump. Vote Sanders!

    Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll

    Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-points-new-nbc-n577726?cid=eml_nbn_20160522

    Ussurisk , 2016-05-22 16:11:37
    Sanders has been remiss in confronting Hillary with the evil she has wrought, genocide on Iraq, Syria, and most obviously in turning top standard of living Libya into a failed state. Obama apologized about it but not the queens of destabilization, Victoria Nuland and her puppet, Hillary Clinton.

    Sanders ha failed to give Hillary the downbraiding she deserves as a budding NWO fascist and apologist for Wall St. and Netanyahu, etc. Despicable woman, much like Margret Thatcher and Madeline Albright. Destroyers; bad at diplomacy and quick on murderous war. Demagogue Hillary will escalate US hegemony and bring on Armageddon for the Christian Zionists; WWIII. Why did Sanders not play his trump card at the beginning of the campaign?

    MeereeneseLiberation Pleasetickother3 , 2016-05-22 16:11:11

    However it was well known Florida would be close and be decisive. Nader voters were thought to be more closely aligned with Gore. They had a choice, they chose.

    Yup. I remember there were even several (heavily frequented) websites dedicated to "voter trade" -- supporters of Nader in battle ground states would "trade" their votes with Democrats from safe states to enable Nader to reach his goal of 5% of the popular vote and still allow Gore to carry Florida and others. Definitely not quite legal, but goes to show that everybody knew what was at stake.

    Of course it's silly to blame W exclusively on Nader -- obviously, it's the Bush voters who are to blame first and foremost, and his brother and the SCOTUS who stole the election for him, and Gore for running a listless and inept campaign (the kiss! oh, the kiss!). But even if Nader's share of the responsibility is no greater than his tally of the vote, it's rather baffling, given the experience of 2000, how many seem to be willing to repeat it.

    This stuff about 'not being able to win his home state' is completely weird. Especially given how eager Bernie fans were on this board to point out that New York is Sanders ' home state, not Clinton's...

    FactsnReason , 2016-05-22 16:10:41
    Clinton only leads by 274 pledged delegates. The false picture of the huge lead that results from super delegates is being presented so people will just give up and not vote for Sanders. Fortunately, those of us who support Sanders recognize the media bias and the DNC favoritism, and we will not be fooled.

    In the long run, the Democratic Party, the super delegates, and the media that is fully participating in this attempted coronation are hurting themselves. I, and many many others, not only will not vote for Hillary, we will no longer support the party or Democrats involved in this travesty, nor will we support the media and businesses who have joined in.

    Bernie or Bust! I voted for the honest guy... NOT with her: NOT EVER!

    Murphy1983 , 2016-05-22 16:10:18
    Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll

    Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.

    Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-points-new-nbc-n577726?cid=eml_nbn_20160522

    MacWisconsin Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:14:36
    Ann Dash, the "winning" the popular vote argument leaves out some important figures. 7.2 million people live in Washington state. Sanders won Washington by 71% and yet none of those votes have been counted in the popular vote. Sanders won Alaska by 81%--none of those votes are figured into the "3 million" votes either. 3 million Independents weren't allowed to vote in NY alone. Clinton, "won" Kentucky by 1923 votes---less than 1/2 of One percent. When you add actual caucus votes and those who will vote in November, Clinton doesn't fare very well. The popular vote argument holds no water.
    Martha Carter , 2016-05-22 16:13:51
    This is the way the system has worked. Maybe it isn't fair, but if Bernie wanted to change it he should have started a lot earlier. If he were winning now I'll bet he wouldn't be so unhappy with it.

    Bernie is evokes a lot of passion in his followers. They want him to win so badly they will disrupt the Democratic convention. All this is going to to is fracture the Democratic party and let Trump get the presidency. The Democrats are like people in a canoe arguing about who gets to paddle just as they are about to go over the falls.

    Murphy1983 Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:13:38
    Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll

    Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-points-new-nbc-n577726?cid=eml_nbn_20160522

    Murphy1983 Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:12:26
    Sanders is the strongest candidate against Trump. Vote Sanders!

    Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll

    Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-points-new-nbc-n577726?cid=eml_nbn_20160522

    Ussurisk , 2016-05-22 16:11:37
    Sanders has been remiss in confronting Hillary with the evil she has wrought, genocide on Iraq, Syria, and most obviously in turning top standard of living Libya into a failed state. Obama apologized about it but not the queens of destabilization, Victoria Nuland and her puppet, Hillary Clinton. Sanders ha failed to give Hillary the downbraiding she deserves as a budding NWO fascist and apologist for Wall St. and Netanyahu, etc. Despicable woman, much like Margret Thatcher and Madeline Albright. Destroyers; bad at diplomacy and quick on murderous war. Demagogue Hillary will escalate US hegemony and bring on Armageddon for the Christian Zionists; WWIII. Why did Sanders not play his trump card at the beginning of the campaign?
    MeereeneseLiberation Pleasetickother3 , 2016-05-22 16:11:11

    However it was well known Florida would be close and be decisive. Nader voters were thought to be more closely aligned with Gore. They had a choice, they chose.

    Yup. I remember there were even several (heavily frequented) websites dedicated to "voter trade" -- supporters of Nader in battle ground states would "trade" their votes with Democrats from safe states to enable Nader to reach his goal of 5% of the popular vote and still allow Gore to carry Florida and others. Definitely not quite legal, but goes to show that everybody knew what was at stake.

    Of course it's silly to blame W exclusively on Nader -- obviously, it's the Bush voters who are to blame first and foremost, and his brother and the SCOTUS who stole the election for him, and Gore for running a listless and inept campaign (the kiss! oh, the kiss!). But even if Nader's share of the responsibility is no greater than his tally of the vote, it's rather baffling, given the experience of 2000, how many seem to be willing to repeat it.

    This stuff about 'not being able to win his home state' is completely weird. Especially given how eager Bernie fans were on this board to point out that New York is Sanders ' home state, not Clinton's...

    FactsnReason , 2016-05-22 16:10:41
    Clinton only leads by 274 pledged delegates. The false picture of the huge lead that results from super delegates is being presented so people will just give up and not vote for Sanders. Fortunately, those of us who support Sanders recognize the media bias and the DNC favoritism, and we will not be fooled.
    In the long run, the Democratic Party, the super delegates, and the media that is fully participating in this attempted coronation are hurting themselves. I, and many many others, not only will not vote for Hillary, we will no longer support the party or Democrats involved in this travesty, nor will we support the media and businesses who have joined in.

    Bernie or Bust! I voted for the honest guy... NOT with her: NOT EVER!

    Murphy1983 , 2016-05-22 16:10:18
    Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll

    Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points - resulting in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Democrat Bernie Sanders leads Trump by 15 points, 54 percent to 39 percent.

    Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-points-new-nbc-n577726?cid=eml_nbn_20160522

    AmyInNH Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:08:59
    It is a sad and sorry day that you can't recognize a democrat any more. Yes, he's not a "party faithful". Apparently you haven't noticed that "the party" has become about "the party".
    Michronics42 Happy Fella , 2016-05-22 16:07:17
    Are you seriously siding with payday lenders? They are big time vulture capitalists, ripping off the most vulnerable.

    By the way, do you just happen to be a payday lender? Or, do you profit from the industry somehow? Or, perhaps it may be the dots that accurately and historically connected the dots to Bill Clinton's 'Mother of all Deregulations,' the partial repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, annoys you.

    Whatever or whoever informs your thoughts, your reasoning is seriously flawed.

    AmyInNH Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 16:07:02
    The problem with Bernie Sanders is he makes Hillary look like the elite disconnected republican that she is.
    AmyInNH , 2016-05-22 16:02:32
    The parties have transparently thrown over the country's best interest in favor of their party's interests.
    Craig Quirolo Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 15:49:22
    He isn't winning because the media has ignored him, he threatens big business and wall street (who have thrown their $ support to Hillary) and because he speaks the truth. This has been a rigged election from the start. Funny thing is Bernie can easily dump trump and Hillary cannot, she is in trouble. As far as DWS she is in the pockets of big money just like her boss Hillary.
    MeereeneseLiberation sdkeller72 , 2016-05-22 15:45:03

    Don;t be afraid of a Trump presidency

    I take it you are neither poor, Hispanic, African American, Muslim, nor a woman then? Not interested in free speech, the Geneva Convention or basic human decency?

    You're right, then, there may not be much to be afraid of for you. Depending, of course, on how much Trump is willing to escalate that trade war with China that you seem so keen on.

    eminijunkie annasview , 2016-05-22 15:43:40
    It's is true.

    Bernie can win easily win enough of the remaining votes to force the super delegates into the position of having to choose who should be the nominee. Are they really all that invested in Hillary still? Can they really not see the difference between the crowds that come to see Bernie versus the ones that come to see Hillary? Will they neglect all the recent polls?

    Or will they pick Bernie? If Bernie gets those votes, which he easily can so long as they aren't all in rigged caucus meetings, then will have that chance.

    Should be an interesting convention.

    Oudeis1 atlga , 2016-05-22 15:41:02
    The plainly observable fact are; Taxes up, out of pocket health-care costs 'obliterated'.

    Why not relate the 98% Tax tale - I feel sleepy.

    annasview , 2016-05-22 15:39:45
    *Tim* Canova -- a name to remember!

    One of the current issues (and only one of the issues with the DNC/DWS) is the superdelegates being lined up PRE-primary voting in order to give the edge to Clinton right from the start.

    They don't count until the convention this summer, **neither do their votes** -- not until the convention, AFTER every citizen who wants to vote has voted.
    And their vote isn't written in stone before then, they can and have switched their votes prior to the convention, re: Obama's election.

    When Clinton brings in 400 to hear a speech and Sanders routinely brings in 15,000 or more, when exit polls don't match the voting booth yet they get rid of the exit polls rather than fix the voting 'inaccuracies,' something is very fishy in the land of Oz....

    annasview Michronics42 , 2016-05-22 15:38:28
    *Tim* Canova

    One of the current issues (and only one of the issues with the DNC/DWS) is the superdelegates being lined up PRE-primary voting in order to give the edge to Clinton right from the start.
    They don't count until the convention this summer, **neither do their votes** -- not until the convention, AFTER every citizen who wants to vote has voted. And their vote isn't written in stone before then, they can and have switched their votes prior to the convention, re: Obama's election.

    When Clinton brings in 400 to hear a speech and Sanders routinely brings in 15,000 or more, when exit polls don't match the voting booth yet they get rid of the exit polls rather than fix the voting 'inaccuracies,' something is very fishy in the land of Oz....

    FrostAndFire Curiosita , 2016-05-22 15:38:22
    There is such a massive entitlement in the kind of Democrats who believe that Green party supporters owed Democrats their votes. Democracy doesn't work like that. You have to earn the votes, and Gore's campaign was terrible. If he'd run a good campaign, he would have won handily. Blaming your opponents for your won failure is pathetic.
    Oudeis1 atlga , 2016-05-22 15:36:17
    What's that? You do know where it is, but you can't find it?

    We're not talking about those speech transcripts, you know that; don't you?

    lowliferatface , 2016-05-22 15:36:02
    Clinton and all her corrupt surrogates need to leave the DNC asap.
    Jack Nostrand nolashea , 2016-05-22 15:35:02
    Who's the one doing the character assassination here? Good grief do people ever look in the mirror? DWS has worked with Clinton for years and has been blatantly impartial from the beginning. If independents were allowed to vote in the closed primaries Mr. Sanders would be tied if not clearly in the lead. How can you be a "Democrat" in favor of "Democracy" and then manipulate the rules to allow a particular individual to get elected? You may want to think long-term. The people will not follow a false leader. People will revolt. People vote with their feet... Which direction do you see them walking? I see them walking away from Clinton.
    eastbayradical John Egan , 2016-05-22 15:33:55
    The vast majority of Americans don't care whether or not Sanders is a loyal Democrat. They assess him on the basis of his seeming authenticity, honesty, values, and policy positions--and based on the evaluative system he does well among Democrats and very well among Independents.

    You, JohnEgan, are part of a very small minority that gives a rat's ass whether Sanders is a loyal Democrat.

    bashh1 leonorp , 2016-05-22 15:30:25
    We will have nothing to blame for Trump but Clinton herself. We have nothing to blame in 2000 for Bush except Gore himself. We have nobody to blame for the Mideast but Bush himself
    Social36 , 2016-05-22 15:30:18
    The Canova campaign threat to her re-election helps to explain even more of DWS's enmity towards Bernie and the Sanders campaign!
    tonichicago thoughtful24 , 2016-05-22 15:29:15
    It is not impossible but involves way too much government involvement for many Americans and it is seen as "Socialist" (which is not a compliment here btw).
    eminijunkie Ann Dash , 2016-05-22 15:28:46
    It's so like the current crowd of jerks running the Democratic party to see them start pointing fingers at Bernie for what they can see is their coming defeat in November. They had the chance to back Bernie. They can still do it, but they are all too invested in their own interests to care about anything but their own interests, and so they won't pick up on the best chance to have a Democratic landslide since 1964.

    You had your chance too, and you picked the loser over the winner, so no more of this finger pointing at Bernie. Accept responsibility for your own bad decisions and live with it, as you will have no other alternatives in the end.

    Social36 Haigin88 , 2016-05-22 15:27:10
    Nice comments--both! Rich with detail and information -- and thought provoking.

    I agree with you about Gore, Nader, and the election. At the same time, we can't use what happened in 2000 to justify Sanders people voting Green in swing states or sitting it out at home and then claim that a President Trump is simply Hillary's fault-- or the DNC's.

    It would be both-- Hillary's as well as Sanders' supporters not voting to stop Trump. Hillary is a corporate shill in all too many ways and she has been a lackluster, throwback, self-centered, and entitled candidate-- although she's beginning to fight and the Clintons, unlike Sanders, have several decades of knowing how to street fight-- and can better respond to Trump's wild fusillades.

    Yet, even if she doesn't represent all, or even most, of what progressives want, the differences are clear-- it would be so much better to have a corporate centrist in there with some liberal values who will tweak things at the margins to make them better for more people than a right wing zealot who is hellbent on destroying everything he encounters, and doing so all on a whim.

    tonichicago Llewellyn , 2016-05-22 15:26:37
    Exactly. He chose to hijack the Democratic Party to give himself the best chance of being nominated as the candidate for that party. He can't now start throwing tantrums because the rules (that he knew about) aren't working in his favor. Great President he'd make on the international stage. Perhaps Trump will pick him for Veep then we can have two tantrum-throwing "outsiders" on the GOP ticket. What fun.
    Landrew Hammer , 2016-05-22 15:26:37
    TimCanova.com, send a donation I did. Tim is now very close to raising enough money to defeat the evil PayDay loan Queen DWS. It's time the corruption at the DNC end. WRITE IN Bernie in Nov. I am. TimCanova.com and defeat DWS the loan shark.
    eastbayradical nolashea , 2016-05-22 15:26:11
    "Sanders is something one scrapes off the bottom of their shoe before entering the house."

    As someone who will vote for Sanders (even though I don't believe he's nearly radical enough) but will NEVER vote for Wall Street's Warmongering Madame, I truly hope you continue to say these types of things about Sanders, as it makes it considerably less likely that my fellow Sanders' supporters will vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination.

    You are making my "job" easier, and for that I thank you!

    MonotonousLanguor , 2016-05-22 15:26:02
    Debbie Wasserman Schultz represents the continued failure of the Democratic Party and as such should be replaced.

    The Democratic Party began to die during Bill Clinton's regime. Bill Clinton in his own way conducted a regime change of the Democratic Party from Main Street and Unions to Wall Street. The results have not been good:

    In 1992 in the Senate there were 57 Democratic Senators and 43 Republicans.
    In 2002 in the Senate there were 48 Democratic Senators and 51 Republicans. One Independent.
    In 2012 in the Senate the Democrats had 45 Seats vs 53 Republicans, with two Independents.
    In 2014 in the Senate there are 44 Democratic Senators and 54 Republicans with two Independents.

    The House:
    In 1992 The Democrats had 258 Seats to the Republicans 176, with one Independent.
    In 2002 The Democrats had 205 Seats, to the Republicans 229 Seats and one Independent
    In 2012 The Democrats 201 Seats vs 234 Republicans.
    In 2014 The Democrats have 188 Seats vs the Republicans 247.

    A similar decline has happened in the Governor's races.
    1992 30 Democrat Governors and 18 Republican
    2014 31 Republicans and 18 Democrats

    Political Power for the Clinton Family has translated into wealth, and for the Clinton's lining their own pockets is all that counts.

    Landrew Hammer Llewellyn , 2016-05-22 15:21:09
    The State Parties are ALSO CONTROLLED by the DNC. The kick back monies insure that the DNC is in control of WHO they select rather then open elections. You can lie to yourself however, WE know the truth of how this corrupt system works. WRITE IN Bernie in Nov. I am!
    MonsieurMisike , 2016-05-22 15:20:20
    Very few outside the Democratic Party establishment seem to like these superdelegates. Abolish them and pledged delegates too while you're at it.

    A lot simpler would be whichever candidate gets the majority of states wins the nomination. In this case, it is (as of this writing) Hillary Clinton - and I'm a Sanders supporter.

    Better yet, abolish the primary system which gives voters in small states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina inflated powers of choosing eventual nominees.

    Allow each candidate to spend 8-10 weeks campaigning across the 10 most populous states spending a maximum set amount of $ leading up to this "super primary" held on one day. And there's your candidate.

    If this is deemed too draconian with regards to disenfranchisement in the remaining 40 states, let "super primary" narrow the field to the top two candidates. The remaining 40 states can hold a "final primary" 4 weeks later on the same day. Whichever candidate has the most votes in the "super primary" + "final primary" is the candidate.

    The General Election would follow 8 weeks later. No electoral college, just simple majority of votes across 50 states wins.

    Super Pacs, donations over $X would be abolished. No closed primaries.

    Most importantly, any candidate found to be campaigning 10 weeks before the initial "super primary" would be disqualified. America's multi-year Presidential Election cycle would be limited to several months.

    The media which relies on campaign advertising spending for much of its profits and campaign scandal/gossip/speculation to fill airtime and column inches would hate this. As would lobby groups/firms, special interests, the Koch Brothers, etc.

    tonichicago , 2016-05-22 15:19:41
    It's very Trump-ish of Bernie to join a party to which he admits he had no ideological affiliation, just to get on the ballot. Then he complains about how the party runs itself and how the rules should be changed because he's not winning. I used to think he was an OK guy but he's behaving like a toddler; just like Trump.
    eastbayradical nolashea , 2016-05-22 15:19:13
    "Sanders is operating his entire campaign based on their model - seek, debase, uglify, insult, destroy your opponent by character assassination...."

    If that's the case, why as he chosen to say not one word about the "email scandal" and the fact that Clinton is under FBI investigation? Why is it that if he's such a horrible character assassin? Please explain, it doesn't make ANY sense.

    Your description of Sanders is partisan in the worst sense of the word--completely devoid of fairness and fact-based analysis. You fail to address the many ways in which Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC have attempted to marginalize and hobble Sanders' campaign--from the scheduling of debates to the vote count in Iowa to the smears against Sanders in the aftermath of the shady goings-on of party elites in Nevada and Sanders' supporters response to them.

    There's no wonder why Clinton supporters at all levels resort to this sort of bullshit. After all it's easier than defending the record of someone (Clinton herself) who over the years has supported the Iraq War, Patriot Acts 1 and 2, the starvation blockade and blitzkrieg of Gaza, the bombing of Libya, the right-wing coup in Honduras, a 31 cent/hour minimum wage in Haiti (and against attempts to raise it), the Saudi dictatorship, drone missile strikes in multiple impoverished countries, NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, fracking, anti-labor policies while on the board of Wal-Mart, the objectively-racist death penalty, the destruction of welfare, the private prison industry, deregulation of investment banks (and against reinstatement of Glass-Steagall), giveaways to the credit card industry, and the bail-out of Wall Street.

    chiefwiley Stephen Paskey , 2016-05-22 15:18:26
    Doing the math, if even 1,000 Nadar supporters had hosted for Bush instead, Bush would have won Florida by 1,537 votes. If Gore had won the state he served as Senator, Tennessee, he wouldn't have needed Florida to become President. The election was his to win or lose.
    He lost. It was sixteen years ago. Get over it.
    Landrew Hammer nolashea , 2016-05-22 15:16:15
    Your comments are why We will NEVER vote for the Clintons. Your hate inspires us to write in Bernie. Thank you for the inspiration we will work even harder now on a national campaign to WRITE IN Bernie in Nov. The NAFTA, TPP, Crime Bill war morgering Clintons will NOT get our Progressive votes. So thank you for acknowledging the Clintons DON'T NEED our votes in Nov. Write IN Bernie in Nov. I am!
    Social36 Michronics42 , 2016-05-22 15:15:52
    Gore did win Florida-- exit polling, which was uncannily accurate, showed that, but it was the Supreme Court that stopped the recount. (OTOH, some post-election analyses, including by the Washington Post, concluded Gore lost.)

    People make fun of "hanging chads" but it was an amazing thing to see local people from both parties attempting to do the right thing by voters.

    Yes, just by numbers, had most of those Nader votes gone to Gore, he would have become president. However, it's also true that had Gore campaigned more effectively, unleashed Bill, worried more about connecting to people than with his wardrobe consultants, and been more like himself as shown in later years, he would have won decisively-- Nader or not. Remember that Gore did NOT even win his own state!

    So, hard though it may be for people to accept, it will be BOTH Hillary's and Bernie's supporters' fault, if they stay home or vote Green in swing states, and Trump gets elected.

    The stakes are enormous... Hillary's a corporate centrist, for sure, but has many socially liberal values, while Trump is a right-wing, unhinged, uninformed, neofascist whose racism and misogyny are abhorrent and is a real threat to democracy. Believing that the election doesn't matter, or that the two candidates are equally as bad, ignores reality as well as history. Just consider who the two would put on the Supreme Court.

    We'd much prefer it be Bernie, but we definitely do not want it to be Trump!

    Landrew Hammer , 2016-05-22 15:11:34
    Debbie Wasserman Shultz, champion of the PAYDAY LOAN SHARKS. DWS helped defeat the Sen. Warren legislation to limit the interest rates to 30% FROM 3000%. DWS and the Clintons take campaign funds and support the loan sharks bleeding economically challenged communities across the U.S. Write IN Bernie in Nov. I am!
    PGVaidya Llewellyn , 2016-05-22 15:10:25
    Bill Moyers has been one of the most respected journalists. Please read what he says about DWS: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36991-democrats-cant-unite-unless-wasserman-schultz-goes
    NottaBot mismeasure , 2016-05-22 15:07:27
    At the Wells Fargo Center. Great optics, DNC.
    dig4victory , 2016-05-22 15:06:57
    The chairperson of the DNC is bound to remain impartial, as is clearly stated in the party rules. There is now ample evidence that Ms Schultz has repeatedly broken that rule throughout the campaign cycle and is therefore unfit to remain chairperson of the DNC. If she is not replaced by an impartial chairperson for the convention it will undermine the legitimacy of the nomination process.

    In light of the formal complaints and petitions submitted by Democratic Party members regarding Ms Schultz breaking Democratic Party rules, Mrs Clinton and Senator Sanders will need to agree on a temporary replacement chairperson for the convention until the next permanent chairperson is appointed.

    PGVaidya John Macgregor , 2016-05-22 15:06:54
    What spellchecker ? Atlga is clearly a person paid pennies by the Hillary campaign. I did not realize they are outsourcing the respondents to some remote villages in the world.
    JCDavis atlga , 2016-05-22 15:03:35
    You don't seem to understand the difference between primaries and the general election. Compare the polls for Sanders vs Trump and Clinton vs Trump in the general--

    http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster

    Clinton is crashing while Sanders is soaring.

    Social36 , 2016-05-22 14:58:05
    Excuse us, but the delegate count right now is

    Clinton 1,768
    Sanders 1,494

    Sanders is only 274 delegates behind!

    Stop with the misleading inclusion of the super delegate totals in the counts. Or, at least, emphasize the difference-- elected vs. appointed or, rather, party-automatic supers.

    Glad, though, for coverage of the biased Debbie! If anyone' seen her on TV, she is a sorry excuse for a party leader anyway-- semi-articulate, breathless, and ill-mannered. (And, yes, I would make the same criticisms of male politicians, too.). Adding in her blatant biases-- even the Sanders folks have said that they have little or no problem with the rest of the DNC leadership team, it's clear that she's got to go!

    NottaBot suddenoakdeath , 2016-05-22 14:57:33
    Just for you. And anybody else who'd like to know the score.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsOf0TZPPWY

    MonsieurMisike atlga , 2016-05-22 14:55:33
    There's some debate about the world's oldest democracy, but it ain't the United States (which, btw, is a republic).

    Iceland has had a parliament since the year 930 and the oldest continuous parliament since 979 is on the Isle of Man. Universal adult suffrage was established in New Zealand in 1893, although NZ doesn't elect its Head of State.

    Mckim John Egan , 2016-05-22 14:55:27
    He sure does know what is best for the party, and it isn't endless war, Wall St. and Wall Mart.
    Terribleblodge ExcaliburDefender , 2016-05-22 14:55:12
    You sound as bright as the half-wit who told me last summer that Sanders couldn't win Vermont's primary.
    Mckim binkis1 , 2016-05-22 14:54:01
    It is a sad commentary on our economy when people are so hard up for money that they will troll for a woman who is a Neocon warmonger for money.
    Mckim atlga , 2016-05-22 14:52:39
    Senator Sanders is serving this country well by bringing out years of anger and frustration about all the money going to the too 1%, serfdom for working families for the past 30 years, serfdom for those who dare to incur debt to go to college and the endless expensive wars. He is a hero.
    DracoFerret , 2016-05-22 14:50:43
    Despite her promises to be tough on Wall Street, a new report has found that groups supporting Hillary Clinton have received $25 million from the financial industry using so-called shadow banks. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has received a new waffle iron for opening a savings account.
    Terribleblodge ExcaliburDefender , 2016-05-22 14:49:33
    Were you one of the medical "professionals" at Guantanamo Bay by any chance? I hear they strongly support Clinton as well.
    Zepp swift_4 , 2016-05-22 14:49:07
    Bernie isn't "apart from the Democrats"--in fact, he exemplifies Democratic principles, the ones the party held for a half century before the corporate centrists took it over. If you want to get rid of confusion and conflict, take the people who oppose a liveable minimum wage, or universal health care, or trust-busting against the banks and big corps, and put them in the GOP where they belong.

    [May 24, 2016] Bernie Sanders Oregon win not nearly enough to reshape delegate landscape

    www.theguardian.com

    Atlant 21 May 2016 07:36 1 2 Democrats used to argue Bernie Sanders couldn't win anything. Then he started winning essentially all of the open or semi-open contests.

    So Democrats argued he couldn't win closed contests among just Democrats. And now he tied in Kentucky and won overwhelmingly in Oregon.

    So now Democrats are arguing he's got to drop out because he'll never get enough delegates. And they say this even as poll after poll shows Senator Sanders strongly winning the General Election while Clinton just squeaks by or even loses.

    "It ain't over 'til it's over."

    [May 24, 2016] A Psychologist Analyzes Donald Trump's Personality

    The Atlantic

    ... ... ...

    Fifty years of empirical research in personality psychology have resulted in a scientific consensus regarding the most basic dimensions of human variability. There are countless ways to differentiate one person from the next, but psychological scientists have settled on a relatively simple taxonomy, known widely as the Big Five:

    Most people score near the middle on any given dimension, but some score toward one pole or the other. Research decisively shows that higher scores on extroversion are associated with greater happiness and broader social connections, higher scores on conscientiousness predict greater success in school and at work, and higher scores on agreeableness are associated with deeper relationships. By contrast, higher scores on neuroticism are always bad, having proved to be a risk factor for unhappiness, dysfunctional relationships, and mental-health problems. From adolescence through midlife, many people tend to become more conscientious and agreeable, and less neurotic, but these changes are typically slight: The Big Five personality traits are pretty stable across a person's lifetime.

    ... ... ...

    Research suggests that extroverts tend to take high-stakes risks and that people with low levels of openness rarely question their deepest convictions. Entering office with high levels of extroversion and very low openness, Bush was predisposed to make bold decisions aimed at achieving big rewards, and to make them with the assurance that he could not be wrong. As I argued in my psychological biography of Bush, the game-changing decision to invade Iraq was the kind of decision he was likely to make. As world events transpired to open up an opportunity for the invasion, Bush found additional psychological affirmation both in his lifelong desire-pursued again and again before he ever became president-to defend his beloved father from enemies (think: Saddam Hussein) and in his own life story, wherein the hero liberates himself from oppressive forces (think: sin, alcohol) to restore peace and freedom.

    Like Bush, a President Trump might try to swing for the fences in an effort to deliver big payoffs-to make America great again, as his campaign slogan says. As a real-estate developer, he has certainly taken big risks, although he has become a more conservative businessman following setbacks in the 1990s. As a result of the risks he has taken, Trump can (and does) point to luxurious urban towers, lavish golf courses, and a personal fortune that is, by some estimates, in the billions, all of which clearly bring him big psychic rewards. Risky decisions have also resulted in four Chapter 11 business bankruptcies involving some of his casinos and resorts. Because he is not burdened with Bush's low level of openness (psychologists have rated Bush at the bottom of the list on this trait), Trump may be a more flexible and pragmatic decision maker, more like Bill Clinton than Bush: He may look longer and harder than Bush did before he leaps. And because he is viewed as markedly less ideological than most presidential candidates (political observers note that on some issues he seems conservative, on others liberal, and on still others nonclassifiable), Trump may be able to switch positions easily, leaving room to maneuver in negotiations with Congress and foreign leaders. But on balance, he's unlikely to shy away from risky decisions that, should they work out, could burnish his legacy and provide him an emotional payoff.

    The real psychological wild card, however, is Trump's agreeableness-or lack thereof. There has probably never been a U.S. president as consistently and overtly disagreeable on the public stage as Donald Trump is. If Nixon comes closest, we might predict that Trump's style of decision making would look like the hard-nosed realpolitik that Nixon and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, displayed in international affairs during the early 1970s, along with its bare-knuckled domestic analog. That may not be all bad, depending on one's perspective. Not readily swayed by warm sentiments or humanitarian impulses, decision makers who, like Nixon, are dispositionally low on agreeableness might hold certain advantages when it comes to balancing competing interests or bargaining with adversaries, such as China in Nixon's time. In international affairs, Nixon was tough, pragmatic, and coolly rational. Trump seems capable of a similar toughness and strategic pragmatism, although the cool rationality does not always seem to fit, probably because Trump's disagreeableness appears so strongly motivated by anger.

    In domestic politics, Nixon was widely recognized to be cunning, callous, cynical, and Machiavellian, even by the standards of American politicians. Empathy was not his strong suit. This sounds a lot like Donald Trump, too-except you have to add the ebullient extroversion, the relentless showmanship, and the larger-than-life celebrity. Nixon could never fill a room the way Trump can.

    ... ... ...

    During and after World War II, psychologists conceived of the authoritarian personality as a pattern of attitudes and values revolving around adherence to society's traditional norms, submission to authorities who personify or reinforce those norms, and antipathy-to the point of hatred and aggression-toward those who either challenge in-group norms or lie outside their orbit. Among white Americans, high scores on measures of authoritarianism today tend to be associated with prejudice against a wide range of "out-groups," including homosexuals, African Americans, immigrants, and Muslims. Authoritarianism is also associated with suspiciousness of the humanities and the arts, and with cognitive rigidity, militaristic sentiments, and Christian fundamentalism.

    When individuals with authoritarian proclivities fear that their way of life is being threatened, they may turn to strong leaders who promise to keep them safe-leaders like Donald Trump. In a national poll conducted recently by the political scientist Matthew MacWilliams, high levels of authoritarianism emerged as the single strongest predictor of expressing political support for Donald Trump. Trump's promise to build a wall on the Mexican border to keep illegal immigrants out and his railing against Muslims and other outsiders have presumably fed that dynamic.

    As the social psychologist Jesse Graham has noted, Trump appeals to an ancient fear of contagion, which analogizes out-groups to parasites, poisons, and other impurities. In this regard, it is perhaps no psychological accident that Trump displays a phobia of germs, and seems repulsed by bodily fluids, especially women's. He famously remarked that Megyn Kelly of Fox News had "blood coming out of her wherever," and he repeatedly characterized Hillary Clinton's bathroom break during a Democratic debate as "disgusting." Disgust is a primal response to impurity. On a daily basis, Trump seems to experience more disgust, or at least to say he does, than most people do.

    The authoritarian mandate is to ensure the security, purity, and goodness of the in-group-to keep the good stuff in and the bad stuff out. In the 1820s, white settlers in Georgia and other frontier areas lived in constant fear of American Indian tribes. They resented the federal government for not keeping them safe from what they perceived to be a mortal threat and a corrupting contagion. Responding to these fears, President Jackson pushed hard for the passage of the Indian Removal Act, which eventually led to the forced relocation of 45,000 American Indians. At least 4,000 Cherokees died on the Trail of Tears, which ran from Georgia to the Oklahoma territory.

    An American strand of authoritarianism may help explain why the thrice-married, foul-mouthed Donald Trump should prove to be so attractive to white Christian evangelicals. As Jerry Falwell Jr. told The New York Times in February, "All the social issues-traditional family values, abortion-are moot if isis blows up some of our cities or if the borders are not fortified." Rank-and-file evangelicals "are trying to save the country," Falwell said. Being "saved" has a special resonance among evangelicals-saved from sin and damnation, of course, but also saved from the threats and impurities of a corrupt and dangerous world.

    Trump appeals to an ancient fear of contagion, which analogizes out-groups to parasites and poisons.

    When my research associates and I once asked politically conservative Christians scoring high on authoritarianism to imagine what their life (and their world) might have been like had they never found religious faith, many described utter chaos-families torn apart, rampant infidelity and hate, cities on fire, the inner rings of hell. By contrast, equally devout politically liberal Christians who scored low on authoritarianism described a barren world depleted of all resources, joyless and bleak, like the arid surface of the moon. For authoritarian Christians, a strong faith-like a strong leader-saves them from chaos and tamps down fears and conflicts. Donald Trump is a savior, even if he preens and swears, and waffles on the issue of abortion.

    In December, on the campaign trail in Raleigh, North Carolina, Trump stoked fears in his audience by repeatedly saying that "something bad is happening" and "something really dangerous is going on." He was asked by a 12-year-old girl from Virginia, "I'm scared-what are you going to do to protect this country?"

    Trump responded: "You know what, darling? You're not going to be scared anymore. They're going to be scared."

    ... ... ...

    In the negotiations for the Menie Estate in Scotland, Trump wore Tom Griffin down by making one outlandish demand after another and bargaining hard on even the most trivial issues of disagreement. He never quit fighting. "Sometimes, part of making a deal is denigrating your competition," Trump writes. When local residents refused to sell properties that Trump needed in order to finish the golf resort, he ridiculed them on the Late Show With David Letterman and in newspapers, describing the locals as rubes who lived in "disgusting" ramshackle hovels. As D'Antonio recounts in Never Enough, Trump's attacks incurred the enmity of millions in the British Isles, inspired an award-winning documentary highly critical of Trump (You've Been Trumped), and transformed a local farmer and part-time fisherman named Michael Forbes into a national hero. After painting the words no golf course on his barn and telling Trump he could "take his money and shove it up his arse," Forbes received the 2012 Top Scot honor at the Glenfiddich Spirit of Scotland Awards. (That same year, Trump's golf course was completed nonetheless. He promised that its construction would create 1,200 permanent jobs in the Aberdeen area, but to date, only about 200 have been documented.)

    Trump's recommendations for successful deal making include less antagonistic strategies: "protect the downside" (anticipate what can go wrong), "maximize your options," "know your market," "get the word out," and "have fun." As president, Trump would negotiate better trade deals with China, he says, guarantee a better health-care system by making deals with pharmaceutical companies and hospitals, and force Mexico to agree to a deal whereby it would pay for a border wall. On the campaign trail, he has often said that he would simply pick up the phone and call people-say, a CEO wishing to move his company to Mexico-in order to make propitious deals for the American people.

    Trump's focus on personal relationships and one-on-one negotiating pays respect to a venerable political tradition. For example, a contributor to Lyndon B. Johnson's success in pushing through civil-rights legislation and other social programs in the 1960s was his unparalleled expertise in cajoling lawmakers. Obama, by contrast, has been accused of failing to put in the personal effort needed to forge close and productive relationships with individual members of Congress.

    ... ... ...

    For psychologists, it is almost impossible to talk about Donald Trump without using the word narcissism. Asked to sum up Trump's personality for an article in Vanity Fair, Howard Gardner, a psychologist at Harvard, responded, "Remarkably narcissistic." George Simon, a clinical psychologist who conducts seminars on manipulative behavior, says Trump is "so classic that I'm archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there's no better example" of narcissism. "Otherwise I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He's like a dream come true."

    When I walk north on Michigan Avenue in Chicago, where I live, I often stop to admire the sleek tower that Trump built on the Chicago River. But why did he have to stencil his name in 20‑foot letters across the front? As nearly everybody knows, Trump has attached his name to pretty much everything he has ever touched-from casinos to steaks to a so-called university that promised to teach students how to become rich. Self-references pervade Trump's speeches and conversations, too. When, in the summer of 1999, he stood up to offer remarks at his father's funeral, Trump spoke mainly about himself. It was the toughest day of his own life, Trump began. He went on to talk about Fred Trump's greatest achievement: raising a brilliant and renowned son. As Gwenda Blair writes in her three-generation biography of the Trump family, The Trumps, "the first-person singular pronouns, the I and me and my, eclipsed the he and his. Where others spoke of their memories of Fred Trump, [Donald] spoke of Fred Trump's endorsement."

    ... Highly narcissistic people are always trying to draw attention to themselves. Repeated and inordinate self-reference is a distinguishing feature of their personality.

    Narcissism in presidents is a double-edged sword. It is associated with historians' ratings of "greatness"-but also with impeachment resolutions.

    To consider the role of narcissism in Donald Trump's life is to go beyond the dispositional traits of the social actor-beyond the high extroversion and low agreeableness, beyond his personal schemata for decision making-to try to figure out what motivates the man. What does Donald Trump really want? What are his most valued life goals?

    Narcissus wanted, more than anything else, to love himself. People with strong narcissistic needs want to love themselves, and they desperately want others to love them too-or at least admire them, see them as brilliant and powerful and beautiful, even just see them, period. The fundamental life goal is to promote the greatness of the self, for all to see. "I'm the king of Palm Beach," Trump told the journalist Timothy O'Brien for his 2005 book, TrumpNation. Celebrities and rich people "all come over" to Mar-a-Lago, Trump's exclusive Palm Beach estate. "They all eat, they all love me, they all kiss my ass. And then they all leave and say, 'Isn't he horrible.' But I'm the king."

    The renowned psychoanalytic theorist Heinz Kohut argued that narcissism stems from a deficiency in early-life mirroring: The parents fail to lovingly reflect back the young boy's (or girl's) own budding grandiosity, leaving the child in desperate need of affirmation from others. Accordingly, some experts insist that narcissistic motivations cover up an underlying insecurity. But others argue that there is nothing necessarily compensatory, or even immature, about certain forms of narcissism. Consistent with this view, I can find no evidence in the biographical record to suggest that Donald Trump experienced anything but a loving relationship with his mother and father. Narcissistic people like Trump may seek glorification over and over, but not necessarily because they suffered from negative family dynamics as children. Rather, they simply cannot get enough. The parental praise and strong encouragement that might reinforce a sense of security for most boys and young men may instead have added rocket fuel to Donald Trump's hot ambitions.

    Ever since grade school, Trump has wanted to be No. 1. Attending New York Military Academy for high school, he was relatively popular among his peers and with the faculty, but he did not have any close confidants. As both a coach and an admiring classmate recall in The Trumps, Donald stood out for being the most competitive young man in a very competitive environment. His need to excel-to be the best athlete in school, for example, and to chart out the most ambitious future career-may have crowded out intense friendships by making it impossible for him to show the kind of weakness and vulnerability that true intimacy typically requires.

    Whereas you might think that narcissism would be part of the job description for anybody aspiring to become the chief executive of the United States, American presidents appear to have varied widely on this psychological construct. In a 2013 Psychological Science research article, behavioral scientists ranked U.S. presidents on characteristics of what the authors called "grandiose narcissism." Lyndon Johnson scored the highest, followed closely by Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson. Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Nixon, and Clinton were next. Millard Fillmore ranked the lowest. Correlating these ranks with objective indices of presidential performance, the researchers found that narcissism in presidents is something of a double-edged sword. On the positive side, grandiose narcissism is associated with initiating legislation, public persuasiveness, agenda setting, and historians' ratings of "greatness." On the negative side, it is also associated with unethical behavior and congressional impeachment resolutions.

    In business, government, sports, and many other arenas, people will put up with a great deal of self-serving and obnoxious behavior on the part of narcissists as long as the narcissists continually perform at high levels. Steve Jobs was, in my opinion, every bit Trump's equal when it comes to grandiose narcissism. He heaped abuse on colleagues, subordinates, and friends; cried, at age 27, when he learned that Time magazine had not chosen him to be Man of the Year; and got upset when he received a congratulatory phone call, following the iPad's introduction in 2010, from President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, rather than the president himself. Unlike Trump, he basically ignored his kids, to the point of refusing to acknowledge for some time that one of them was his.

    Psychological research demonstrates that many narcissists come across as charming, witty, and charismatic upon initial acquaintance. They can attain high levels of popularity and esteem in the short term. As long as they prove to be successful and brilliant-like Steve Jobs-they may be able to weather criticism and retain their exalted status. But more often than not, narcissists wear out their welcome. Over time, people become annoyed, if not infuriated, by their self-centeredness. When narcissists begin to disappoint those whom they once dazzled, their descent can be especially precipitous. There is still truth today in the ancient proverb: Pride goeth before the fall.

    ... ... ...

    In middle age, George W. Bush formulated a life story that traced the transformation of a drunken ne'er-do-well into a self-regulated man of God. Key events in the story were his decision to marry a steady librarian at age 31, his conversion to evangelical Christianity in his late 30s, and his giving up alcohol forever the day after his 40th birthday party. By atoning for his sins and breaking his addiction, Bush was able to recover the feeling of control and freedom that he had enjoyed as a young boy growing up in Midland, Texas. Extending his narrative to the story of his country, Bush believed that American society could recapture the wholesome family values and small-town decency of yesteryear, by embracing a brand of compassionate conservatism.

    ... ... ...

    Donald Trump grew up in a wealthy 1950s family with a mother who was devoted to the children and a father who was devoted to work. Parked in front of their mansion in Jamaica Estates, Queens, was a Cadillac for him and a Rolls-Royce for her. All five Trump children-Donald was the fourth-enjoyed a family environment in which their parents loved them and loved each other. And yet the first chapter in Donald Trump's story, as he tells it today, expresses nothing like Bush's gentle nostalgia or Obama's curiosity. Instead, it is saturated with a sense of danger and a need for toughness: The world cannot be trusted.

    Fred Trump made a fortune building, owning, and managing apartment complexes in Queens and Brooklyn. On weekends, he would occasionally take one or two of his children along to inspect buildings. "He would drag me around with him while he collected small rents in tough sections of Brooklyn," Donald recalls in Crippled America. "It's not fun being a landlord. You have to be tough." On one such trip, Donald asked Fred why he always stood to the side of the tenant's door after ringing the bell. "Because sometimes they shoot right through the door," his father replied. While Fred's response may have been an exaggeration, it reflected his worldview. He trained his sons to be tough competitors, because his own experience taught him that if you were not vigilant and fierce, you would never survive in business. His lessons in toughness dovetailed with Donald's inborn aggressive temperament. "Growing up in Queens, I was a pretty tough kid," Trump writes. "I wanted to be the toughest kid in the neighborhood."

    Fred applauded Donald's toughness and encouraged him to be a "killer," but he was not too keen about the prospects of juvenile delinquency. His decision to send his 13-year-old son off to military school, so as to alloy aggression with discipline, followed Donald's trip on the subway into Manhattan, with a friend, to purchase switchblades. As Trump tells it decades later, New York Military Academy was "a tough, tough place. There were ex–drill sergeants all over the place." The instructors "used to beat the shit out of you; those guys were rough."

    Military school reinforced the strong work ethic and sense of discipline Trump had learned from his father. And it taught him how to deal with aggressive men, like his intimidating baseball coach, Theodore Dobias:

    What I did, basically, was to convey that I respected his authority, but that he didn't intimidate me. It was a delicate balance. Like so many strong guys, Dobias had a tendency to go for the jugular if he smelled weakness. On the other hand, if he sensed strength but you didn't try to undermine him, he treated you like a man.

    ... ... ...

    In Trump's own words from a 1981 People interview, the fundamental backdrop for his life narrative is this: "Man is the most vicious of all animals, and life is a series of battles ending in victory or defeat." The protagonist of this story is akin to what the great 20th-century scholar and psychoanalyst Carl Jung identified in myth and folklore as the archetypal warrior. According to Jung, the warrior's greatest gifts are courage, discipline, and skill; his central life task is to fight for what matters; his typical response to a problem is to slay it or otherwise defeat it; his greatest fear is weakness or impotence. The greatest risk for the warrior is that he incites gratuitous violence in others, and brings it upon himself.

    Trump loves boxing and football, and once owned a professional football team. In the opening segment of The Apprentice, he welcomes the television audience to a brutal Darwinian world:

    New York. My city. Where the wheels of the global economy never stop turning. A concrete metropolis of unparalleled strength and purpose that drives the business world. Manhattan is a tough place. This island is the real jungle. If you're not careful, it can chew you up and spit you out. But if you work hard, you can really hit it big, and I mean really big.

    The story here is not so much about making money. As Trump has written, "money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score." The story instead is about coming out on top.

    As president, Donald Trump promises, he would make America great again. In Crippled America, he says that a first step toward victory is building up the armed forces: "Everything begins with a strong military. Everything." The enemies facing the United States are more terrifying than those the hero has confronted in Queens and Manhattan. "There has never been a more dangerous time," Trump says. Members of isis "are medieval barbarians" who must be pursued "relentlessly wherever they are, without stopping, until every one of them is dead." Less frightening but no less belligerent are our economic competitors, like the Chinese. They keep beating us. We have to beat them.

    Andrew Jackson displayed many of the same psychological qualities that we see in Trump.

    Economic victory is one thing; starting and winning real wars is quite another. In some ways, Trump appears to be less prone to military action than certain other candidates. He has strongly criticized George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003, and has cautioned against sending American troops to Syria.

    That said, I believe there is good reason to fear Trump's incendiary language regarding America's enemies. David Winter, a psychologist at the University of Michigan, analyzed U.S. presidential inaugural addresses and found that those presidents who laced their speeches with power-oriented, aggressive imagery were more likely than those who didn't to lead the country into war. The rhetoric that Trump uses to characterize both his own life story and his attitudes toward America's foes is certainly aggressive. And, as noted, his extroversion and narcissism suggest a willingness to take big risks-actions that history will remember. Tough talk can sometimes prevent armed conflict, as when a potential adversary steps down in fear. But belligerent language may also incite nationalistic anger..., and provoke the rival nations at whom Trump takes aim.

    ... ... ...

    Nearly two centuries ago, President Andrew Jackson displayed many of the same psychological characteristics we see in Donald Trump-the extroversion and social dominance, the volatile temper, the shades of narcissism, the populist authoritarian appeal. Jackson was, and remains, a controversial figure in American history. Nonetheless, it appears that Thomas Jefferson had it wrong when he characterized Jackson as completely unfit to be president, a dangerous man who choked on his own rage. In fact, Jackson's considerable success in dramatically expanding the power of the presidency lay partly in his ability to regulate his anger and use it strategically to promote his agenda.

    What's more, Jackson personified a narrative that inspired large parts of America and informed his presidential agenda. His life story appealed to the common man because Jackson himself was a common man-one who rose from abject poverty and privation to the most exalted political position in the land. Amid the early rumblings of Southern secession, Jackson mobilized Americans to believe in and work hard for the Union. The populism that his detractors feared would lead to mob rule instead connected common Americans to a higher calling-a sovereign unity of states committed to democracy. The Frenchman Michel Chevalier, a witness to American life in the 1830s, wrote that the throngs of everyday people who admired Jackson and found sustenance and substance for their own life story in his "belong to history, they partake of the grand; they are the episodes of a wondrous epic which will bequeath a lasting memory to posterity, that of the coming of democracy."

    Who, really, is Donald Trump? What's behind the actor's mask? I can discern little more than narcissistic motivations and a complementary personal narrative about winning at any cost. It is as if Trump has invested so much of himself in developing and refining his socially dominant role that he has nothing left over to create a meaningful story for his life, or for the nation. It is always Donald Trump playing Donald Trump, fighting to win, but never knowing why.

    [May 20, 2016] Quelle Surprise! US Big Business Prefers Clinton to Trump by 21 Margin

    Goldwater girl was virtually on a par with John Kasich among big Republican donors
    Notable quotes:
    "... The thing about the Clintons is that they are, as politicians, honest. When bought, they stay bought. Hence their popularity with businesses. Trump is far too much of a wheeler dealer to stay bought, this is what seems to worry the oligarchy. ..."
    "... Later, I developed an alternate theory for why Obama and Clinton were pushed front. As President, either could be trusted to betray their base and lose badly, divide their base (and give them no motive to energize them) setting the stage for zombie resurrection of the Republicans in 2010 - and also, continue the Republican militaristic anti-civll-liberties, shadow-bank friendly, torture-friendly Bush policies. I have no idea if either theory was correct. ..."
    "... 2016: A year ago, we had the media pushing Clinton hard, as this implacable juggernaut, with opponents portrayed as annoying gnats at her heels. Sanders came up and got coverage, perhaps because of his major fundraising, perhaps because he was another candidate they could trust. Other candidates got minimal coverage. ..."
    "... So: are they being set up for the Fall again? Or is Clinton being engineered as our next President? ..."
    "... Does anyone *really* believe that Clinton will break up the huge shadow banking system? Prosecute the fraudclosers, prosecute the banksters, prosecute the torturers, stop the "humanitarian bombing" and so forth? ..."
    "... Does anyone *really* believe that Clinton will break up the huge shadow banking system? Prosecute the fraudclosers, prosecute the banksters, prosecute the torturers, stop the "humanitarian bombing" and so forth? ..."
    "... The only people who believe that are the people who also believe that is what Obama will do. ..."
    naked capitalism

    Politico reported in early May, when Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, that the Clinton campaign started calling major Republican donors almost immediately , pitching her as the natural candidate for them. Many of the recipients were cool to the appear, reasoning that Clinton would probably prevail regardless. But that was before the polls showed that Trump becoming the virtually official Republican nominee meant he quickly moved in national polls to score a mere few points behind Clinton, when the widespread assumption had been that he would top out at a much lower level.

    And it's not as if Clinton didn't already have real pull among big Republican givers. This chart from Time Magazine shows as of late 2015 where 2012 Romney donors were sending their Presidential bucks in this cycle. You can see that Clinton was virtually on a par with John Kasich

    The Financial Times surveyed major US business groups and found they greatly prefer Clinton . Mind you, "greatly prefer" translates as "loathes Trump, deems her to be less obviously terrible." Clinton is a status quo candidate, and as much as she would probably shake her finger at businessmen more than they'd like, she won't break any big rice bowls. From the Financial Times :

    In the most comprehensive survey to date of business views on the US election, half of the trade groups who responded to the FT said they would break from the traditional party of business to back Mrs Clinton - despite reservations about the Democratic front-runner's candidacy.

    Only a quarter of respondents preferred Mr Trump, who has run a caustic campaign marked by populist attacks on business. But support for Mrs Clinton was often lukewarm, sparked more by alarm over the presumptive Republican nominee than enthusiasm for her..

    The FT polled 53 Washington-based trade associations and received responses from 16 of them that lobby for nearly 100,000 businesses with combined annual revenues of more than $3.5tn. A quarter of respondents said they could not decide which candidate would be best for business because it was too early to judge their policy platforms, or replied "none of the above".

    Several trade groups expressed dismay that for the first time in living memory they faced a presidential race without a clear pro-business candidate, dashing their hopes of a new dawn after nearly eight years of what they see as over-regulation by the Obama administration.

    Mr [Bill] Reinsch, speaking shortly before retiring from his trade group [companies ranging from Cisco to General Electric to Procter & Gamble ] this month, added: "The other thing [companies] want is predictability, which is the antithesis of Trump, who brags about being unpredictable."…

    The business groups that said they would prefer Mrs Clinton tended to represent more internationally-minded members in fast-moving or technology-dependent sectors. The smaller core of Trump support came from more domestic-oriented sectors and those hurt by the Democratic causes of environmentalism and trade unions.

    PlutoniumKun , May 19, 2016 at 10:10 am

    The thing about the Clintons is that they are, as politicians, honest. When bought, they stay bought. Hence their popularity with businesses. Trump is far too much of a wheeler dealer to stay bought, this is what seems to worry the oligarchy.

    John Morrison , May 19, 2016 at 10:38 am

    I've been wondering… What will really happen in the Fall? All I know is that things will be interesting, as in cursed. Past history, as I remember: In 2000, the media was quite nice to Candidate Bush - someone they could sit down and have a beer with. He was the front-runner before a single primary or caucus was held. Contrast with the serial lying about Candidate Gore, accompanied by serious coverage of third-party Candidate Nader's campaign.

    2008: on the Democratic side, Obama and Clinton were front-runners before a single primary or caucus was held. My idea back then was that whoever would win would be set up for the Fall (note the pun). Clinton was subject to the Clinton Rules. Obama had the worst post-9/11 name possible for a Presidential candidate, not to mention being black.

    Of course, economic reality intervened. Later, I developed an alternate theory for why Obama and Clinton were pushed front. As President, either could be trusted to betray their base and lose badly, divide their base (and give them no motive to energize them) setting the stage for zombie resurrection of the Republicans in 2010 - and also, continue the Republican militaristic anti-civll-liberties, shadow-bank friendly, torture-friendly Bush policies. I have no idea if either theory was correct.

    In 2012, we had minimal coverage of primarying Obama, or of third-party candidates.

    2016: A year ago, we had the media pushing Clinton hard, as this implacable juggernaut, with opponents portrayed as annoying gnats at her heels. Sanders came up and got coverage, perhaps because of his major fundraising, perhaps because he was another candidate they could trust. Other candidates got minimal coverage.

    So: are they being set up for the Fall again? Or is Clinton being engineered as our next President?

    Does anyone *really* believe that Clinton will break up the huge shadow banking system? Prosecute the fraudclosers, prosecute the banksters, prosecute the torturers, stop the "humanitarian bombing" and so forth?

    Vatch , May 19, 2016 at 10:43 am

    Does anyone *really* believe that Clinton will break up the huge shadow banking system? Prosecute the fraudclosers, prosecute the banksters, prosecute the torturers, stop the "humanitarian bombing" and so forth?

    The only people who believe that are the people who also believe that is what Obama will do.

    [May 20, 2016] Booker 'Let Bernie make his own decisions'

    www.politico.com

    POLITICO

    Adam Sinclair · Charlton, Massachusetts Hillary Clinton simply doesn't have enough delegates or votes to win the Democratic Primary. She is mathematically incapable of winning at this juncture and therefore must rely on her paid Superdelegaters to award her the nomination.

    If the Superdelegate are truly interested in defeating Donald Trump and NOT alienating the largest block of generational voters in the country...they will select Sanders as the nonminee. If they do not select Sanders not only with the Democratic Party lose to Trump but they will cease to be a viable political party in future elections.

    Without the MASSIVE ... See More Like · Reply · 3 · 4 hrs 李淼然 Barack Obama needed around 300-400 superdelegates to push him over the line. Pretty much every Democratic nominee (outside of incumbent presidents) had to use superdelegates to get past the threshold. As far as I can remember, since the modern application of the delegate system in the Democratic nomination system, every single non-incumbent candidate had to use superdelegates.

    So, my question is - why are you holding Clinton to a higher standard to win the Democratic nomination? She doesn't have to get the majority of the pledged delegates, she just has to get the majority of the delegates (s ... See More Like · Reply · 7 · 4 hrs · Edited Adam Sinclair · Charlton, Massachusetts 李淼然 Clinton will not win the Primary. She doesn't have the delegates. Voters are totally irrelevant in the Superdelegate Primary system.

    If Superdelegates exist to prevent idiot voters from nominating an obvious general election loser...then clearly they should support Bernie Sanders right? Like · Reply · 3 hrs Adam Sinclair · Charlton, Massachusetts Yes. Hillary tied/won the popular vote but the Establishment wanted Obama so they gave all of Michigan's "undecided" votes to Obama even though he wasn't on the ballot there. The superdelegates went with him bc, lets face it, Obama is a WAY more amiable human being than Hillary.

    The establishment has been forcing candidates on us for a long time. Obama promptly sold out to Wall Street after being elected. No prosecutions. Not one. Cheryl Onstad Adam Sinclair Obama also won the popular vote by a slim margin. Supers went with Obama because he won the pledged delegates. You are making things up.

    [May 07, 2016] The smug Clinton acolytes blame the voters, always deflect blame

    Notable quotes:
    "... Wasserman is a great replacement for him as a stunningly inept strategist. "In the summer of 1994, Coelho was the principal Democratic political strategist during the run-up to the mid-term Congressional elections. Officially, he was Senior Advisor to the Democratic National Committee. ..."
    "... The Republican Party won a landslide victory in the fall congressional elections, capturing both the House and Senate by commanding margins." ..."
    "... I was trying to be "polite" to temper the rage I feel at these dishonest people who pretend they even comprehend the word progressive and neatly sidestep the role the Koch Brothers played. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    Kevin P Brown -> TeeJayzed Addy 4 May 2016 17:17

    Bill and Obama seem to follow the strategy to lose the house and senate. But the smug Clinton acolytes blame the voters. Always deflect blame eh?

    Wasserman is a great replacement for him as a stunningly inept strategist. "In the summer of 1994, Coelho was the principal Democratic political strategist during the run-up to the mid-term Congressional elections. Officially, he was Senior Advisor to the Democratic National Committee.

    The Republican Party won a landslide victory in the fall congressional elections, capturing both the House and Senate by commanding margins."

    Kevin P Brown -> TeeJayzed Addy , 2016-05-04 22:13:28

    I was trying to be "polite" to temper the rage I feel at these dishonest people who pretend they even comprehend the word progressive and neatly sidestep the role the Koch Brothers played.

    Now we get more of the same. I am part of the 1% financially but I was raised to understand it was all going to get better for the poor.

    But yeah must have been Fox news who MADE Bill get into bed with these creeps. I can't sit back smugly and proclaim I am alright jack I have 4 kids and I am horrified the world they will inherit.

    [May 07, 2016] I agree, Hillary is worse, and scarier than Trump. Hillary will justify her interventionist wars and terrible trade deals with slick, plastic, professional language which will fool some people into thinking she knows what she is doing.

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is a constant whining from the Clinton side about Fox news smears etc. One would believe that with all her supposed experience, she lacked the imagination to see the consequences of her actions with the email. Myself, this is just one indicator among many that she has learned nothing, her experience is flawed as her judgement is time and time again flawed. ..."
    "... The Kochs helped finance the Democratic Leadership Committee with Bill, Hill, McAuliffe, Tony Coelho (remember him?) and the rest of the "Third Way" Democrats who whored themselves to the first wave of christian-jihadist-wacko GOP congressmen swept into power in 1994, and it was all downhill from there, with the Republicans writing draconian legislation, the Dems rolling over, and Dirty Little Billy claiming it as a Great Leap Forward. ..."
    "... Much as I despise Drumpf it worked for him, he openly railed against the GOP establishment which fought him to the bitter end with their last champions pulling out of the race. The people had spoken (most of it crazy talk), but the Democrats can't ignore the anti-Clinton sentiment. Bernie was a nobody at the beginning because all the focus was on Clinton, but more coverage was given to Bernie and people got to know what he stood for things have changed. ..."
    "... For example, what about the deregulation of Wall Street by President Clinton and the economic crisis eight years later, that after the next eight years Hillary Clinton took over half a million dollars from Goldman Sachs for three speeches? - Unintended consequence! ..."
    "... What about voting for the Iraq war at a time when Hillary Clinton was the leader of the Democrats in the US Congress and the loss of people and money that followed after that, not to mention the rise of terrorism as a consequence? - Unintended consequences, too! ..."
    "... What about turning Libya into a failed state, and exclamation, "We came, we saw, he [Gaddafi] died!", after which four US embassy staff, including Ambassador Stevens died, and after which Clinton lied to the American public about events that led to their deaths? - Unintended consequences! ..."
    "... And, last but not least, what about NAFTA and other international trade agreements, all of them supported by Clinton to this day, although deprived and still depriving millions of American workers from their jobs? - Unintended consequence! ..."
    "... I agree, Hillary is worse, and scarier than Trump. Hillary will justify her interventionist wars and terrible trade deals with slick, plastic, professional language which will fool some people into thinking she knows what she is doing. ..."
    "... A Shillary in denial... Do you need the NYT or Guardian to report it to make it true? Many of the biggest companies in the US-the biggest polluters, the biggest pharmaceutical companies, the biggest insurance companies, the biggest financial companies-gave to the Clinton foundation while she was Secretary of State and then they lobbied Secretary Clinton and the state department for "favors." Even foreign governments have given to the foundation, including that stalwart of democratic principles Saudi Arabia, who gave at least $10 million… Then magically they had a $26 billion plane deal with Boeing. ..."
    "... Alleged pragmatist, but more likely Hillary will actually be a pushover on social and economic issues and a hawk on foreign policy. She is more of a Republican than Trump. ..."
    "... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
    theguardian.com
    Kevin P Brown , 2016-05-04 21:19:27

    Ammunition : considerations that can be used to support one's case in debate

    There is a constant whining from the Clinton side about Fox news smears etc. One would believe that with all her supposed experience, she lacked the imagination to see the consequences of her actions with the email. Myself, this is just one indicator among many that she has learned nothing, her experience is flawed as her judgement is time and time again flawed.

    She has handed the FBI and Trump AMMUNITION. Not me, not you. She created this mess. Her supporters have 100% certainty that this particular issue is not an issue. They hand wave away the FBI. They shut down any discussion as just another smear manufactured out of thin air.

    Probity : the quality of having strong moral principles; honesty and decency

    We all get to decide each candidates probity. That I find her lacking is based on her actions alone, not on some lens provided by Fox news. If she were honest, she would admit that there is a risk. She states there is no risk. If her chickens come home to roost, we get Trump. Can I get odds from a bookie on the outcome of the FBI investigation? A genuine question as so many here revel in quoting the odds quoted by bookies.

    So lets gamble. Let's get to the race track and study form and history and see if the bookies have fully transparent info on all the factors leading to a win or loss. How have we come to be here? That we are is a sign of the dysfunction we live in politically. Clinton is now immune to all present and future critical thinking because ...... because she was smeared in the pass. Free pass. Sometimes ..... sometimes the King is actually naked and no one cares to call attention to that reality.

    TeeJayzed Addy -> Kevin P Brown , 2016-05-04 21:16:18
    It was not simply an "entanglement".

    The Kochs helped finance the Democratic Leadership Committee with Bill, Hill, McAuliffe, Tony Coelho (remember him?) and the rest of the "Third Way" Democrats who whored themselves to the first wave of christian-jihadist-wacko GOP congressmen swept into power in 1994, and it was all downhill from there, with the Republicans writing draconian legislation, the Dems rolling over, and Dirty Little Billy claiming it as a Great Leap Forward.

    list12345 , 2016-05-04 21:14:04
    "Shock victory" is another example of lazy, factually incorrect mass media journalism. Bernie ran an on the ground campaign in Indiana for 2 moths prior to yesterday's primary win. I should know, as our family did volunteer door-to-door canvasing for the first time over a couple weekends. We also attended the rally on Monday and it was great!

    Don't give up Bernie supporters, as we have momentum! Bernie's an honest man with fair and just principles. Our country needs such a leader and not another paid-off crony or deranged man-child.

    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 21:01:18
    "Haven't you pissed off minority voters enough?"

    Again as always a deflection from the real point, documented over and over as to the long tanking DLC led strategy of leading with Southern States. Nothing to do with blacks, everything to do with Southern Conservatives. But yes, as always intellectually "honest". Innuendo. You choose to ignore the systems and structures put in place for reasons. I choose to see them.

    People like you choose to ignore the DLC history and the entanglement with the Koch Brothers who were so so happy Bill Clinton pushed the DNC into Republican territory, while we are all supposed to pretend that because the GOP is so bad bad bad, it gives a free pass to the DNC for the right wards ever rightwards shifting and the bandying of progressiveness on social issues that cost nothing, and the true position of the modern DLC as a money machine, with a purpose of existing to garner power.

    All you "progressives" love to talk about angry white man yet have zero answer to :

    ""In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000. Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."

    The fact that the above enrages me matters not to you, as you have your BernieBro Angry White man meme to deflect from real discussion about solutions. The real solution starts with getting the politicians beholden to the voters alone, not to corporate interests. That is Job One. Once that blockade is removed, then we can move on to poverty and violence as immutable links and solving them. 85% ...... 85% of the American people agree with this action. is it difficult? Yes. Wont happen however if we demand on smug entitled people throwing deflections and memes all over the place. "I am all right Jack, fuck you" should be the bumper-sticker of the Clinton supporters.

    Eugene Harvey -> Palomina , 2016-05-04 20:54:08
    Much as I despise Drumpf it worked for him, he openly railed against the GOP establishment which fought him to the bitter end with their last champions pulling out of the race. The people had spoken (most of it crazy talk), but the Democrats can't ignore the anti-Clinton sentiment. Bernie was a nobody at the beginning because all the focus was on Clinton, but more coverage was given to Bernie and people got to know what he stood for things have changed.

    The question for the Democrats is who is more likely to win the General against Drumpf? Who is more likely to win over the swing votes of those not affiliated to a party?

    The message is load and clear there is a lot of anti-establishment sentiment out there and Clinton is firmly seen as part of it.
    Drumpf having won his first leg of the race will no doubt moderate his rhetoric to appeal to a broader audience and look to grab a larger portion of the swing votes.

    In the bigger picture, Sanders is more likely to succeed against Drumof than the institutional Clinton.

    nnedjo , 2016-05-04 20:28:06
    If you ask, what is the purpose of the election, the answer is, elections should be used for two things:

    Now, if you look at these elections, you will notice that this is totally turned upside down in the case of Hillary Clinton.

    Her husband has created mass incarceration, and she, as the first lady, was the main promoter of it. And now she says, "Oops, that was an 'unintended consequence'! That is to say, over two million people in prison, many of which serve a sentence for minor offenses is an 'unintended consequence'''

    OK, fine, but what about the fact that she has got the money from the prison lobby?

    If the first was an 'unintended consequence', the latter is certainly not. So these are the things for which in every country on earth some politician would lose any chance to enter the next government. Provided that the politicians are held accountable for their previous actions, which is obviously not the case in the US.

    And, this is just one of the things for which Clinton can be held accountable.

    So, as you can see, this is quite a long list, but probably there's more of it that is not listed here, yet. And it will be even more of such "unintended consequences" if Hillary Clinton will be elected for the US president.

    Sandypaws -> RobInTN , 2016-05-04 20:27:29
    Hence why I said 'some form of revolt' instead of 'burn the party down rawr'. The party establishment firmly put themselves behind Clinton early on. This is indisputable. 40+ percent of primary voters went against this in some form. Some will still welcome Clinton, some will tolerate her, some will walk, but the act of voting against establishment preference is already some form of revolt.
    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 20:05:19
    You: "self-righteous crap"

    You:"his acolytes will just come up with another dumb ass reason "
    You: "Why didn't you just give it directly to Trump? "
    You: "Bernie, when all's said and done, is a fraud."
    You: "I never did trust politicians who hold mass rallies." ( Nice Nazi smear)
    You: " are already starting to misquote Bernie, and talk about how it's all the fault of "Jewish bankers" Smearing Sanders for your relatives jewish Smears
    You: "She doesn't pretend she's a damn rock star" Smear
    You: " I take it you are a Trump supporter now" Personal smear to me.
    You: "nihilistic" over and over again
    You: deleted reference ot Pope as child molester
    You: "His trip to kiss the Pope's ass was disgusting pandering" So their shared stance on global warming is irrelevant?
    You: "the ass of the world's most powerful homophobe"
    You: "But Bernie has always been a fraud" ( multiple repetitions of this)


    On and on....How self righteous are you?

    "personal insults from you"

    Really? What insults? Intellectually lazy? That is my assessment of you. Not intended as an insult but an assessment of who you are and how you think. Based on reading all of your posts. I pay attention. I find it interesting to figure out motivations.

    " I've got a right to my views"

    Indeed you do. Never ever asked you to to post.

    DebraBrown -> Bronxite , 2016-05-04 19:59:33
    I agree, Hillary is worse, and scarier than Trump. Hillary will justify her interventionist wars and terrible trade deals with slick, plastic, professional language which will fool some people into thinking she knows what she is doing.

    Hillary would be 8 more years of the Corporate Oligarchy cementing its hold on our process. Trump might last 4 years... then we can elect a real progressive.

    Sandypaws -> newageblues , 2016-05-04 19:51:46
    SoS is more extrapolation, based off the weakness of her credentials heading into the position. It should be remembered that her lack of experience in foreign policy was one of Obama's attack points in 2008, so to have him suddenly turn around and name her SoS is a bit odd. Specifically:
    The choice of Mrs. Clinton pleased many in the Democratic establishment who admire her strength and skills, and they praised Mr. Obama for putting the rancor of the campaign behind him. "Senator Clinton is a naturally gifted diplomat and would be an inspired choice if she is chosen by President-elect Obama as secretary of state," said Warren Christopher, who held that job under her husband.

    But it could also disappoint many of Mr. Obama's supporters, who worked hard to have him elected instead of Mrs. Clinton and saw him as a vehicle for changing Washington. Mr. Obama argued during the primaries that it was time to move beyond the Clinton era and in particular belittled her claims to foreign policy experience as a first lady who circled the globe."

    Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22obama.html?_r=0

    So read into that what you will.

    What -is- clear is that she got $17.5 million in personal cash out of the deal (Obama agreed to cover campaign debts, she lent her campaign 17.5 million).

    Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/clinton-in-negotiations-f_n_104823.html

    Bob Zavoda , 2016-05-04 19:32:29
    Don't be lulled into a false "horse race" depiction of an especially HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT, planetary-civilization-survival moment. A predominantly, establishment, bankster-owned media, are pushing this epic election of "Main Street vrs wall street", as just another election. Wrong! A fictiion! Lies!

    Over 60% of us didn't vote last election, BECAUSE, only liars and apologists for "empire" oligarchs were running. Today, we see Bernie and perhaps Dr. Stein of the Greens. Only "The Bern" gets media minimal coverage, because he is running as an "Democrat". Indiana and other "open" primaries show, time and time again, the rigged nature of a duopoly electoral fraud. The establishment, wall street banksters and their allies DO NOT, WILL NOT let Bernie win. Do the math and ONLY BERNIE CAN BEAT TRUMP! SO QUIT THE HORSE RACE BS and see the BERN! And jut maybe we will have an inhabitable planet for our grandchildren that is fun to live upon.

    DebraBrown -> Kevin P Brown , 2016-05-04 19:31:40
    Putting it another way... Bernie has made them all look like chumps. They say they cannot get elected without big corporate dollars. Bernie did not sell out, and he raised money easily. He makes the rest of the lousy corrupt bunch look like fools.

    DebraBrown -> macktan894 , 2016-05-04 19:28:51
    Hillary did not concede in 2008 until after ALL the states had voted. Even then, she waited 4 days. What happened between the last primary and 4 days later, when she finally conceded? NEGOTIATIONS. She laid down the terms under which she would support Obama -- all goodies for Hillary, because Hillary Is For Hillary, period.

    Bernie will use the clout we give him to negotiate on behalf of THE PEOPLE at the Democratic Convention. That's the difference between him and self-serving Hillary.

    Looking forward to voting for Bernie in California on June 7. Meanwhile, praying for the FBI to indict Hillary.

    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 19:27:01
    Yet for all her long name recognition, her second national presidential campaign, the superdelegates lined up before Sanders announced, with the cunning long term strategy of the DNC "southern firewall" designed to favour conservative candidates, despite all the power players endorsements, despite all the Superpac's, she still is not going to arrive at the convention with the required delegate count for victory. What does that tell us? I know what it tells me. It tells me that there are a lot of people who want more of a continuation of Obama Change. They want real change.

    So sure, she is "winning" a battle in a longer running war of ideas. Let's see how this plays out over the next 8 years.

    Kicking his ass by the way would have been if she reached the required pledged delegates months ago. She could not. Complacency is not a great stance in these times.

    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 19:18:45
    "he'd spend it helping progressive candidates"

    Like Hillary has done since 2008? Helping the same old hack politicians, using her cash and her name and yet the people refused to come out and reverse the largest loss of Democratic seats in modern history? Yeah, blame the voters, you have them all pegged. it's never the fault of the politicians is it, it is the lazy voters. Well there is another theory that explains Trump and Sanders: They are sick of the same bullshit put out by the DNC and the GOP. Taking Ted Kennedys seat as an example the safest DNC seat in the nation, decades it sat with the DNC and as soon as he dies, the DNC selects one of your hack ersatz progressives, throws Bill Clinton and Hillary and bags of cash and STILL loses the seat. Was there a message there worth listening to? Not to you, you blame the voters. No no no never blame the DNC. Blame the voters.

    The voters perhaps is tired of what is presented to them as a voting solution. So in the end, your way of doing things has led to voter frustration and here we have Trump. There is a lesson there. Listen or dot listen, but the people are venting there frustration. Trump is a populist disaster, but he is a symptom of a dysfunctional system that needs revision and revision now. But nah! Lets just throw cash into a cesspit of dysfunction.

    Also you sit smugly ignoring the FACTS of Clinton laundering State contributions back into her campaign, leaving little or nothing for State DNC budgets. Ah, you say, this is a smear from Fox news. Um. No. Do you think we are idiots? You must. I assure you we are not idiots. Good luck in November. You will need it.

    Kiara Kiki Jenkins -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 19:16:30
    Bernie hasn't attacked Hillary directly since New York, and he had every right to go after her then, because she was on full offense against Bernie at that time, too, so enough with the innocent victim garbage.
    HJWatermelon , 2016-05-04 19:13:12
    Bernie always does better in open primaries because of the Independent voters. They are more likely to vote Trump in the general election in my opinion. He is going to start hammering Clinton now he is the nominee.
    Bernie should stay in right 'til the end in case anything ever happens with one of the two Clinton investigations. I don't see anything happening now though as the private server investigation appears to have stalled.
    Regarding the second (the Clinton Foundation) the Supreme Court is about to legalise political corruption with the McDonnell case. If that happens democracy is effectively suspended anyway and this is a pointless reality show farce. Policies will be decided by the highest bidder. How can she have broken any laws if there aren't any?

    Good news for women's rights under Clinton though - whilst her Syria no-fly-zone might start WW3, women will probably get to be drafted as well as men...

    RobInTN -> Martin Thompson , 2016-05-04 19:10:49
    Couple of things about this statement

    'Lawyer Hillary who is trained in well being a lawyer she even was a defense lawyer helping someone she believed was guilty of rapeing a 13 year old girl who has said Hillary "put her thru hell"."

    "someone she believed was guilty of rapeing a 13 year old girl"

    Interesting. Clinton discussed what she was thinking at the time with you?

    Or are you suggesting that some accused people should not get legal representation?

    I'm intrigued by the "put her through hell" portion of it. Especially as the case was plea bargained out and never went to trial.

    Freedom54 , 2016-05-04 19:06:41
    It is effortless to identify the ardent obtuse "Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Supporters". Their verbiage and responses are always predicated on emotion and fiction versus an intellectual discourse based on factual information – Quite Like the Superficial Candidates that they blindly support. The 1% Billionaire Oligarchy Ruling Classes Owned Mass Media Outlets is intentionally protecting the Outed Racists Donald Trump and his female Clone Hillary Clinton from Public Scrutiny. They are salivating Like Pavlov's Dog for their "Ultimate Political Reality Show – The Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Presidential Race" waiting to cash-in and profit as they stage and promote their "False Democracy".
    Knowledge = Power = Real Freedom..!
    1. This is why "Anonymous" Noble, Righteous, True American Heroes and Freedom Fighters are stepping in to fill the Fourth Estate void abdicated by America's Billionaire Owned Media to provide the 99% the Truth.
    Anonymous – Message to Hillary Clinton:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTMaIX_JPE4
    Anonymous – Message to Donald Trump:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ciavyc6bE7A
    2. CBS CEO and Chief Leslie Moonves: Comments he made at an investor conference last month when he said, "The money is rolling in, and this is fun." Added Moonves: "They're not even talking about issues; they're throwing bombs at each other, and I think the advertising (revenue $) reflects that. This is going to be a very good year for us (CBS). Sorry, it's a terrible thing to say, but bring it on, Donald."
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/daily-show-host-trevor-noah-877273
    3. Why isn't the Media asking Hillary Clinton about the Podesta group in the Panama papers working with the corrupt, Kremlin-run Sberbank, and the two shell companies setup by Bill Clinton (WJC, LLC) and Hillary Clinton (ZFS Holdings, LLC) at a Delaware address (1209 North Orange Street Wilmington, Delaware) that are the same address as 285,000 other companies, many of which were in the Panama papers and linked to laundering and tax avoidance schemes?.
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/25/delaware-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton?CMP=share_btn_fb
    4. Why isn't the Media asking Hillary Clinton to Release the Transcripts from her numerous $275,000.00 Speeches to Goldman Sachs and the Other Wall Street Banks?
    https://youtu.be/3UkfsEeHUcg
    5. Why don't they ask Hillary Clinton if she would Prosecute her and her husband Bill Clinton's former "Trusted Deputy" Rahm Emanuel the current Mayor of Chicago for establishing a "Gulag" on American soil which allowed the Chicago police to covertly detain and torture more than 7000 people at the Secret Interrogation Center that completely ignored the American "Constitution" and the Bill of Rights at Homan Square?
    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/02/behind-the-disappeared-of-chicagos-homan-square/385964 /
    6. Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight- Hillary, the inevitable liar:
    https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI
    7. Hillary Clinton: A Career Criminal:
    https://youtu.be/kypl1MYuKDY
    8. Secretary Clinton Comments on the Passing of Robert Byrd her friend and mentor who is a documented Racist and KKK member:
    https://youtu.be/ryweuBVJMEA
    9. Bill Clinton ATTEMPTS to Justify Robert Byrd's KKK Membership:
    https://youtu.be/8Fg3XNTMzNo
    10. Hillary Clinton & NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio Make Awkward RACIST Joke About CP TIME Colored People Time
    https://youtu.be/pP3syBu4ZDM
    11. Black Lives Matter protesters repeatedly interrupt Bill Clinton in Philadelphia: https://youtu.be/xRrVI5gHVyo
    Can You Say Hypocrisy?
    The only Authentic and Honest Candidate is Bernie Sanders who wants to return America back into a Transparent Citizen Accountable Democracy for the 100%. This is why the Bernie Sanders Army of Noble and Righteous Citizens-the 99% will never Vote or Support either of the Illegitimate 1% Billionaire Anointed Candidates Like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Who Represent the Retention of a False Oligarchy Democracy and Everything That the Decent Noble and Righteous Citizens Despise, Compulsive Pathological Lying, Narcissism, and Insatiable Greed.
    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 19:03:07
    "So your plan is for Bernie's opponent to get arrested? "

    Not my plan. Each citizen in this country has a set of was that rule what they can and cannot do. Even Clinton. I have spent a long time explaining my logic of why I believe she has broken various laws. I as a citizen appreciate the FOIA. If you cannot handle the facts of her actions, then what can I say? To me it does not bode well how Clinton comports herself. To you it is not an issue. You choose to ignore the reality of a real and extended FBI investigation. Obama rules the DoJ and the FBI. If it were indeed only a political smear, then he has the power to force Comey to resign. It is not a function of me, it is a function of laws. The investigation not some fevered Fox News plot as much as you with it to be. I understand completely what she has done. I understand why she did what she did.

    Regarding the bolstering the party, it seems it does not bother you the games her suprpac has done with bending the rules just up to the breaking point.

    Frankly, sanders on the back of this, and his supporters need to build an organisation that can put up true progressives. Your opinion is team based, you accept year after year the shift of the DNC orphaning in to centrist republicans. Your choice. I choose not to support this. So that he refused to fund more the same old hack politicians is fine by me. He has over his career supported the DNC with vote after vote after vote. He had the courage to offer "democrats" a real choice in the primaries.

    You again ignore with your blather about mid term motivations the fact that the people would not support the DNC in 2010, 2012, and 2014. People are not stupid, and they see that the change Obama promised is never coming. We can distill into a simple slogan then rich are getting richer even as the American worker gets more and more productive, yet their share of the capitalist pie shrinks and shrinks. The common man sees that Obama care still is not the solution for him and his family when the average deductions are over 5000 a year on top of his premiums and the average coverage is 60% of costs when he gets sat the deductible. He is told about Gold Standard trade agreement negotiated in absolute secrecy, and that cause him discomfort. Some black families see : ""In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000. Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."" and understand for all of Clinton's triangulation there is nothing palpable to change that. He sees she is great at trotting up mothers of dead people and Black people as props to gain votes, and he see that perhaps Sanders Class based solutions will help him more, as maybe he is tired of racial divides and knows intuitively Clinton has no real solution to gun crime, spurred on by poverty, nor solutions to poverty itself.

    So get all huffy about the FBI investigation. I lived though the turmoil of Nixon and before his reelection I predicted that he would suffer, as my gut feeling led me to believe he was involved, that he had dirty hands. Continue to believe that genuine logical conclusions and issues are only a rehash of Fix news when they are not. Cheap and nasty way to deflect any and all valid criticism. Is Sanders perfect? far from it, but I believe I know what he stands for and how he thinks.

    "Bernie, when all's said and done, is a fraud."

    Funny but I have concluded that Clinton is a fraud. But you are welcome to vote as you wish. In the end, your fear of Trump? The risk is real and palpable that she will cause disarray to the party if the FBI fins what I believe is obvious, and the risk is her handing the election to Trump. To you? You don't care. You cannot and will not see the risk, preferring to hide like a gormless child behind tortured smear theories rather than standing up as an adult and properly assessing the real risks to the Democratic.

    All the pieces of what she did are there if you care to look. But nah! You are lazy intellectually and it is easier to blame Fox news than to actually look and ponder and conclude the evidence. As are most of the vociferous Clinton fans here. Intellectually lazy.

    DebraBrown , 2016-05-04 18:28:32
    Hillary wins closed primaries, where only the tribalized party faithful participate (and voter suppression and other shenanigans run rampant). Bernie wins open primaries and brings in millions of new voters. Democrats like me, Independents, even Republicans vote for Bernie.

    Newsflash: November will not be a closed primary.

    shepdavis -> PATROKLUS00 , 2016-05-04 18:21:37
    Got that right...

    She loses on the Big 3 Issues, war, Trade & "corruption" to Trumps words and Bernie's life walk. Dems are falling into dreamlala math- Hillary will get women (50%), Blacks (10%) & Hispanics "another 10%). How can she lose.

    Start with GOP women at the end will not vote her way. That BLack and Hispanic percentages are already baked in, and Trump will cater to men, not just white, on the basis avg men have been getting shafted for 40 years now.

    If there is a terror attack, Trump wins big. If the economy goes down he wins too.

    The tea leaves and tarot readers have been all wrong this election.

    & Hill is likely to lose most of the last primaries. Embarassing

    "Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected, and nothing will change." Barack Obama, 2008

    Bronxite -> ID7731327 , 2016-05-04 18:14:50
    Is that HRC new slogan, "Hillary is shit, but at least she's not as shitty as Trump"
    Actually I think she's worse. The DNC turns a blind eye every time she breaks the law, and tries to change the rules for her, but both the RNC and DNC will keep Trump on a short lease.
    scrjim , 2016-05-04 18:14:20
    The Guardian's anti-Bernie agenda is really quite off-putting. Even the article summary is patronising :

    "Despite trailing behind Hillary Clinton in polls, Sanders once again proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters by pulling off his 18th victory of 2016"

    The translation is that the Bernie Sanders constituency is backwards and centred around white males who have lost blue collar jobs to globalisation; in other words he appeals to people who want to turn back time. The inference is that Clinton's group is far broader, more cultured and more progressive. This is patently false. Sanders is popular with young people and with people who are passionate about politics. Clinton's constituency tends to be older and more conservative. Clinton is the establishment candidate Sanders is the beacon of hope.

    talenttruth -> RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-04 18:11:03
    No surprise there. As is it no surprise that ABC is a "subsidiary" of The Walt Disney Company, which has been to the right of Attila-the-Hun since "sweet grandfatherly Walt" himself, who was practically a neo-Nazi politically. Need proof? Walt's cheerful cooperation with McCarthy's House Un American Activities persecution of anyone not sharing Adolph Hitler's political persuasion).

    Disney's movies have always exhibited that nauseating, fake, treacle "sweetness" which all fascists use as "cover" for their actual addiction to fear, hatred, tribalism and Orwellian manipulation.

    So we can hardly be "shocked, shocked, shocked" by ABC's gross "news" bias.

    How about NBC? It's been a corporate "investment football," recently boosted by Comcast from former owner General Electric. You KNOW they're both dedicated to impartial news reporting, right? HA HA HA

    How about CBS? Oh it's owned by Viacom, an "entertainment conglomerate," of course dedicated never to sensationalism or deliberate distraction of the public, but rather, to honest news reporting. Right.

    MSNBC? GE + Microsoft. That of course equals total devotion to unbiased and complete news reporting, even if the news WERE "bad for the Shareholders." Uh huh. (See the pigs flying by).

    CNN? Oh its "daddy" is Time Warner, another paragon of public-spirited democracy.

    Even PBS has fallen. Think that's a "radical statement?" The super right did a twofer on PBS: (1) cut its government funding so as to make it terrified and desperate and then (2) gradually brainwashed PBS into actually being another Corporate PR outlet.

    Non-commercial? PBS? IT LIVES ON CORPORATE ADS. And under those deliberately created survival pressures, even PBS news has collapsed into reporting all news like it's a trivial sports event - Never Delving Deeper, because its Corporate Overlords wouldn't like that.

    So, welcome to the reality of well-entrenched corporate fascism. For that, in part, we can thank Ronnie Puppet Reagan's reversal of a former 50-year policy which did not allow non-media corporations to "buy" the news. May that SOB continue to roast, whereever.

    Bernie Sanders would be all of these Corporate Overlord's worst nightmare. They would have to work "even harder" (yawn, pass the caviar), to blacklist, cover up, lie about the truth he would tell through his bully pulpit. Thus all of THEIR media outlets have worked like little beavers to Cancel the Cancer of Bernie, before he could cause real damage to The Entitled Domain. Ugh.

    PATROKLUS00 , 2016-05-04 18:10:21
    The Democrats, just as blind and foolish in their own way as the GOP, will make a tremendous mistake in nominating HRC. Anyone with an ounce of political insight can see the coming election is going to be about the revolt of the middle class against the Establishment and megacorporations that have been exploiting that class for at least two score years. The politically dimwitted and somnolent American middle class has finally come to realize how they have been used and abused and they aren't taking it anymore. They don't give a damn about foreign policy, single payer or anything else. They are furious at having been used and hoodwinked and they are in full revolt. The stupidity of the Democrats, in not seeing this and running an Avatar of the Establishment, HRC, will make the election very close with a good chance she will lose. Sanders can out Trump Trump on the anti-Establishment issue as polls clearly show, but the Dems are going to shoot themselves in the foot by coronating HRC. With Sanders they could probably sweep Congress also, but with HRC they will at best keep the White House and possibly a very narrow majority in the Senate. HRC is a poor campaigner with an unlikable personality, unlike Elizabeth Warren, and Trump will really mangle Hillary. With Sanders he will not be able to do that because Sanders easily can out anti-establishment Trump for, obviously, Trump too is of the 1% like HRC. There is the slim hope, forlorn as it may be, that the Democrat super-delegates, most of whom are political pros and thus focused on winning, will see the light and nominate Sanders. But the Democrats are usually reliably stupid so look forward to a cliff-hanger in November and very possibly a President Trump.
    DebraBrown , 2016-05-04 18:10:20
    Hillary did not concede in 2008 until after the last state finished voting. The counting was done, and Obama had more delegates. Even then, she waited 4 days before conceding. What went on during those 4 days? Negotiations. No way a super-predator politician like Hillary Clinton was just going to give in, without getting something for herself.

    Here's what Hillary got out of the deal: a cabinet post, Obama's promise of support for her next bid in 2016, and Obama's help paying off her 2008 campaign debt.

    The difference with Bernie is that he is not in this for himself. Bernie stepped up to the plate because America deserves better than another Corporate Tool Politician. When Bernie goes to the convention, he will not be negotiating for himself. He will be fighting for ALL OF US. Bernie fights for The People.

    This is why we need to give him as many delegates as possible. I look forward to voting for Bernie in California on June 7. Furthermore, speaking as a middle aged feminist who has been a registered Dem for 35 years -- I will NEVER vote for Hillary.

    sbabcock -> LanaCvi , 2016-05-04 18:04:13
    A Shillary in denial... Do you need the NYT or Guardian to report it to make it true? Many of the biggest companies in the US-the biggest polluters, the biggest pharmaceutical companies, the biggest insurance companies, the biggest financial companies-gave to the Clinton foundation while she was Secretary of State and then they lobbied Secretary Clinton and the state department for "favors." Even foreign governments have given to the foundation, including that stalwart of democratic principles Saudi Arabia, who gave at least $10 million… Then magically they had a $26 billion plane deal with Boeing.

    Is that what you're voting for? Does that sound like someone with integrity? hate to break it to you that this information isn't found only on right wing websites. Inform yourself. Can't you see why she'd play games with email? It's all right there, in your face.

    WhiteMale -> cliffstep , 2016-05-04 17:48:28
    Alleged pragmatist, but more likely Hillary will actually be a pushover on social and economic issues and a hawk on foreign policy. She is more of a Republican than Trump.
    Manami , 2016-05-04 17:33:14
    Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!

    The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it.

    [May 07, 2016] Ive been in your position, Ted Cruz. Heres some post-campaign advice by Wendy R Davis

    www.theguardian.com

    While there are plenty of differences (too many for a single column), I am more than happy to share a few nuggets of wisdom I learned post-election with the Gentleman from Texas to help him readjust to life off-the-trail.

    Consider a hobby, but choose carefully

    Not cards. Maybe you'll be invited to play cards with some of the boys. But I would caution you that now is not the right time. Donald Trump "played the woman card" before you, and it isn't turning out so well for him. And he's already doing better than you are.

    Not travel (at least not to New York City). You may be tempted to get away with Heidi and the kids to see a Broadway show (I hear Hamilton is amazing). But given that "New York values" comment you made, you may not be welcome there.

    Not reading the same old thing. You can really only read Green Eggs and Ham on the Senate floor once before it becomes cliché. I've got a well-worn copy of The Feminine Mystique I can lend you.

    Maybe Twitter? I know it helped to propel Mr Trump to his ultimate victory in the Republican primary. Rest assured – you'll find kindred spirits online (we call yours "trolls", but that is neither here nor there). In fact, I've made incredible friends on Twitter; @FullFrontalSamB and I were talking about you there just the other day actually! And I've had insightful and amusing conversations with amazing change-makers like Ellen Page, Kerry Washington, Cecile Richards and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. I am sure that @AnnCoulter can't wait to dive deep into a high-minded and compelling Twitter discourse with you.

    Enjoy time with your friends

    Following my loss, I found solace and comfort with my daughters and friends. I know Heidi and the kids can't wait to have you home. Don't fret – Heidi will get over that elbow to her face after your campaign suspension speech the other night. Plus, now you can call up Carly – unless her friendship only lasts as long as her tenure as VP candidate, in which case you may be getting sent to her voicemail about as fast as you'll be sent to Paul Ryan's.

    Speaking of which, I'm sure your Senate colleagues will be thrilled to see you. Lindsay Graham said as much: "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you." Oh, wait. Surely he just meant, "If Ted Cruz killed it on the floor of the Senate…"

    Get back to work

    Your work friends are the perfect segue into my last bit of advice: embrace your job and work hard upon your return. I am sure that, like me, you embrace the calling to public service. While I had to resign from the Texas State Senate to run for governor, you didn't have to leave the US Senate to run for president. That's great! It means you can jump right back into the critical work of legislating. With all the work that the Senate is doing right now – meeting with appointees to the US supreme court and holding hearings to confirm a new Secretary of the Army, passing budgets – wait, none of that is getting done. Well, you will fit right back in nonetheless given your penchant for shutting down the government when you don't get your way.

    Perhaps 2017 will be better; think of how busy you'll be battling all those gender equity initiatives that Hillary Clinton will launch as president, advancing the revolutionary ideas of equal pay, reproductive autonomy and family leave policies!

    As for me, I've been hard at work since my own run to build Deeds Not Words, a community of millennial women passionate about creating positive change (hopefully one of them will one day maneuver to take your job). In the meantime, though, think how fortunate you'll be to tell your grandchildren one day that you had the honor of serving under your nation's first woman president.

    [May 07, 2016] US election: What will Clinton v Trump look like? by Anthony Zurcher

    What is important that Hillary past provides so many powerful and easy avenues of attack on her (and she in not a Democrat; she is a neocon, warmonger neoliberal, hell bent on US world domination) that it is easy to be distracted by this excessive menu :-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Then there's that Sanders factor. The Vermont senator has presented an unexpected challenge to Mrs Clinton. His attacks on her past support for trade deals and her ties to the current political establishment have drawn blood. ..."
    "... It seems the Republican was already testing lines of attack in his victory speech on Tuesday night. He brought up Mrs Clinton's support for coal regulations that have caused unemployment in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio. He mentioned that Bill Clinton backed the North America Trade Agreement, which he called "the single worst trade deal". ..."
    "... If Mr Trump can put the Midwest in play, that previously mentioned electoral tilt may not be so imposing after all. ..."
    "... Facing off against Mr Trump is going to take a nimble, creative campaign and candidate. That hasn't always been a strength for the instinctively controlled and cautious Mrs Clinton. ..."
    www.bbc.com

    Mr Trump is going to present an unpredictable adversary for the former secretary of state. As the Republican primary has shown, no topic is off the table for him and no possible line of attack out of bounds.

    "Her past is really the thing, rather than what she plans to do in the future," Mr Trump told the Washington Post on Tuesday. "Her past has a lot of problems, to put it bluntly."

    The day before making those comments, Mr Trump had lunch with Edward Klein, a journalist who has made a career of writing inflammatory books about the Clintons and their sometimes chequered history. Chances are, Mr Trump was taking notes.
    That Bernie Sanders factor

    Then there's that Sanders factor. The Vermont senator has presented an unexpected challenge to Mrs Clinton. His attacks on her past support for trade deals and her ties to the current political establishment have drawn blood.

    Could some of his true loyalists stay home or vote for a third party? Could some of his working-class supporters in the industrial mid-west cross over to Mr Trump?

    It seems the Republican was already testing lines of attack in his victory speech on Tuesday night. He brought up Mrs Clinton's support for coal regulations that have caused unemployment in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio. He mentioned that Bill Clinton backed the North America Trade Agreement, which he called "the single worst trade deal".

    If Mr Trump can put the Midwest in play, that previously mentioned electoral tilt may not be so imposing after all.

    There's no playbook for how a Democrat can run against a Republican like Mr Trump. In some places, such as immigration, he will be well to her right. In other areas, like foreign policy and trade, he could come at her from the left.

    Can abortion or the social safety net be wedge issues? Probably not against a man who defended Planned Parenthood and Social Security on a Republican debate stage.

    Facing off against Mr Trump is going to take a nimble, creative campaign and candidate. That hasn't always been a strength for the instinctively controlled and cautious Mrs Clinton.

    You know you've come to the end of a fireworks show when the shells start bursting all at once.

    [May 07, 2016] An Open Letter To Those Disappointed By Both US Presidential Candidates

    www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    El Vaquero

    I had this conversation a few days ago:

    Me: I don't support Trump. He has said a few things that I find troubling.

    Friend: Me neither, but I'm going to vote for him anyway. I want to see the system fucking burn down, and I think he'll do it.

    Omni Consumer P... , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 17:11

    All these hand-wringing useful idiots don't grasp the fundamental concept:

    Corruption is a feature of a government system, not a bug.

    The very nature of government - monopoly power - makes it the number 1 destination of the psychosociopaths.

    Beam Me Up Scotty , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 17:36

    Calling Dr. Ron Paul, Calling Dr. Ron Paul. Code RED!!

    Beam Me Up Scotty , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 17:36

    "If we don't get them to re-engage -- thinking about how we defend a free society in the face of global jihadis"

    Well you sure as fuck don't do it by:

    --Spying on everyone

    --endless bombing

    --unending war

    --nation building

    --groping granny at the airport--and everyone else too

    --outlawing cash

    --limiting liberty

    --growing government exponentially

    ETC ETC

    About the only thing we are "free" to do, is work, shop, eat, and maybe take a vacation once or twice a year IF WE ARE LUCKY!!

    Stackers , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 17:36

    I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

    This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

    The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

    Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

    It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.

    George Washington Farewell Address ~ 1796

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

    OpenThePodBayDoorHAL , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 20:00

    Priority A in this letter is cyber and jihad strategy? Puh-lease. WTAF, another clueless ideologue.

    Here's my list:

    1. End American Empire. We have 800 bases in 140 countries. Close them and send the personnel back to the US, give them shovels and backhoes and make them start rebuilding our Third World infrastructure.

    2. Prosecute financial crime. No more "fines", we need perp walks by senior executives. That's the only thing that will work.

    3. Close the DHS. We already have the FBI and CIA Roll back the Patriot Act spying provisions.

    4. Audit the Fed. Full transparency of what they own, what their market activities are, who owns them. Fed chair to be appointed by the Executive branch, not just selected from a list of "approved" candidates submitted by the Fed.

    5. Remove capital gains taxation on physical gold and silver bullion. Americans need to build more wealth, not more paper.

    6. Remove corporate tax exemption for issuing dividends.

    7. Tax all unearned income at the same rate as earned income.

    8. Fire the entire staff of the FASB and start over. Plain vanilla GAAP accounting including mark-to-market.

    9. End pre-crime drone assasination policy effective immediately.

    10. New Marshall Plan for the MidEast. Take 1/2 of the budget we spend blowing the place up and put it in a fund for development of ME countries. Announce the end of the drone/invasion/occupation policy and the new investment fund with huge fanfare. We get peace and prosperity and great new markets full of people who like us again.

    11. Putin, Xi and US pres to hold tri-lateral peace talks. End Cold War II. Invite the Eurozone lapdogs if you must (but no Frenchmen

    Katos , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 20:00

    The pitiful part of that is, we created the jihad is, we support them, arm them, feed them. They're our mercenaries. So we create a BOOGIEMAN, tell the country that we must do everything possible to defend against them, send them into other nations to do our dirty work for us, thereby increasing the fear and terror back home, as they follow orders and chop off heads on television? Talk about "wagging the dog"? Then they say in order to protect the "HOMELANDS" from these monsters, we'll, you'll have to sacrifice some rights? You'll have to sacrifice some security? You'll have to accept some invasion of your privacy. You'll have to allow the government to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on spying, making war, building killing machines, and you the American public will have to accept austerity, so we can get through this together? BULLSHIT!

    Lea , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 20:00

    " The very nature of government - monopoly power - makes it the number 1 destination of the psychosociopaths. "

    Only in 'Murika, the government doesn't hold the monopoly power, private corporations do. They have even bought your governement lock, stock and barrel. Obama is no more than a mouthpiece for private companies. See how he is travelling salesman for the TTIP, NAFTA and such treaties that are bad for the USA's population and all other countries' populations too.

    Which means you don't have a government at all . You are ruled by a transnational private sector through political puppets, banana republic style.

    Paveway IV , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 20:00

    "...4. Our problems are huge right now, but one of the most obvious is that we've not passed along the meaning of America to the next generation..."

    Yes you did, Senator Sasse. America, American government and American politics means systemic psychopathy. Sick, power-seeking and power-hoarding individuals. What you failed to pass on was your fantasy of what you would like America to be. The next generation can't ignore the reality of what they see and believe in your fantasy - if anything, they're realists. The meaning of America to them is a tax-farming organization run for the benefit of the MIC, big ag, big pharma, big oil, etc. They recognize that they are cattle, not snowflakes.

    "...If we don't get them to re-engage..."

    Holy crap... seriously? You sound like the MSM trying to figure out some marketing trick to sell themselves to 'the next generation' - a generation that has already thrown the MSM on the scrap-heap of history as a useless tool of the rich and powerful. The next generation has ABANDONED dreams of your fantasy America. They just want to minimize the oppression and pain America causes them. They want to be left the fuck alone and don't want to fix YOUR mess - it's unfixable to them. They're not buying the bullshit of 'fixability' any more - that was your generation's weakness.

    "...-- thinking about how we defend a free society in the face of global jihadis,.."

    Jihadis the CIA created for their latest Middle East clownfuckery? The jihadi 'threat' as manufactured by the FBI or MSM? Hey, guess what Senator: that's your fucking problem, not theirs. They're afraid of cops and gangs of immigrants, not fake jihadis .

    "...or how we balance our budgets after baby boomers have dishonestly over-promised for decades,..."

    Why would they give a fuck? They know they are already 100% screwed - things will never be as good for them as it was for their parents. They are going to suffer the consequences of shitty fiscal policy for the next fifty years, and you expect them to somehow be interested in making the government behave NOW? Fuck that... are you stupid or something? They didn't break it - YOU did.

    "...or how we protect First Amendment values in the face of the safe-space movement..."

    Er... their First Amendment rights have already been whored out by your employer, Senator: the U.S. Congress. And typical of your employer, you 'see' a problem were none exists: a few hundred, maybe thousand whiney college students DOES NOT equate to a Constitutional problem for the other five million or so members of that generation. If you want to debate safe spaces while Rome burns, go ahead. They're not interested.

    "...– then all will indeed have been lost..."

    Yes, I agree. Congress and the rest of the U.S. government have been throwing away the American dream for thirty-plus years. Yes, it's lost. That's what happens when you throw something away. Don't expect them to go on a scavenger hunt for its decayed corpse now. It's worth saving to YOU, not THEM. You fucked it up so bad that they have no illusions about 'finding' anything useable again. They're not looking and not interested in being convinced to look, Senator. It's not there for them any more.

    "...One of the bright spots with the rising generation, though, is that they really would like to rethink the often knee-jerk partisanship of their parents and grandparents. We should encourage this rethinking..."

    No, they are simply rejecting the failed mechanism of a usurped voting process and a failed constitutional republic. That doesn't mean they're looking for replacement parts to fix that one thing, because the rest of the republic is completely fucked up . They're not interested in band-aids on a stinking, rotting corpse. They don't want to have anything to do with it.

    A member of Congress trying to 'market' America to the next generation is exactly like the MSM trying to market themselves to the next generation: it's pathetic and futile. 'America' is just the name of their current prison and owner. They simply tolerate it. When it becomes intolerable, they'll leave (if they're allowed to).

    Haraklus , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 18:55

    Amen. Burn it all down. Ashes make good fertilizer.

    swmnguy , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 18:55

    I know that's the meme being pushed, but I don't see it in reality. The two parties, supposedly so polarized, offer minute differences in actual policy. The differences over which they'd claim to take us to Civil War really boil down to which constituent and contributor group gets greased.

    In dictionary definitions, every politician in America is a liberal. In terms of their dedication to unifying corporate and State power, they're all Fascists. Some are smilier Fascists than others, but they're all Fascists.

    Escrava Isaura , Thu, 05/05/2016 - 18:55

    /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; }

    Wrong. America is not a Liberal nation. In a Liberal nation working class would have a say. As inequality grows, their taxes would go up. Education and healthcare would be free. Labor wouldn't be taxed.

    Corporativism is to the right and not left. Its labor is to the left.

    The excerpt below should help clarify the confusion between Democrats and Republicans:

    ….(Bakunin) predicted that there would be two forms of modern intellectuals, what he called the 'Red Bureaucracy', who would use popular struggles to try to take control of state power and institute the most vicious and ruthless dictatorships in history, and the other group, who would see that there isn't going to be an access to power that way and would therefore become the servants of private power and the state capitalist democracy, where they would, as Bakunin put it, 'beat the people with the people's stick,' talk about democracy but beat the people with it. That's actually one of the few predictions in the social sciences that's come true, to my knowledge, and a pretty perceptive one." Chomsky On Democracy and Education, page 248.

    http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Democracy-Education-Social-Cultural/dp/0415926327?ie=UTF8&keywords=chomsky%20on%20democracy%20and%20education&qid=1462483421&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1

    [May 06, 2016] Ted Cruz, the master strategist, was no match for Trumps cult of personality

    Looks like neoliberal Guardian presstitutes love neocons and religious nuts Cruz. Who would guess ? Interesting...
    Notable quotes:
    "... He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. ..."
    "... How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty' - of "bad things happening" is much more desirable... ..."
    "... The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite. ..."
    "... Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of the nation for those thirty pieces of silver. ..."
    "... What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem for her in the general. ..."
    "... I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'? Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates. Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing for them. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The Guardian

    bhyujn -> Bohemina1 5 May 2016 13:54

    No, I did not think that....however, I do think that there is enough awareness of this issue that it does not get dangerously into the main stream in Europe. In the US there much less awareness. Decades of the indoctrination that all bad things are either "communist" or "socialist" has left the door wide open for a return of the populist nationalist. Trump is just that.

    bluet00ns 5 May 2016 13:18

    "happy campaign"?...review the tapes, "happy" is nowhere in the oily, twisted, display of sly that was cruz's campaign, the numb, if not painful, looks on the faces of family as he trotted them out like props, is exhibit A.

    bcarey -> sour_mash 5 May 2016 13:08

    My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to collect money.

    Definitely true.

    However, we must also take into account the fact that the Cruz delegates are still active and maybe able to deliver Cruz.... or Romney if necessary. It is likely that Trump will get way more delegates than needed to stop a contested/open convention, however.

    The Cruz suspension is about 2 things. It accomplishes potentially 2 things. Money is just one of them. The other part is Romney, if he can.

    fallentower 5 May 2016 13:02

    I actually think the Republican Party made a good choice once it was down to "Cruz or Trump" by sitting on its hands and thereby letting Trump win. Of course, Trump is far more likely to do and say unorthodox (from a post-Reagan Republican Party standpoint) things, and will probably increase the tension and turmoil within the party. But he actually has a chance of winning the election; Cruz's smarmy personality and nauseating brand of religious conservatism would have gone down like a lead balloon outside the Bible belt, and he's too committed ideologically to change his policy positions.

    Trump will turn on a sixpence and happily disavow things he may have said in the primary if he considers them unhelpful baggage for the general, and because he's seen as a showman rather than a professional politician he'll have much more leeway to do so than your average flip-flopper.

    He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. Admittedly he is going to have to cut down on the clownishness and ill-disciplined outbursts, but if he gets the right campaign team together and they manage to keep him vaguely on-message I think he'll have good chances. Better than Cruz, anyway, who had zero chance.

    sour_mash bcarey 5 May 2016 12:58

    I take your point regarding Secret Agent Mormon and I was aware that he had filed with the FEC. My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to collect money.

    The exploratory PAC is the new retirement vehicle but that's a different issue.

    taxhaven wjousts 5 May 2016 12:58

    Trump most certainly is not change for the better.

    How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty' - of "bad things happening" is much more desirable...

    Harry Dresdon 5 May 2016 12:42

    Good riddance to Cruz. Boehner called him "the devil in the flesh". Cruz would have been way worse for the country than Trump will ever be. Sad but true.

    DillyDit2 5 May 2016 12:34

    Hey Stephanie Cutter: You think Bernie is responsible for what his supporters think, whether we'll support Hillary, and how we will decide to vote in the fall? Pappa Bernie should tell us what to do, and we should fall in line and salute?

    Could Cutter and Hillary's minions be any more clueless?! And could they reveal their top down authoritarian mindset any more clearer?

    The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite.

    I wish I could support Trump, because I second that fuck you. For now, along with what is likely the majority of American voters, all I can do is say- pox on BOTH your houses and may 2020 be the year an Independent runs and wins.

    danubemonster 5 May 2016 12:32

    I think it is worth comparing Cruz with Nixon. Both men are/were not particularly likable, yet Nixon was able to be a two-term president. Nixon was a conservative, but he was not an ideologue - and he lived in an age where the Republican Party was a relatively broad church. Nixon also have political instincts which were way beyond those of Cruz. He knew how to play high politics, and he knew what was required to get to the White House.

    PATROKLUS00 -> Tommy Cooper 5 May 2016 12:14

    Trump will beat her to death with being the Queen of the Establishment... the Dems will be idiots to nominate her.

    PATROKLUS00 -> voxusa 5 May 2016 12:12

    Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of the nation for those thirty pieces of silver.

    PATROKLUS00 -> 8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:09

    Yup, and the Democrat establishment is too stupid and out of touch to recognize that HRC is just the grist that Trump needs for his anti-establishment mill.

    PATROKLUS00 5 May 2016 12:07

    Cruz a master strategist???? BWWWWWwwwwwaaaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa! Ludicrous ... beyond ludicrous.

    Vintage59 David Perry 5 May 2016 12:07

    His religious beliefs and the political dogma that goes with them have been well documented. Have you not been paying attention? Do you insist your wife get you a beer from the fridge when you can get off your ass and get it yourself?

    8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:06

    What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem for her in the general.

    MalleusSacerdotum 5 May 2016 12:05

    I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'? Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates. Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing for them.

    The Donald has understood the dynamic better than the rest and has given the voters a coherent, albeit repugnant, analysis of their problems. An article like this that can shed no light on the phenomenon that is Trump is hardly worth publishing.

    [May 04, 2016] These 17 Craig Mazin Tweets About Ted Cruz Are Some Of The Funniest Of The Campaign Bustle

    www.bustle.com
    One of the most entertaining bit players in the 2016 campaign has been Craig Mazin, Ted Cruz's college roommate. Mazin, a screenwriter who co-wrote two of the Hangover films, openly despises Cruz on both a political and personal level, and talks trash about him at just about every opportunity. And Mazin is very good at trash talk. These 17 hilarious Craig Mazin tweets about Ted Cruz go a long way to explaining why the Texas senator is almost not the most beloved guy in Washington.

    In 2013, Mazin articulated his beef with Cruz, who he's since referred to as "a shameless, hack magician selling tricks to the gullible," during an interview on the podcast May 04, 2016

    Scriptnotes. Here's how Mazin put it, and I'm going to quote it in full because it is one of my favorite things that anybody has ever said about anyone else:

    And, you know, I want to be clear, because Ted Cruz is a nightmare of a human being. I have plenty of problems with his politics, but truthfully, his personality is so awful that 99 percent of why I hate him is just his personality. If he agreed with me on every issue, I would hate him only 1 percent less.

    That's more than a sufficient diss, but Mazin didn't stop there. He writes a lot about Cruz on Twitter, and pulls absolutely no punches while doing so. He fired the opening shot in 2013, when Cruz was about to win election to the Senate.

    [May 01, 2016] How the New York Times Helped Hillary Hide the Hawk

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Russ Baker, editor of WhoWhatWhy.com and author of "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years." Originally published at WhoWhatWhy ..."
    "... The Washington Post, Politico, CNN, ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... WhoWhatWhy' ..."
    "... Corrupt and "most" pro war – it's a two-fer. (When do we get to put "most" in front of corrupt?). ..."
    "... Fuck. DO we really want another fucking Neo-Con in the White House? ..."
    "... I think it's interesting to consider that Trump is ostensibly already to the left of Clinton on many issues. ..."
    "... I say it is time to leave the Democratic Party in droves. I know, I know. The Supreme Court nominees of a future president loom large. We have to force the hand. Rather than creep to fascism and the earth's destruction, we have to realize the destination is the same as long as we keep our eggs in the basket of the Democratic Party. Time to cut and run, time to build something new, time to vote the Green Party, purge it of its new agey image and begin building it into a democratically functioning party that holds its candidates to its platform. Sure, it will take time. But putting money, time, and energy into the other half of a duopoly that supports empire and neoliberalism is all wasted on the fool's game, which Sander's inadvertently, I think, has exposed as the endgame. Progressives have to realize it will not and cannot be changed. It's core supports those two branches of its world-view, and no matter how they manipulate its adherents by throwing table scraps to them in the form of "social" issues, it will never be something other than what it is. I know, I am done with it. ..."
    "... Clinton will not appoint a Supreme Court Justice that is beneficial to the planet. Her appointees will be pro-corporate whores that will play nice on identity issues. Trump will never get a judge through that will overturn Roe v Wade. The Republicans have shown that you can effectively limit the debate of a SCJ and have held appointments up while not in the majority. ..."
    "... The article by Mark Landler was brilliant and will keep me from voting for Clinton. I am tired of America being continually and fruitlessly at war. ..."
    "... Clinton is pushing for war with Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. How can anyone honestly discuss that Clinton is more sane (in foreign policy) than any person running for office? ..."
    "... Trump does not want war with Russia. Clinton wants to go to war with Russia. There is no other way to read her desire for a no fly zone. The only way to implement that policy is through a war with Russia. Clinton is not naive. She knows that any attempt to create a no fly zone will result in a conflict with Russia. ..."
    "... Yes, it is a topsy turvy system where the State Department, which one expects to be full of people seeking diplomatic solutions, is led by a warmonger, while many military leaders come off as more cautious. The later often have a better understanding of the futility of the situations they are thrown into and the true costs. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on April 29, 2016 by Yves Smith Yves here. It was hard not to notice the awfully convenient timing of the publication of the New York Times story, Top Gun: How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk . If you have not read it, you need to, ASAP. It makes painfully clear how much Hillary believes that the US should continue to act as if it were the worlds' sole superpower, when those days are past, is deeply enamored of aggressive military men, and is in synch with neocons. A sobering article.

    By Russ Baker, editor of WhoWhatWhy.com and author of "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years." Originally published at WhoWhatWhy

    Following a rough night in five East coast primaries, Bernie Sanders's path to the Democratic nomination is now more narrow and steep than it has ever been. But are these votes truly a referendum on who voters think the best candidate is - or are they merely a reflection of what the corporate media wants Democrats to think?

    In our critique of the media, we tend to focus on The New York Times , because it purports to be the gold standard for journalism, and because others look to the paper for coverage guidance. But the same critique could be applied to The Washington Post, Politico, CNN, and most other leading outfits.

    In prior articles, we noted how the Times helped Clinton walk away with most of the African-American vote - and therefore victory in many states - by essentially hiding Sanders' s comparably far more impressive record on civil rights .

    We also noted how it seemed that every little thing the Clinton camp did right was billboarded, while significant victories against great odds by Sanders were minimized .

    These are truly the kinds of decisions that determine the "conventional wisdom," which in turn so often determines outcomes.

    But there is more - and it is even more disturbing. Clinton's principal reason to claim she is so qualified to be president - aside from being First Lady and senator - is her four years as Secretary of State.

    What kind of a legacy did she leave? Perhaps her principal role was to push for military engagement - more soldiers in existing conflicts, and new wars altogether. WhoWhatWhy has written about these wars and their dubious basis .

    Wars are good business for Wall Street, for corporations in general, and for others who have been friendly to her and her campaign.

    Why was this never a bigger issue? Why was this not front and center with New York voters, a traditionally liberal group with a strong antipathy toward war and militarism? Certainly Sanders tried to bring up this issue, and doesn't seem to have succeeded. But mostly, this was a failure of the media, whose job it is to shine a strong spotlight.

    And why did The New York Times wait until two days after the New York primary to publish its biggest piece on this, when it could no longer influence that key contest? (It appeared first on its website and later in its Sunday magazine.)

    In fact, with the media declaring this probably now a Clinton-Trump race, highlighting her hawkishness turns it from a handicap to a strength. How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk was the digital equivalent of a huge front-page story.

    What the article makes clear - shockingly clear - is that Hillary Clinton is the most militaristic of any of the presidential candidates, even more than Ted Cruz.

    Was this delay in publication just a case of poor scheduling? Was it to ensure that the paper could not to be accused of influencing the primary outcome?

    The Times's editorials had already gotten behind her candidacy (without mentioning her refusal to release transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches, or her opposition to a paltry $15 an hour minimum wage). Would running Mark Landler's critical piece when it mattered have seemed like an implicit rebuke of the paper's own editorial board or interfered with its influence?

    How ironic it is that "liberal" Hillary Clinton has never met a war she did not like, and has never been held responsible for the chaos they caused and the policies she advocated - yet it is Bernie Sanders whose policies are being described as "unrealistic" by the same people who are shielding Clinton from criticism.

    What is the purpose of journalism if not to introduce material when it is relevant - and can have an impact? And one that is good for humanity - as opposed to the arms industry.

    The Times , Judith Miller et al, have certainly had an impact. Go here for one of WhoWhatWhy' s stories of some of the goriest details.

    timbers , April 29, 2016 at 6:26 am

    Corrupt and "most" pro war – it's a two-fer. (When do we get to put "most" in front of corrupt?). Yet I can visualize all my "enlightened" Boston "liberal" friends so fashionably and smugly rallying behind her w/o even one second thought of dissent because Republicans. Any criticism will be met with "delete" on FB friendship.

    divadab , April 29, 2016 at 7:02 am

    Fuck. DO we really want another fucking Neo-Con in the White House?

    RW Tucker , April 29, 2016 at 9:33 am

    With Trump using the word PEACE in his foreign policy speech, suddenly the world is upside down.

    RUKidding , April 29, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Yes, but at the end of the day, if you listen to Trump's garbled "message," he's really just about as NeoCon as Hillary. At least, that's what I'm getting from his very few "policy" speeches. He wants to "strengthen" our Military, which allegedly has been "weakened" by Obama. Of course, Trump conveniently ignores the fact the US Military budget is larger than ever, but what I take from that is that Trump wants to provide them with even more money.

    Trump talks about forcing our "allies" to pay us tributes to protect them, which will somehow enrich us back home. Good luck with that.

    Well I could go on, but Trump wants to blast ISIS into glass sand and all the rest of it. I don't see him as any much less NeoCon that Hillary or anyone else in the GOP. It's just that Trump dances around things

    Not a fan of Clinton. Never have been. Just saying re Trump…. not much different from what I can parse out.

    Ishmael , April 29, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    I have no problem asking other countries to pay for our cost of defense. Yes it is tribute but if they do not pay then we do not assist. Secondly, Trump in his latest speech basically through the Wolfowitz Doctrine under the bus. I say more power to that. Trump has said get out of NATO, I have no problem with that. Lastly, Trump has indicated that he would stop sticking the US's finger into Putin's eye. I am all for that. What has Hitlary said with regard to any of this.

    Trump seems far more pragmatic and he has to show strong defense because that is one of the key issues of the GOP. On the other hand all of the above issues would be good for the US and might start taking apart the military-industrial complex.

    OIFVet , April 29, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    Yes it is tribute but if they do not pay then we do not assist.

    And the hollowness of America's protection "guarantees" gets exposed there and then rather than a bit further down the road of imperial decline. I rather like your idea…

    Ishmael , April 29, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    I do not know where you get hollowness. Most of these countries are running a trade surplus with the US so why would we defend them for free. The US has never done this in the past (France and the UK were suppose to pay for their armaments and no one yelled that was hollow). I would rather we stayed out of the whole freaking thing but asking them to pay is a good start.

    OIFVet , April 29, 2016 at 4:43 pm

    These security guarantees are hollow because there is no wayin hell the US can actually defend a Baltic pipsqueak if Russia is truly determined to spank it for any multitude of transgressions. That's why these guarantees are hollow.

    Also too, the Euros are fast getting wise to the fact that US empire building is actually extracting high costs from them, your BS about the poor wittle used and abused US notwithstanding. When the US tries to actually extort cash as well the imperial jig will be well and truly up. Euro nationalism is on the rise, and in many places it does contain a fairly pronounced dislike for the trigger happy greedy vulgarians across the pond. And the migrant crisis is not helping US image at all.

    Ishmael , April 30, 2016 at 1:37 pm

    Vet – I believe under NATO the other NATO nations are also suppose to contribute to their defense and only 4 of the 28 countries are meeting their obligations. NATO was not set up for the US to do all of the heavy lifting.

    Personally, I say if Europe wants to go their own way more power to it. As far as Europeans having a dislike for Americans, maybe. It is my experience having lived on four continents (and several places in Europe) that many people disliked us before because we did things they could not. Now we have given then other reasons to dislike us because of our neo-con socialist leanings.

    But in total you miss my point which I find that Trump speaks a far more honest foreign affairs approach than Hitlary or any president since before Bill Clinton. If you disagree then make your point instead of just ranting.

    Don't get yourself all lathered up.

    oh , April 30, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    The MICC doesn't care as long the US taxpayer pays for the largesse in the name of defense!

    Anarcissie , April 29, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    I think it's interesting to consider that Trump is ostensibly already to the left of Clinton on many issues. Typically, Democrats trying for presidential nomination have pandered to the party's Left, and then run to the right for the general election. However, if Clinton wants to run to the right, she'll be deep in Republican territory, while the proggies are certain to wander off her home-front plantation. Except maybe for abortion, it appears that she has no home turf. It's a curious predicament for a Democrat to be in.

    divadab , April 29, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    Well it makes sense if you just consider that her husband was the best Republican President the Democrats ever elected. She's a DINO in all serious matters and a "liberal" in the kind of superficial stuff the MSM uses to differentiate and divide the people from themselves.

    ArkansasAngie , April 29, 2016 at 7:16 am

    No we don't … or, at least, I don't.

    I will vote for Trump before I vote for Clinton.

    This isn't a question of lesser of two evils. It is a question of who do you hate less?

    hreik , April 29, 2016 at 8:01 am

    Several weeks ago, there was a very pro-Birdie piece on the NYTime's front page. People saw it on line. Within several hours it was heavily edited and read more negative than positive. The part about John McCain praising Bernie was removed, ditto other parts.

    The paper has become something else altogether than it used to be. Like the DNC, TPTB would rather lose with Hillary than win w Bernie.
    http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/?_r=0

    NotTimothyGeithner , April 29, 2016 at 9:05 am

    Huh? Judith Miller and the post election 2004 warrantless wiretapping story beg to differ. They sat on a story in fear of influencing the election. They had the plagarist from Falwell U. The NYT has been trash for as long as the Patriots have run the AFC East.

    hreik , April 29, 2016 at 9:24 am

    true

    John Wright , April 29, 2016 at 9:51 am

    One can remember that Edward Snowden decided not to approach the Times with his story BECAUSE the Times sat on the warrantless wiretapping story.

    I still pay my $15 every 4 weeks for the NTTimes digital, but justify that partially because I can do archive searches.

    The Times Mea Culpa, spearheaded by Bill Keller, after the Judith Miller Iraq war reporting, was particularly good. The TImes had their Iraq war cake and then got to apologize for eating it.

    The digital edition frequently has thoughtful readers comments that effectively counter the latest Friedman, Kristof, Krugman, Brooks, Dowd, and Douthat received wisdom.

    There must be more than few print readers who yell at their copy of the print NY Times, "Tom/Nick/David/Paul, you are so #&*$% wrong".

    Sadly the print readers can't access the readers' comment section, AKA Times Editorial antidote, that accompanies the digital edition.

    Derwood Powell , April 30, 2016 at 8:16 pm

    Mr. Wright,
    Use and support the TOR network and you can read the NYT for free.

    Jim Haygood , April 29, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    NY Times : the 'sandwich coin' standard of journalism!

    Its price has been delinked from value.

    Michael C , April 29, 2016 at 8:02 am

    I say it is time to leave the Democratic Party in droves. I know, I know. The Supreme Court nominees of a future president loom large. We have to force the hand. Rather than creep to fascism and the earth's destruction, we have to realize the destination is the same as long as we keep our eggs in the basket of the Democratic Party. Time to cut and run, time to build something new, time to vote the Green Party, purge it of its new agey image and begin building it into a democratically functioning party that holds its candidates to its platform. Sure, it will take time. But putting money, time, and energy into the other half of a duopoly that supports empire and neoliberalism is all wasted on the fool's game, which Sander's inadvertently, I think, has exposed as the endgame. Progressives have to realize it will not and cannot be changed. It's core supports those two branches of its world-view, and no matter how they manipulate its adherents by throwing table scraps to them in the form of "social" issues, it will never be something other than what it is. I know, I am done with it.

    NotTimothyGeithner , April 29, 2016 at 9:10 am

    Doesn't the Supreme Court argument go out the window when the potential President is a lunatic? Of course, Maryanne Trump was appointed by Bill Clinton.

    RUKidding , April 29, 2016 at 10:32 am

    Well to be fair, Maryanne Trump isn't much like her brother. But yes, Clinton appointed her. Let the buyer beware.

    Strangely Enough , April 29, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    Which lunatic?

    And, when the nominee proposed by a Democratic president turns out to be a Republican, something has definitely gone out the window.

    AnEducatedFool , April 29, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    Clinton will not appoint a Supreme Court Justice that is beneficial to the planet. Her appointees will be pro-corporate whores that will play nice on identity issues.
    Trump will never get a judge through that will overturn Roe v Wade. The Republicans have shown that you can effectively limit the debate of a SCJ and have held appointments up while not in the majority.

    The abortion issue is a non issue. There is no way that justice would get on the court.

    The Republicans will use that issue to get an even more corporate judge onto the court. A similar deal is going on in NC today. The state will eventually cave and get ride of the bathroom provision but the anti-worker sections will remain.

    ltr , April 29, 2016 at 8:07 am

    The article by Mark Landler was brilliant and will keep me from voting for Clinton. I am tired of America being continually and fruitlessly at war.

    Montana , April 29, 2016 at 8:28 am

    I cancelled my subscription to the NYT because of its more than biased reporting of the Democratic primaries. I tried to make sure the editorial staff knew my reasons.

    Jack , April 29, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    I'm very interested in knowing which papers you continue to subscribe to.

    Northeaster , April 29, 2016 at 8:36 am

    As a Veteran who deployed to The Middle East the first time , and with children entering their teens, while I won't be able to control their decisions when they come of age, I have done everything I possibly can to dissuade them from joining the military.

    Sadly, I believe that whether it's Clinton or Trump, they will have zero reservations of sending my children of to die in a war that will not end.

    RUKidding , April 29, 2016 at 10:35 am

    I agree. I don't see much difference between Trump and Clinton in this regard. Both are itching to go to War. It's slightly possible – slightly! – that Clinton would be somewhat more sane (insofar as one can be sane about war) than Trump. That's about the best I can say in this YET AGAIN choice between the Evil of Two Lessers.

    OIFVet , April 29, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    Arguing about the relative sanity of the insane is futile. Lybia and Hillminator's cackle upon being informed of Khadafy's being sodomized with a knife is proof positive that having her as prez is a recipe for even more of the same.

    AnEducatedFool , April 29, 2016 at 7:58 pm

    Clinton is pushing for war with Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. How can anyone honestly discuss that Clinton is more sane (in foreign policy) than any person running for office?

    Trump does not want war with Russia. Clinton wants to go to war with Russia. There is no other way to read her desire for a no fly zone. The only way to implement that policy is through a war with Russia. Clinton is not naive. She knows that any attempt to create a no fly zone will result in a conflict with Russia.

    cyclist , April 29, 2016 at 11:45 am

    Yes, it is a topsy turvy system where the State Department, which one expects to be full of people seeking diplomatic solutions, is led by a warmonger, while many military leaders come off as more cautious. The later often have a better understanding of the futility of the situations they are thrown into and the true costs.

    Gio Bruno , April 29, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    The State Dept. is a front for the CIA/NSA project.

    ScottW , April 29, 2016 at 10:40 am

    The pro-Hillary Times' piece provides compelling, irrefutable evidence of Hillary's neocon credentials. The neocons adore her–Cheney commented Hillary was Obama's best cabinet appointment. Add to that the chilling mutual admiration between Hillary and Kissinger and we have a tangibly scary candidate.

    Her supporters reaction? They either dismiss the idea she is loved by the neocons, or refuse to understand the facts. Similar to rationalizing that money in politics is not a corrupting influence.

    If Hillary is elected, she will have bipartisan support for a neocon foreign policy, as well as money playing a major role in politics and one's personal life (speaking fees/foundation donations). Citizens United will become a quaint memory.

    It is getting impossible to argue the two parties are anything but the same side of the coin.

    John k , April 29, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Getting?
    Bill was first elected 24 years ago. Let's say a quarter century… I think Bernie made his tweedle dum tweedle Dee comment about 20 years ago. The rest of us have been slower to notice.

    Bernard , April 29, 2016 at 10:43 am

    well, Clinton is a woman and a Democrat. the more perfect evil. just Obama, the Vichy Democrats do more evil than the Republicans, far more efficiently/effectively than any Republican could or has. Hearing David/Charles Koch recently say Hillary "could" be better than any of the Republican candidates, is proof. we are so Fkked!

    yet my siblings will vote for Hillary cause of the Supreme Court due to the fact Hillary has a D by her name. and i gather so many women will vote for Hillary cause she is a "woman." lol Branding works. Stupidity, American style. if I vote, it will be for Trump, the lesser of two evils, lol.

    readerOfTeaLeaves , April 29, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Yes, women will vote Hill.

    But that fails to count all the younger voters, saddled with debt and facing an economy where business rules always favor capital over labor, who will find alternatives to Hillary that fit with their moral sensibilities.

    Meanwhile, the DNC is committing organizational suicide by becoming enforcers for Hillary, restricting voting, and failing to sue states like Arizona for election fraud.

    The GOP won't benefit from any of this.

    AnEducatedFool , April 29, 2016 at 8:03 pm

    Older women will vote for Hillary. The divide between race and gender is primarily age. Older black women are voting for her at 80% clips in nearly every election. Bernie can not win the 40 and under vote in every election while winning 30 and under at 80% with out winning across those demographics.
    Clinton kills him with older voters and has done so through out the cycle. It is why the DNC's efforts to suppress the vote have worked so well for Clinton.

    cr , April 29, 2016 at 10:45 am

    The NYT is simply a propaganda machine designed to fool people who can read at a slightly higher grade level. If the 'newspaper of record' is compromised, how many mainstream outlets have any real coverage of politics? After reading a large sampl;e,The number is close to zero. Occasionally, the masses are thrown a bone.

    Anyone who thinks there is a difference between the two nominal parties have to be kidding themselves. The two party system is a facade that lures you into believing you live in a democracy or republic. You are ruled. Your votes don't matter. Any real threat to power in the US is either co-opted or neutralized.

    We had a pedophile for speaker of the house. TPTB had to know it and used that info to keep him under control. He was probably selected based on his past. Along with Hillary, Paul Ryan is clearly a fascist. Look at their actions and their policies.

    ng , April 29, 2016 at 11:11 am

    even the times piece was puffery. all the generals impressed by her wonkish hard work. and it left out the most damning fact. hillary was the deciding voice in what obama called the worst decision of his presidency, the invasion of libya and killing of quadaffi. nearly a decade after iraq, in a nearly equivilant situation, with all the information she claimed not to have the first time around, she chose the same stupid, destructive approach and sent another nation and region reeling in choas.

    divadab , April 29, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    this. I had thought it was because as a gen 1 feminist, she feels she has to out-macho the boys, but it's both deeper and more pernicious with her. Fucking neocons. Bombing while the world is burning.

    hal , April 29, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    What about the big four?
    1 her emails anyone else would be gone for 99 years
    2. her speeches? Yea sure. She has the only copy in her (contract)
    3. her deals as SOState I'll get you arms (Saudi's) if you give me $1 million for foundation
    Plus many more of these.
    4. Her health passing out a few time, breaking an elbow, and others ailments.

    Not a word on any. As for the NYT. It is as bad a you can get.
    There is a great quote from Albert Camus a editor for "Combat" during the war.
    "We have a right to think that truth with a capital letter is relative. But facts are facts. And whoever says the sky is blue when it is grey is prostituting words and preparing the way for tyranny.

    I think about this every time I read the NYT.

    AnEducatedFool , April 29, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    Nice comment.
    #5 is the discrepancies in the exit poll data. Only the Democrats are having trouble with exit polls this cycle. Each Republican election has been with in the exit polls but many of the Democratic primaries are falling outside of the margin of error for exit polls and always siding with Clinton.

    David Mills , April 29, 2016 at 10:04 pm

    I pay $8 a month buying the weekend edition because I like the crossword (based in KL). The rest of the NYT is crap, been downhill for years. The IHT was okay until it was merged out of existence.

    Otherwise, people who can't see Hillary's vicious streak are blind or stupid. She is the candidate most likely to engage Russia. Lawrence Wilkerson had a great interview on her.

    Teejay , April 30, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    Any "where" and "when" on the Wilkerson interview or a link to it?

    Procopius , April 30, 2016 at 6:25 am

    "… this was a failure of the media, whose job it is to shine a strong spotlight." When are Americans going to learn that this is not true. The job of the media is to sell advertising to the people who have the money to buy it. It's easier to do that if they don't tell people too much about what's happening in the world. Tell them about the Kardashians or what people are saying about Beyonce's latest video. Baseball games are OK. Good looking blonde announcers help. The movie "Front Page" was fiction. Also, there's no Tooth Fairy.

    Emeritus Jr , April 30, 2016 at 6:36 am

    With unprecedented access to insiders and whisteblowers, the New York Times is set to publish a scathing indictment of the horse barn industry on the massive damage caused by closing the barn doors after the horses have left.

    Roy , April 30, 2016 at 10:38 am

    Have not seen any comment on Hillary's logo. Anyone notice how the arrow is pointing to the right?

    [Apr 24, 2016] Sanders Democratic Party hasnt been fair to me by Nick Gass

    Notable quotes:
    "... "So it sounds like the party, though, you feel like's been fair to you?" Todd asked Sanders. "No," Sanders responded. "I think we have- look, we're taking on the establishment. That's pretty clear." ..."
    "... Pointing to the Democratic debate schedule, of which three of the first four took place on weekend nights, Sanders said they were "scheduled - pretty clearly, to my mind, at a time when there would be minimal viewing audience- et cetera, et cetera." "But you know, that's the way it is. We knew we were taking on the establishment," he said. "And here we are. So [I'm] not complaining." ..."
    "... "Yeah, we took advantage of the opportunities in front of us. We are in this race. We are not writing our obituary," Sanders said. "We're in this race to California, and we're proud of the campaign we ran." ..."
    Apr 24, 2016 | POLITICO

    'We knew we were taking on the establishment,' the Vermont senator says.

    Bernie Sanders says the Democratic Party hasn't been fair to him - but he has mixed feelings on the nominating process overall.

    "Do you think this process has been fair to you? The Democratic nomination process?" moderator Chuck Todd asked the Vermont senator in an interview filmed Saturday in Baltimore and aired Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

    "Yes and no," Sanders said, going on to criticize the role of the media for neglecting to focus on "real issues facing America." The media, he said, emphasizes "political gossip" rather than "issues that affect working people."

    "So it sounds like the party, though, you feel like's been fair to you?" Todd asked Sanders. "No," Sanders responded. "I think we have- look, we're taking on the establishment. That's pretty clear."

    Pointing to the Democratic debate schedule, of which three of the first four took place on weekend nights, Sanders said they were "scheduled - pretty clearly, to my mind, at a time when there would be minimal viewing audience- et cetera, et cetera." "But you know, that's the way it is. We knew we were taking on the establishment," he said. "And here we are. So [I'm] not complaining."

    Todd then asked Sanders if he felt he was "given a fair shot" at the Democratic nomination.

    "Yeah, we took advantage of the opportunities in front of us. We are in this race. We are not writing our obituary," Sanders said. "We're in this race to California, and we're proud of the campaign we ran."

    [Apr 23, 2016] Why Is the Progressive Left Helping the Elite Elect Hillary by Paul Craig Roberts

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nevertheless, the election of Sanders or Trump is important, because it demonstrates that American citizens are emerging from The Matrix and have no confidence in the two corrupt political parties that betrayed them. The message would go out to the world as well that the American people have no confidence in the Washington Establishment. These messages are very important and can only have beneficial effects. ..."
    "... So why is the progressive left helping the One Percent keep the lid on the rest of us? Has the progressive left sold out or is the progressive left putting its emotional needs above the general welfare? ..."
    www.informationclearinghouse.info
    April 23, 2016 | Information Clearing House

    "Have you noticed that it is not only the presstitute media and the two establishment political parties that are beating up on Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump but also the progressive left? Sometimes the messages overlap so much that the progressive left sounds like the One Percent. But mainly the progressive left is down on Sanders because he is "not pure," and they don't like Trump because he hurts people's feelings and doesn't apologize.

    This is astounding. Here we are faced with the corrupt media and the corrupt party establishments determined to put in the Oval Office a tried and proven agent of the One Percent, and the progressive left is beating up on the only two alternatives!

    I doubt that Sanders or Trump would be able to achieve much for the American people except to reduce the flow of official lies that the presstitutes turn into truths by constant repetition. The Oligarchy is too strong. It was more than a half century ago that President Eisenhower warned us of the threat to American democracy from the military-security complex. That complex is much stronger today, and, in addition, we have Wall Street and the mega-banks that control the US Treasury and Federal Reserve, the Israel Lobby that has the US Congress wrapped around its little finger, the extractive industries (energy, mining, timber) that prevails over the environment and preservation, and agribusiness that poisons our food, exterminates honey bees and butterflies and produces chemical fertilizer runoff into waters that result in massive fish kills from algea. None of these powerful interests will permit the welfare of the American people to get in the way of their agendas and profits.

    Nevertheless, the election of Sanders or Trump is important, because it demonstrates that American citizens are emerging from The Matrix and have no confidence in the two corrupt political parties that betrayed them. The message would go out to the world as well that the American people have no confidence in the Washington Establishment. These messages are very important and can only have beneficial effects.

    So why is the progressive left helping the One Percent keep the lid on the rest of us? Has the progressive left sold out or is the progressive left putting its emotional needs above the general welfare?

    Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

    [Apr 10, 2016] Paul Krugman Sanders Over the Edge

    Jeffrey D. Sachs ‏@JeffDSachs It's incredible that a silly rant like this passes for commentary at the New York Times
    Notable quotes:
    "... I like the fact that Krugman is showing his true colors: the Conscience of the Status Quo ..."
    "... Conscience of a Neoliberal. ..."
    "... The Paul K Smear Patrol: Krugman can be ferocious going after the Right, but he also has a thing for the Left, as I recall from his trade purism of the 90s. Right now, he's on an anti-Bernie, pro-Hillary jag and pulling no punches... ..."
    "... He is too partisan to recognize that the Clinton machine-the Foundation, the campaign-are accommodative toward big pools of money. My speculation is that PK thinks the Left is a bunch of amateurs who have no business being anywhere near power, and that the citadels of expertise (which includes economists who are affiliated or will affiliate with Clinton) need to be defended against the barbarians. If it isn't that, something is causing this guy to lose his analytical balance." ..."
    "... That was actually embarrassing for Barney because he has trouble dealing with counterargument and tends to just rant and denigrate whoever he is speaking "at." He had a similar episode about a week ago, also on Hayes, where he doesn't seem to have any ability to demonstrate grace or due respect - which I've often enjoyed when he is countering some crazy Republican, but I'm starting to recognize as a personality flaw. He's got an inflated opinion of himself. ..."
    "... "A democratic polity does not elect a technocrat-in-chief, but politicians whose role is to define priorities that must later be translated into well-crafted policy details.... The problems of our polity do not arise because one faction or another is too stupid to do high quality science.... Being smart is great. You may be proud of your GRE scores, your PhD, your Nobel Prize even. And deservedly! But raw intellect is not scarce, and no faction holds anywhere near a monopoly. ..."
    "... The thing is, Hillary Clinton is also not a policy wonk. Sanders led out of the gate last year with a 12-point policy agenda while Clinton was still struggling to articulate broad themes. ..."
    "... Later, Clinton came out with a detailed financial plan, which is fine. That plan consists in various places of calls for "more regulation" of various functions and sectors. Does anybody think Hillary Clinton actually has a lot of specific ideas about what these regulations will actually look like after the wonks write them up? Of course she doesn't. And well she shouldn't! She's running for President, not the project manager of the policy engineering department. CEOs have to set the vision and mission, keep the team on track, and then make dozens of important decisions every day. They don't wallow in that kind of detail (until they have to go out in public to sell it.) ..."
    "... Sanders is popular because he's an authentic dude. He hasn't changed his message for 30 years. People have come around to his view. He's not your normal politician. ..."
    "... He's smart enough to know that the corporate media is out to get him and often says so to their faces. ..."
    "... Yeah - he forgot that "air quotes" don't translate into print, so he fell for the Clinton campaign's carefully laid "bait." His comments were totally in context of the Clinton campaign's "disqualify" strategy and her slick "I'm taking it to the edge so you can't hang it on me" comments to Morning Joke. Hillary and her strategists are slick and disingenuous, Bernie is blunt and brusque. ..."
    "... Sort of like the difference in their relationships to dangerous critters like Lloyd Blankfein. Bernie tells them to go to hell. Hillary takes their money and claims it means nothing that she has their support. ..."
    "... Clinton sycophants are incredibly dedicated, no matter what is done or said by the Clintons. ..."
    "... The idea that Krugman, an ivory tower careerists who spends most of his time trying to impress the High Church poobahs who run and advise the world's oppressive establishment power structures, should lecture a man whose entire career has been dedicated to defending the poor, weak and vulnerable on "ethical moorings" is flabbergasting. ..."
    "... Krugman's politics haven't changed much since he first made his name 35 years ago, whether he is "liberal" or "centrist" is mostly a reflection of where the current center is. His Bernie blasts remind me of the potshots he used to take at John Kenneth Galbraith. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton the last of the angry old white entitled one percenter Rockfeller Republicans cloaked in feminism ready to lead the Neodemocratic party. ..."
    "... "It is reported that ..." Exactly. And that means exactly what? The media is owned by people who have exactly zero interest in the American people being informed about who stealing all the bacon and how. ..."
    "... It's truly sad to watch Paul Krugman (PK) turn into a political stooge for the wealthy liberal elite that currently runs the Democratic party. ..."
    "... What better proof could there possibly be, that it's time to kick Hillary and her cronies to the curb. ..."
    "... "Bernie is the only candidate that refuse to play identity politics (pitting minorities and whites against each other). Hillary, and surrogates try to label Bernie as a "defender of white privilege". When, in fact, Bernie is the only one that truly looks beyond race and privilege, with policies that include all Americans, regardless of race or position in society." -Rune Lagman ..."
    "... The laziness of "all we need to do is vote for Bernie" is sad. We don't need to build a movement! Just one vote, and centuries of injustice are effortlessly overturned! Don't bother coming again, or paying attention to how resumes with black-sounding names are downplayed! You've done your part and it will all work out in the end! ..."
    "... Hopefully we have the fortitude to stand up to the fear-mongering and siren-song of the Democratic establishment. A vote for Hillary won't change anything, but a vote for Bernie will definitely start the changes that are necessary. ..."
    "... A vote for Bernie is a vote for a movement and IT IS the kind of movement that Martin Luther King had wanted all along. Doctor King did not want apologies or even reparations. Doctor King wanted fair and equal pay, decent educations, good jobs, and equality in all rights, privileges, and opportunities for his people. Martin Luther King was a black man decent enough for a white man to follow and I did. Bernie Sanders is a white man decent enough for a black man to follow. ..."
    "... I just hate the way Hillary campaigns. She said Sanders should apologize for Sandy Hook? Why isn't he media all over her for that? Because they have double standards. She lies about Sanders record as if it's expected just as taking a lot of money from rich donors and corporations is expected. ..."
    "... Here is Konczal on Bernie's "disastrous" interview at the NYDN. http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/ As you can see, Konczal does not buy into Krugman's and the MSM overblown reactions. Sanders gave pretty straight forward and normal answers. For those who don't know, Konczal is a financial reform expert who Krugman respects and often cites. ..."
    "... The same applies to Sanders not knowing the specific statute for prosecuting banks for their actions in the housing bubble. Knowingly passing off fraudulent mortgages in a mortgage backed security is fraud. Could the Justice Department prove this case against high level bank executives? Who knows, but they obviously didn't try. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    Alain Sherter :
    I guess Paul forgot about JPMorgan, Wells, Goldman, et al mainlining cruddy MBS into the global economy. Unless he wouldn't locate that near the "heart" of the financial crisis--more like the arteries. Weak sauce, Krugman.
    Reg -> Alain Sherter...
    Comments on Krugman's contribution to the Clinton Campaign closed as I was writing this, so I'll post it here:

    What we are now hearing from PK and the doddering Barney Frank (if his near-meltdown on Chris Hayes, debating - or shouting at - Robert Reich is any indication), is that Too Big To Fail doesn't exist. It's only about capital requirements. Capital requirements are critical, but it's crackpot to dismiss the notion that players in the financial system that are clearly "too big to fail" can't find ways to threaten the economic system in the future, in their quest for profits. If Frank believes that his very modest, watered-down-by-lobbyists bill, dependent as much on the integrity of regulators as the SEC et al for "teeth", erases the risk of "too big to fail" I've got a bridge to sell Barney. Smart Guys like Krugman and Frank didn't see the meltdown coming. They won't see the next one if these behemoths have their way. Glass Steagall isn't enough, but it served the country well for decades and was destroyed by the Clinton administration, in tandem with the vulture Phil Gramm. When Lloyd Blankfein is no longer comfortable supporting Hillary Clinton I'll believe that she has cut ties to Wall Street. "Robert Rubin Democrats" aren't Democrats IMHO - they are stealth Republicans and Bernie is the only candidate who we could trust to drive these money-changers from the political "temple", as opposed to letting them influence the administration as Clinton inevitably will.

    anne :
    https://twitter.com/JeffDSachs/status/718408431347101696 Jeffrey D. Sachs ‏@JeffDSachs

    It's incredible that a silly rant like this passes for commentary at the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html

    5:01 AM - 8 Apr 2016

    anne -> anne...
    https://twitter.com/JeffDSachs/status/716113079285714944

    Jeffrey D. Sachs ‏@JeffDSachs

    I like the fact that Krugman is showing his true colors: the Conscience of the Status Quo. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/feel-the-math/

    9:00 PM - 1 Apr 2016

    BigBozat -> anne...
    Conscience of a Neoliberal.

    PPaine -> Aaron...

    Qualifications are based on criterion
    Bernie's criterion

    You are NOT a corporate liberal

    Experience is not a valuable criterion
    If you served the corporate whales

    ilsm -> PPaine ...
    experience gained from voting Bush

    a blank check with poor kids bodies,

    and then taking out Qaddafi for the French

    ain't so good!

    anyone who gets paid to blither to bankster

    has thw rong experience

    for a librul.

    JohnH -> RGC...

    Krugman just went over the edge...along with his reputation as an impartial political observer and economists. The man has an agenda.

    econospeak notes:

    "The Paul K Smear Patrol: Krugman can be ferocious going after the Right, but he also has a thing for the Left, as I recall from his trade purism of the 90s. Right now, he's on an anti-Bernie, pro-Hillary jag and pulling no punches...

    He reads an informative news article through a rather restrictive lens.

    He is too partisan to recognize that the Clinton machine-the Foundation, the campaign-are accommodative toward big pools of money. My speculation is that PK thinks the Left is a bunch of amateurs who have no business being anywhere near power, and that the citadels of expertise (which includes economists who are affiliated or will affiliate with Clinton) need to be defended against the barbarians. If it isn't that, something is causing this guy to lose his analytical balance."

    JohnH -> JohnH...
    link: http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-paul-k-smear-patrol.html

    Syaloch -> JohnH...

    "My speculation is that PK thinks the Left is a bunch of amateurs who have no business being anywhere near power, and that the citadels of expertise (which includes economists who are affiliated or will affiliate with Clinton) need to be defended against the barbarians."

    I think that's pretty much spot on. Krugman believes that only policy wonks should run for office. The possibility that providing visionary leadership and formulating detailed policy proposals might be two different jobs seems not to have occurred to him.

    Julio -> Syaloch...
    Exactly.

    I watched Frank (who I think is a good and smart guy), a Clinton supporter, debate Reich (who I think is both, plus his heart is in the right place), a Sanders supporter, about the banks. Same disconnect: Frank was going on about the details of Dodd-Frank, demanding that Reich provide more detail about Bernie's proposals, and missing the essential point:

    Wall St. is not our friend.

    Reg -> Julio ...
    That was actually embarrassing for Barney because he has trouble dealing with counterargument and tends to just rant and denigrate whoever he is speaking "at." He had a similar episode about a week ago, also on Hayes, where he doesn't seem to have any ability to demonstrate grace or due respect - which I've often enjoyed when he is countering some crazy Republican, but I'm starting to recognize as a personality flaw. He's got an inflated opinion of himself.

    Krugman seems like he has a tendency to "go there" as well. Reminiscent of when he called Obama supporters "a cult" when the Prez took on Hillary. Did that numerous times, just like he can't stop himself from using "Bernie Bros."

    RGC -> Julio ...
    Which bank did Barney go to work for? Does he get to "work" from home?
    Chris G -> Syaloch...
    > Krugman believes that only policy wonks should run for office. The possibility that providing visionary leadership and formulating detailed policy proposals might be two different jobs seems not to have occurred to him.

    Steve Randy Waldman had a good post on this subject a couple months back, Your Theory of Politics is Wrong. An excerpt:

    "A democratic polity does not elect a technocrat-in-chief, but politicians whose role is to define priorities that must later be translated into well-crafted policy details.... The problems of our polity do not arise because one faction or another is too stupid to do high quality science.... Being smart is great. You may be proud of your GRE scores, your PhD, your Nobel Prize even. And deservedly! But raw intellect is not scarce, and no faction holds anywhere near a monopoly.

    In a democratic polity, wonks are the help. The role of the democratic process is to adjudicate interests and values. Wonks get a vote just like everyone else, but expertise on technocratic matters ought not translate to any deference on interests and values.

    If your theory of democracy is that informed citizens ought to cast votes based on the best social science, you have no theory of democracy at all."

    Link = http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6400.html

    Reg -> Chris G ...
    "wonks are the help"

    Ouch!

    Chris G -> Reg ...
    Yeah, I can't imagine that plays well with the likes of Krugman, DeLong, and company.
    Peter -> Chris G ...
    Yes great recall on your part.
    Dan Kervick -> Chris G ...
    The thing is, Hillary Clinton is also not a policy wonk. Sanders led out of the gate last year with a 12-point policy agenda while Clinton was still struggling to articulate broad themes.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-economic-policy-speech-nyc-120028

    Later, Clinton came out with a detailed financial plan, which is fine. That plan consists in various places of calls for "more regulation" of various functions and sectors. Does anybody think Hillary Clinton actually has a lot of specific ideas about what these regulations will actually look like after the wonks write them up? Of course she doesn't. And well she shouldn't! She's running for President, not the project manager of the policy engineering department. CEOs have to set the vision and mission, keep the team on track, and then make dozens of important decisions every day. They don't wallow in that kind of detail (until they have to go out in public to sell it.)

    Clinton's strength is politics, network building and balancing the competing interests and red lines of top elite stakeholders. The policy stuff comes from other people. Podesta, Brad DeLong and others built her a whole new fancy policy kitchen over at that Center for Equitable Growth for those purposes.

    You can't reduce a campaign contest to a menu of policies. In an campaign pinch, Clinton can always text Podesta and tell him to cook up some new policy on Subject X that sounds like Bernie Sanders. But the world is constantly changing and new challenges are constantly arising, and the values and general orientation of the leader are more important than what this week's menu looks like. Clearly Sanders's default outlook is something like: "The plutocrats are always up to no good. They are robbing, cheating and screwing us at every turn as a result of their bottomless greed, and so we need to watch them like hawks and take them on politically." Clinton's outlook seems to be that the elites are mainly good and sensible folks who have matters well in hand, and getting things done consists mainly in maintaining a consensus among them.

    Fred C. Dobbs :

    Feisty grandpa goes on tv.

    Bernie Sanders talks Hillary Clinton with Seth Meyers http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/television/2016/04/08/bernie-sanders-talks-hillary-clinton-with-seth-meyers/r2vVoEqOxQ56oQ8Fg3xXVI/story.html?event=event25
    via @BostonGlobe

    On "Late Night with Seth Meyers," when the studio fills with smoke it's a signal - it's time for "Ya Burnt," a roasting segment. On Thursday night, audiences were instead treated to "Ya Bernt."

    Yes, Bernie Sanders was on "Late Night."

    Taking over the segment, Sanders talked about his feelings over some of his most burning issues - the one percent, big banks, and late-night hosts who make jokes about his hair.

    "One percent, what do you need all that money for? If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were trying to compensate for something," said Sanders. "How is it possible that some of you are paying a lower tax rate than your secretaries? That makes less sense than the plot of Batman vs. Superman. One percent, ya burnt."

    But when Sanders sat down to interview, the jokes quickly paused and turned to more serious topics as Meyers pointed out Sanders' remarks about Clinton earlier this week.

    "You made a comment about Hillary being unqualified for the office of president," Meyers said. "Is that something you regret saying?"

    "It was said after she and her campaign said that I was unqualified," Sanders said.

    Meyers cleared up the matter slightly, suggesting to Sanders that Clinton had never said he was unqualified.

    "I heard her fail to say you were qualified, but she didn't say 'unqualified,' " Meyers said. ...

    (Video at the link.)

    Peter -> Julio ...

    Sanders is popular because he's an authentic dude. He hasn't changed his message for 30 years. People have come around to his view. He's not your normal politician.

    He's smart enough to know that the corporate media is out to get him and often says so to their faces.

    I think Hillary's suggestion that he apologize for the Sandy Hook shootings genuinely made him angry. So he responded in kind.

    If the corporate media was fair and objective they would have reported that Hillary was going negative and dragging the primary into the gutter.

    But of course the media likes a food fight and the Post fanned the flames. If Sanders didn't fight back, they would have faulted him for that. No win.

    Originally I supported Sanders's objective to run a positive campaign. Given how the Clinton campaign has behaved, now I think Sanders should have gone negative - fairly - from the start. There are legitimate questions about the Clinton Foundation, etc.

    Krugman etc would have screamed bloody murder that he's helping the Republican but so what. The Republicans are going to say all of that and worse anyway.

    If it is going to be Hillary versus Trump or Cruz, it will be the ugliest campaign in history.

    Reg -> Julio ...
    Yeah - he forgot that "air quotes" don't translate into print, so he fell for the Clinton campaign's carefully laid "bait." His comments were totally in context of the Clinton campaign's "disqualify" strategy and her slick "I'm taking it to the edge so you can't hang it on me" comments to Morning Joke. Hillary and her strategists are slick and disingenuous, Bernie is blunt and brusque.

    What else is new. Sort of like the difference in their relationships to dangerous critters like Lloyd Blankfein. Bernie tells them to go to hell. Hillary takes their money and claims it means nothing that she has their support.

    Peter -> Reg ...
    Well put.
    Tom aka Rusty :
    Clinton sycophants are incredibly dedicated, no matter what is done or said by the Clintons.

    An interesting political phenomena.

    Go Bernie, go Bernie.

    Dan Kervick :

    The idea that Krugman, an ivory tower careerists who spends most of his time trying to impress the High Church poobahs who run and advise the world's oppressive establishment power structures, should lecture a man whose entire career has been dedicated to defending the poor, weak and vulnerable on "ethical moorings" is flabbergasting.

    Where were the ethical moorings of the economic establishment over the past 35 years as they helped preside over the creation of the most unequal society on Earth? For shame.

    JohnH -> Dan Kervick...
    Yes, Krugman is loath to criticize trade deals, trickle down monetary policies, and many other engines of the investor class' wealth and power...he is a liberal face of the power structure's media machine, as evidenced by his position at the New York Times.
    William :
    Never thought this would happen, PK became a "Very Serious Person."
    BigBozat -> William...
    That should have been apparent for quite some time now. The completion of his metastasis should have been obvious to even casual observers by the time he penned his 'Varieties of Voodoo' screed attacking Friedman/Bernie with arguments from authority.
    BigBozat -> Kerry...
    "It seems that you could write similar critiques of Hillary but Paul always choses to make the critique of Bernie. I am not sure why."

    The answer to your question is embedded in your preceding sentence.

    Krugtron's definition of 'Liberal' seems curiously circumscribed. Apparently, Progressives, Social Democrats, Heterodox Economists - among others - are not part of the community.

    Dan Kervick -> BigBozat...
    I watched a video the other day where a younger Krugman in 1992 was defending basic, established liberal policies against people like Herbert Stein from AEI. I think reflecting on that discussion helps get some perspective on Krugman's current limits.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoTdWHoZ0RM

    Krugman came of age in an era when economic policy and the elite consensus was turning in a decisively more conservative, pro-market, anti-regulation, laissez faire direction. In such an environment, liberals had their hands full just keeping the conservatives from completely dismantling the social safety net. They also had to work overtime to defend basic fiscal policy responses which had been considered uncontroversial common sense in the previous era.

    The problem is, Krugman still thinks he lives in that world. He thinks the radical conservatives are still winning, and that being a liberal now mainly consists in being a conservative defender of existing liberal institutions. I think the Krugman mindset has afflicted a whole generation, for whom, no matter how many opportunities they are presented with, respond by circling the wagons and playing defense. They have been playing defense so long they don't realize how conservative they have become.

    But the radical conservatives actually aren't winning. The Republican Party is in total disarray. 2/3rds of the American public say they want "radical change":

    http://www.salon.com/2016/04/06/most_americans_want_radical_change_its_socialism_or_barbarism_and_clinton_would_only_mean_more_of_the_latter/

    anne -> Dan Kervick...
    Interesting analysis.
    Charlie Baker -> Dan Kervick...
    Well observed. I think for many Democrats, it's always 2000. I think it's that "siege mentality" that is causing pundits like Krugman to be extra-critical of Sanders, as if Bernie might hand the election over to the GOP.

    Both Dean Baker and Mike Konczal have written good defenses of Sanders' NYDN statements about the banks. Perhaps Krugman might look at them before trying to make Sanders look foolish. Very disappointing run of columns from Krugman.

    Dean Baker
    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/reporters-who-haven-t-noticed-that-paul-ryan-has-called-for-eliminating-most-of-federal-government-go-nuts-over-bernie-sanders-lack-of-specifics

    Mike Konczal
    http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/

    Fred C. Dobbs :

    NYT Delegate Counter http://nyti.ms/1yM8gsg

    shows Clinton with 1298
    Sanders with 1079, through April 5

    'State totals are pledged delegates based on election results.

    The Times estimated Washington State's 67 district-level
    delegates by using county vote totals and estimating each
    district's share based on the county's voting-age population.'


    NYT Delegate Calculator http://nyti.ms/1SxN92B

    shows Clinton starting with 1279,
    Sanders with 1027. (Or sometimes 1280 vs 1030.)

    going forward, Sanders will catch up
    if he gets 60% (looks like 58% would do it.)

    'Clinton's delegate lead is
    255, Reported by The A.P.,
    or 215, Estimated by The Green Papers'

    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-PU.phtml

    (Superdelegates are mentioned, but not included in totals.)

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...

    NYT Delegate Counter http://nyti.ms/1yM8gsg

    'Delegates remaining: 1977'

    'Delegate totals include unpledged delegates.'

    Primaries & caucuses from April 9 through June 14.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...
    The NYT data that appears in the Delegate Counter appear to match more closely with the data that appears in The Green Papers than it does with the Delegate Calculator.
    am -> Fred C. Dobbs...
    Agreed. The counter reporting the lead of 219 seems more accurate also. Sanders won heavily in Washington and the counter more accurately reflects this.
    Peter :
    Krugman leaves out a lot of context in his column. Perhaps he believes the ends justify the means during an election.

    What happened is that some polls have Sanders leading Clinton nationally. (will this kind of thing matter to the superdelegates?)

    From Chris G in todays links comments:

    "Sanders had the support of 47 percent of Democratic or Democratic-leaning voters while Clinton had 46 percent-a narrow gap that fell within the poll's 2.5 percent margin of error. The national survey was conducted in the days before the Vermont senator handily defeated the former secretary of state in the Wisconsin primary, and it tracks other polls in the last week that found Sanders erasing Clinton's edge across the country. In a poll that PRRI conducted in January, Clinton had a 20-point lead."

    Link = http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/a-sanders-surge-in-polling-if-not-delegates/477198/

    So the Clinton campaign decided to unleash the flying monkeys. The campaign and their surrogates in the media went on the attacks.

    Clinton said Sanders should apologize for Sandy Hook. The media played up the NY Dailey News interview which they said showed Sanders to be unprepared or unqualified. The Washington Post ran a headline which said Clinton said Sanders was unqualified. Maddow and others played up the angle that Clinton was raising money for the DNC while Sanders was not. Clinton asked if Sanders was a real Democratic. etc.

    This is not surprising for anyone who has followed a political campaign.

    And when Sanders predictably hit back, the Clinton campaign and the media complained he's being negative and dragging the primary into the gutter.

    Sanders supporters will no longer consider Krugman fair and objective, if they ever did.

    Reg -> Peter...
    He's fine when he sticks to Keynes. I'm guessing he'll walk back his comfort with Dodd Frank as "not too hot, not too cold, but just right" once he's no longer freaking out about Hillary's remarkably flawed candidacy (again.)

    Eric Blair :

    Krugman's politics haven't changed much since he first made his name 35 years ago, whether he is "liberal" or "centrist" is mostly a reflection of where the current center is. His Bernie blasts remind me of the potshots he used to take at John Kenneth Galbraith.

    likbez -> MIB...

    they're not running around imposing some socialist purity test

    Hillary is running around imposing a neocon purity test on the US foreign policy agenda.

    rune lagman -> DeDude...
    That's absolutely correct. Bernie on top of the Democratic ticket has good chance of capturing congress, something hillary can't.

    Besides Hillary doesn't believe in $15 minimum wage, and won't fight for it. Bernie will.

    likbez -> MIB...
    Bernie's remark that Hillary is unqualified to be president is immature and sexist.

    If we are talking about foreign policy, she is definitely unqualified. Her tenure at State Department was a disaster. No diplomatic skills, whatsoever. She was trying to imitate Madeleine Albright not noticing that the times changed.

    Her appointment of Dick Cheney close associate Victoria Nuland first as State Department Spokesperson and then Assistant Secretary of State was an act of betrayal of everything Democratic Party should stand for. It was actually return to Bush II/Cheney (or should be Cheney/Bush II) foreign policy.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

    In case she is elected, she will be a real threat to world peace. It is just unclear what country she will decide to invade next. But she will definitely invade.

    dd :

    Hillary Clinton the last of the angry old white entitled one percenter Rockfeller Republicans cloaked in feminism ready to lead the Neodemocratic party.
    dd -> MIB...
    Hillary is no FDR although a comparison to JFK's father's wall street shenanigans is probably apt. I particularly admire the tax-free donations to a tax-free entity with of course wall street as a major donor. I'm sure under her leadership we will begin to explore even more innovative tax avoidance to help the needy.

    am :

    It is reported that sanders is walking back the statement that Clinton is unqualified to be president.
    Benedict@Large -> am...
    "It is reported that ..." Exactly. And that means exactly what? The media is owned by people who have exactly zero interest in the American people being informed about who stealing all the bacon and how.

    Peter -> am...

    You could easily Google it.

    Again I don't understand why Hillary doesn't have to walk it back. She started it. What she said differed very little from Sanders said.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-i-attacked-hillary-clinton-because-she-attacked-me/

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/television/2016/04/08/bernie-sanders-talks-hillary-clinton-with-seth-meyers/r2vVoEqOxQ56oQ8Fg3xXVI/story.html?event=event25

    Peter -> am...
    double standards

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/

    Rune Lagman :

    It's truly sad to watch Paul Krugman (PK) turn into a political stooge for the wealthy liberal elite that currently runs the Democratic party.

    What better proof could there possibly be, that it's time to kick Hillary and her cronies to the curb.

    If PK were the numbers guy, that he claims, he'd be all in for Bernie. With Bernie as the Democratic nominee, it's a very strong possibility that the Democrats retake, not only the presidency and the senate, but also the house. Hillary might win the presidency, but her upside (beyond the presidency) is limited.

    Bernie has also proven that medicare-for-all is a politically possible, all we need to do (if we want medicare-for-all) is vote for Bernie.

    Likewise for tuition-free college, $15 minimum wage, and a job-market that would make Bill Clinton's late 90's look puny; even Hillary's economists agree on the over-heated job-market (if Bernie implemented all his proposals). All we need to do, is, ignore the barrage from the establishment, and vote for Bernie. It's that simple folks.

    Likewise for a 21st century green economy. With Bernie in the white house and friendly house and senate, we can start building the 21st-century green economy. All we need to do is vote for Bernie.

    A vote for Hillary is a vote for status quo, nothing will really change. The Democratic establishment will still blame the republican majority in the house for the lack of progress.

    Bernie is the only candidate that refuse to play identity politics (pitting minorities and whites against each other). Hillary, and surrogates try to label Bernie as a "defender of white privilege". When, in fact, Bernie is the only one that truly looks beyond race and privilege, with policies that include all Americans, regardless of race or position in society.

    If we want a post-racial society, all we need to do is vote for Bernie. The question is, do we dare to stand up for ourselves against a powerful establishment?

    William -> Rune Lagman...
    "Bernie is the only candidate that refuse to play identity politics (pitting minorities and whites against each other). Hillary, and surrogates try to label Bernie as a "defender of white privilege". When, in fact, Bernie is the only one that truly looks beyond race and privilege, with policies that include all Americans, regardless of race or position in society." -Rune Lagman

    [Bernie is and remains the only candidate to firmly, and unequivocally state "Black Lives Matter"]

    jh -> Rune Lagman...

    The laziness of "all we need to do is vote for Bernie" is sad. We don't need to build a movement! Just one vote, and centuries of injustice are effortlessly overturned! Don't bother coming again, or paying attention to how resumes with black-sounding names are downplayed! You've done your part and it will all work out in the end!

    It won't work out like that, and I dearly hope that nobody is thinking that way.

    Rune Lagman -> jh...
    This is the kind of defeatism (and lies), that the Democratic establishment is using to preserve the status quo.

    Hopefully we have the fortitude to stand up to the fear-mongering and siren-song of the Democratic establishment. A vote for Hillary won't change anything, but a vote for Bernie will definitely start the changes that are necessary.

    This is the reason Bernie talks about a political revolution. A vote for Bernie is just the beginning.

    Rune Lagman -> sherparick...

    Excellent example of the identity-politics that pit Americans against each other. In this case women vs men. As a matter of fact Bernie in the white house is better for women than Hillary.

    Bernie is much stronger, than Hillary, among independents. Bernie's strength among independents will make the republican gerrymandering backfire. It only takes a few %-points swing among lower educated whites. In addition, Bernie brings a whole new cadre of voters, that normally would stay home, to the polls.

    Another perfect example of establishment fear-mongering and misinformation.

    jh -> Rune Lagman...
    Except you didn't say that it's "just the beginning." You said it's "all we need to do."

    The frustration among "establishment" people is that you are promoting the idea that it is so easy. And you do, until called on it, at which point you pivot.

    Rune Lagman -> jh...
    Because it is "easy".

    As long as we "see through" the fear-mongering and siren-song of the establishment, all we need to do is show up at the polls; again and again and again ...

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> jh...

    A vote for Bernie is a vote for a movement and IT IS the kind of movement that Martin Luther King had wanted all along. Doctor King did not want apologies or even reparations. Doctor King wanted fair and equal pay, decent educations, good jobs, and equality in all rights, privileges, and opportunities for his people. Martin Luther King was a black man decent enough for a white man to follow and I did. Bernie Sanders is a white man decent enough for a black man to follow.
    RGC -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    Well said.

    anne :

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html

    February 11, 2008

    Hate Springs Eternal
    By PAUL KRUGMAN

    I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality....

    [ Ah, I understand. ]

    anne -> anne...

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/im-a-pussycat/

    July 4, 2008

    I'm a Pussycat
    By Paul Krugman

    Compared with the Times editorial page. People don't seem to know this, but they, not me, were the first to worry about an Obama cult of personality. * And today's editorial ** is quite something.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/opinion/06wed1.html

    ** http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04fri1.html

    anne -> anne...
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/lweb13krugman.html

    'Venom'? 'Cult'? It's Campaign Fever

    To the Editor:

    "Hate Springs Eternal," by Paul Krugman:

    Mr. Krugman, a consistent critic of Barack Obama, did not produce a shred of evidence for his categorical statement that the "venom" being displayed in the Democratic campaign comes from Obama supporters, "who want their hero or nobody." And it seems to perpetuate the same bizarre bitterness that he derides in his column.

    Even worse is his assertion that "the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." I am surprised and saddened that a thoughtful public intellectual like Mr. Krugman would write such a careless and unfair statement at a moment of critical potential in national politics.

    Barack Obama is changing the way we think about race in America. His inclusive message is so refreshing that, in addition to strong backing from blacks, he is drawing unprecedented nationwide support from white voters. It is so upsetting that this remarkable and historic feat is belittled as a "cult of personality."

    William Julius Wilson
    Cambridge, Mass., Feb. 11, 2008
    The writer is a professor of sociology and social policy at Harvard University.

    Julio -> anne...
    Excellent link. The letters to the editor are very worthwhile reading; they provide an eerie echo of the discussion we're having today.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> sherparick...

    "if you dissent from the Bernie movement you... can only do so if you are a tool of the 1%"

    [Perhaps you are right.

    I see both sides. The liberal establishment is safe and there are no surprises once you get used to being perpetually disappointed. I will be 67 years old in a couple weeks. That is a long time to be perpetually disappointed. I only have so many more years left to live. Viet Nam taught me to get over my fears and do what needed to be done. I lack both the time and the fear to follow the liberal establishment as long as there is a progressive alternative available.]

    Peter -> sherparick...
    I remember 2008 very well and Krugman was blowing things out of proportion about Obama's supporters just as he is doing now about Sanders supporters.

    "Ironically, many of the people blasting him then for criticizing Obama in hte 2008 primary season in turn started blasting Obama in the summer of 2009 as the Affordable Care Act sausage was being made and PK was then defending Obama"

    Simply not true. The people on the left who hated the ACA didn't support Obama for president. The said he was too centrist.

    Peter -> Rumpole...

    I just hate the way Hillary campaigns. She said Sanders should apologize for Sandy Hook? Why isn't he media all over her for that? Because they have double standards. She lies about Sanders record as if it's expected just as taking a lot of money from rich donors and corporations is expected.

    I can understand why she might be peeved at constant accusations of corruption because of her campaign finances, because why is she being singled out, she must be wondering. Everyone does it. But that's part of Sanders's point, so he's not really being that personal about her.

    Peter -> Peter...
    And she and her supporters have double standards. Her policy proposals are just as vague and broad-stroked as Sanders's proposal and yet she has the gall to accuse Sanders of not doing his homework. He's been thinking about this stuff for decades.

    Benedict@Large -> Rumpole...

    The hate is a figment of Hillary's campaign. She used the same allegations back in 2008. They're who she is as a candidate.

    Rune Lagman -> Rumpole...

    What budget proposal?

    Besides, Bernie may very well bring with him a Democratic house. Absolutely no change of Hillary doing so.

    Besides Bernie has a long history of working with the opposition. Hillary is very polarizing.

    Just more establishment misinformation.

    Benedict@Large :

    I wonder what Paul has to say about Hillary's racist co-campaigner and husband?

    There's a lot of nasty stuff in this campaign, and everyone knows where it's coming from. A few, like Paul, are playing defense, but they are not fooling anyone. The Clintons are very poor losers, and at times like these, this secret becomes impossible to keep inside the Washington beltway.

    anne :

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/718502209051324416

    Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald

    This was actually published by the Washington Post 2 days ago - and remains there (just by the way):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/

    April 6, 2016

    Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president

    By Juliet Eilperin and Anne Gearan

    11:14 AM - 8 Apr 2016

    eudaimonia :

    Here is Konczal on Bernie's "disastrous" interview at the NYDN. http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/ As you can see, Konczal does not buy into Krugman's and the MSM overblown reactions. Sanders gave pretty straight forward and normal answers. For those who don't know, Konczal is a financial reform expert who Krugman respects and often cites.
    Peter -> eudaimonia...
    and here is Dean Baker who Krugman often cites

    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/reporters-who-haven-t-noticed-that-paul-ryan-has-called-for-eliminating-most-of-federal-government-go-nuts-over-bernie-sanders-lack-of-specifics

    Reporters Who Haven't Noticed That Paul Ryan Has Called for Eliminating Most of Federal Government Go Nuts Over Bernie Sanders' Lack of Specifics

    Published: 05 April 2016

    The Washington press corps has gone into one of its great feeding frenzies over Bernie Sanders' interview with New York Daily News. Sanders avoided specific answers to many of the questions posed, which the D.C. gang are convinced shows a lack of the knowledge necessary to be president.

    Among the frenzied were the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, The Atlantic's David Graham, and Vanity Fair's Tina Nguyen, and CNN's Dylan Byers telling about it all. Having read the transcript of the interview I would say that I certainly would have liked to see more specificity in Sanders' answers, but I'm an economist. And some of the complaints are just silly.

    When asked how he would break up the big banks Sanders said he would leave that up to the banks. That's exactly the right answer. The government doesn't know the most efficient way to break up JP Morgan, JP Morgan does. If the point is to downsize the banks, the way to do it is to give them a size cap and let them figure out the best way to reconfigure themselves to get under it.

    The same applies to Sanders not knowing the specific statute for prosecuting banks for their actions in the housing bubble. Knowingly passing off fraudulent mortgages in a mortgage backed security is fraud. Could the Justice Department prove this case against high level bank executives? Who knows, but they obviously didn't try.

    And the fact that Sanders didn't know the specific statute, who cares? How many people know the specific statute for someone who puts a bullet in someone's head? That's murder, and if a candidate for office doesn't know the exact title and specific's of her state murder statute, it hardly seems like a big issue.

    There is a very interesting contrast in media coverage of House Speaker Paul Ryan. In Washington policy circles Ryan is treated as a serious budget wonk. How many reporters have written about the fact this serious budget wonk has repeatedly proposed eliminating most of the federal government. This was not an offhand gaffe that Ryan made when caught in a bad moment, this was in his budgets that he pushed through as chair of the House Budget Committee.

    This fact can be found in the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis of Ryan's budget (page 16, Table 2). The analysis shows Ryan's budget shrinking everything other than Social Security and Medicare and other health care programs to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2050. This is roughly the current size of the military budget, which Ryan has indicated he wants to increase. That leaves zero for everything else.

    Included in everything else is the Justice Department, the National Park System, the State Department, the Department of Education, the Food and Drug Administration, Food Stamps, the National Institutes of Health, and just about everything else that the government does. Just to be clear, CBO did this analysis under Ryan's supervision. He never indicated any displeasure with its assessment. In fact he boasted about the fact that CBO showed his budget paying off the national debt.

    So there you have it. The D.C. press corps that goes nuts because Bernie Sanders doesn't know the name of the statute under which he would prosecute bank fraud thinks a guy who calls for eliminating most of the federal government is a great budget wonk.

    Peter -> Peter...
    and here is Robert Reich versus Barney Frank

    https://youtu.be/jCwfrhmDmS4

    [Apr 10, 2016] It is truly sad to watch Paul Krugman turn into a political stooge for the wealthy liberal elite that currently runs the Democratic party.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's truly sad to watch Paul Krugman (PK) turn into a political stooge for the wealthy liberal elite that currently runs the Democratic party. What better proof could there possibly be, that it's time to kick Hillary and her cronies to the curb. ..."
    "... A vote for Hillary is a vote for status quo, nothing will really change. The Democratic establishment will still blame the republican majority in the house for the lack of progress. ..."
    "... Bernie is the only candidate that refuse to play identity politics (pitting minorities and whites against each other). Hillary, and surrogates try to label Bernie as a "defender of white privilege". When, in fact, Bernie is the only one that truly looks beyond race and privilege, with policies that include all Americans, regardless of race or position in society. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    April 08, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Rune Lagman

    It's truly sad to watch Paul Krugman (PK) turn into a political stooge for the wealthy liberal elite that currently runs the Democratic party. What better proof could there possibly be, that it's time to kick Hillary and her cronies to the curb.

    If PK were the numbers guy, that he claims, he'd be all in for Bernie. With Bernie as the Democratic nominee, it's a very strong possibility that the Democrats retake, not only the presidency and the senate, but also the house. Hillary might win the presidency, but her upside (beyond the presidency) is limited.

    Bernie has also proven that medicare-for-all is a politically possible, all we need to do (if we want medicare-for-all) is vote for Bernie.

    Likewise for tuition-free college, $15 minimum wage, and a job-market that would make Bill Clinton's late 90's look puny; even Hillary's economists agree on the over-heated job-market (if Bernie implemented all his proposals). All we need to do, is, ignore the barrage from the establishment, and vote for Bernie. It's that simple folks.

    Likewise for a 21st century green economy. With Bernie in the white house and friendly house and senate, we can start building the 21st-century green economy. All we need to do is vote for Bernie.

    A vote for Hillary is a vote for status quo, nothing will really change. The Democratic establishment will still blame the republican majority in the house for the lack of progress.

    Bernie is the only candidate that refuse to play identity politics (pitting minorities and whites against each other). Hillary, and surrogates try to label Bernie as a "defender of white privilege". When, in fact, Bernie is the only one that truly looks beyond race and privilege, with policies that include all Americans, regardless of race or position in society.

    If we want a post-racial society, all we need to do is vote for Bernie. The question is, do we dare to stand up for ourselves against a powerful establishment?

    [Apr 10, 2016] Hillary is definitely unqualified as POTUS because her tenure at State Department was a disaster

    Notable quotes:
    "... If we are talking about foreign policy, she is definitely unqualified. Her tenure at State Department was a disaster. No diplomatic skills, whatsoever. She was trying to imitate Madeleine Albright not noticing that times changed. ..."
    "... In case she is elected, she will be a real threat to world peace. It is just unclear what country she will decide to invade next. But she will definitely invade. ..."
    "... Hillary is running around imposing a neocon purity test on the US foreign policy agenda. ..."
    "... A vote for Hillary is a vote for mediocrity; especially in the mid-terms. ..."
    "... Its a long campaign. They are not suppose to be friends. Stuff gets said, gets misreported ..."
    "... Hillary went negative and dragged the primary into the gutter. She said Sanders should apologize for Sandy Hook. I don't really blame Sanders for getting angry. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    likbez -> MIB...

    Bernie's remark that Hillary is unqualified to be president is immature and sexist.

    If we are talking about foreign policy, she is definitely unqualified. Her tenure at State Department was a disaster. No diplomatic skills, whatsoever. She was trying to imitate Madeleine Albright not noticing that times changed.

    Her appointment of Dick Cheney close associate Victoria Nuland first as State Department Spokesperson and then Assistant Secretary of State was an act of betrayal of everything Democratic Party should stand for. It was actually return to Bush II/Cheney (or should it be Cheney/Bush II) foreign policy.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

    In case she is elected, she will be a real threat to world peace. It is just unclear what country she will decide to invade next. But she will definitely invade.

    likbez said in reply to MIB...

    they're not running around imposing some socialist purity test

    Hillary is running around imposing a neocon purity test on the US foreign policy agenda.

    Rune Lagman said in reply to MIB...

    Without Bernie's revolution the mid-terms is just going to be even more dismal. The Democratic establishment fail in the mid-terms because they don't run on a national program. They believe it's about the competency of the individual candidate.

    Elections should be about issues that voters care about; the Democratic establishment still don't get that concept.

    A vote for Hillary is a vote for mediocrity; especially in the mid-terms.

    dd said in reply to MIB...

    Hillary is no FDR although a comparison to JFK's father's wall street shenanigans is probably apt. I particularly admire the tax-free donations to a tax-free entity with of course wall street as a major donor. I'm sure under her leadership we will begin to explore even more innovative tax avoidance to help the needy.


    sherparick said in reply to jh...

    Its a long campaign. They are not suppose to be friends. Stuff gets said, gets misreported (in this case a WaPo headline that said something that Clinton did not say. The WaPo by the way has been far more vicious about Bernie then Clinton and her surrogates on her worse day.)

    Sanders is a remarkable politician and always has been. I am not in the end voting for him, I still admire his campaign as one of the great achievements of the American Left in my lifetime.

    Actually, Bernie and Jeff Weaver did Clinton a favor by taking the troll bait. She is at her best counter-punching and fighting from the underdog position. You can say a lot of things about Hillary, (I worry about her judgement and group think tendencies), but she is tough and courageous and seems to actually enjoy a good knock down drag out political fight.

    Peter said in reply to sherparick...

    Hillary went negative and dragged the primary into the gutter. She said Sanders should apologize for Sandy Hook. I don't really blame Sanders for getting angry.

    Obama was much better at staying focused and on message. But then he made some policy mistakes as President which I don't believe Sanders would have done.

    [Apr 06, 2016] No Turning Point What Happens in Wisconsin Stays in Wisconsin; Hell to Pay

    Zero Hedge

    Whether Trump wins the nomination or it is stolen from him, a destructive breakup of the holier-than-thou, war-mongering, neocon pseudo-conservative hypocrites running the Republican party is potentially at hand. For that we can all thank Trump, whether you like the guy or not. It's time to rebuild the Republican party, and this is a good start. If the nomination is stolen from Trump, he can finish the job with a third-party candidacy.

    [Mar 26, 2016] Mr. Trump Goes To Washington

    www.moonofalabama.org

    M of A

    Donald Trump toured Washington yesterday for backroom meetings with Republican party bigwigs, for pandering to the Israel lobby and for an examination by the neoconned Washington Post editors.

    The Republican party has given up its resistance to Trump. See for example the Republican functionary John Feehery who opined on February 29 that Trump is an authoritarian, and:

    We beat the Nazis and the Japanese in the World War II and protected freedom and democracy by beating the Soviet Union in the Cold War. It would be a damn shame if we lost it all by giving in to the authoritarian impulse in this election .

    The same guy only twenty-two days later :

    Republican voters can support the nominee picked by a majority of the voters, they can sit this election out, or they can start a third party. The last two choices give the White House to the Clinton machine.

    I am not happy that Donald Trump could be our nominee, but I am learning to live with that distinct possibility .

    That, in short, is the revised position of the Republican party. It has given up on fighting Trump and will now propel him into the White House. What will happen thereafter? Who knows?

    Trump is pure marketing. A salesperson throughout. This video explains how his linguistics works - words with only very few syllables, strong buzzword at the end of the sentences. It is fourth grade reading level language. Exactly the level needed to sell his product to the U.S. public and the Republican party. He is an expert in doing this.

    But what product does Trump sell? Does he know it? Does he know how that product functions? Is he serious in what he claims that product to be. I have my doubts.

    So has Par Lang. He remarks on yesterday's Trump appearance at the U.S. Zionists beauty contests:

    Trump's pander was so extreme that one ponders the possibility that he was mocking the audience.

    Trump probably does not even care what political product he sells. For now he is selling the salesman himself. Buy Trump and all problems will be solved. He does this convincingly. Most of what he said so far is just nonsense and solely for marketing purpose. There are only few consistent political lines that did not (yet) change over time. These are the lines that rile the Washington Post editors:

    Donald Trump endorsed an unabashedly noninterventionist approach to world affairs Monday during a day-long tour of Washington, casting doubt on the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and expressing skepticism about a muscular U.S. military presence in Asia.
    ...
    "At what point do you say, 'Hey, we have to take care of ourselves?' " Trump said in the editorial board meeting. "I know the outer world exists, and I'll be very cognizant of that. But at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially the inner cities."

    Trump said U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years, breaking with nearly seven decades of consensus in Washington. "We certainly can't afford to do this anymore," he said, adding later, "NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we're protecting Europe with NATO, but we're spending a lot of money."

    To this the editors opine :

    Unfortunately, the visit provided no reassurance regarding Mr. Trump's fitness for the presidency. "I'm not a radical person," he told us as he was leaving. But his answers left little doubt how radical a risk the nation would be taking in entrusting the White House to him.

    But who are the real radicals, the real radical risk? The salesperson Trump or the neoconned Washington Post publisher and editors? You may judged that from this excerpt at the end of the talk's transcript :

    [FREDERICK RYAN JR., WASHINGTON POST PUBLISHER]: You [MUFFLED] mentioned a few minutes earlier here that you would knock ISIS. You've mentioned it many times. You've also mentioned the risk of putting American troop in a danger area. If you could substantially reduce the risk of harm to ground troops, would you use a battlefield nuclear weapon to take out ISIS ?

    TRUMP: I don't want to use, I don't want to start the process of nuclear. Remember the one thing that everybody has said, I'm a counterpuncher. Rubio hit me. Bush hit me. When I said low energy, he's a low-energy individual, he hit me first. I spent, by the way he spent 18 million dollars' worth of negative ads on me. That's putting [MUFFLED]…

    RYAN: This is about ISIS. You would not use a tactical nuclear weapon against ISIS? [CROSSTALK] ...

    The salesperson stopped there. Instead of answering that question Trump asked for personal introduction to the people taking part in the event. To nuke some lunatics in Toyota technicals is not Trumps idea of his product. He would not sell that. Not even for gaining the support of the WaPo neocons.

    Buying Trump is buying a pig in a poke. One does not know what one might get. But I find it unlikely that he would pursue an interventionist policy. Then again - George W. Bush also pretended to be a non-interventionist - until that changed.

    But Trumps current non-interventionist position is a big contrast to Hillary Clinton. She unashamedly offers her well known toxic brew of neo-liberal and neo-conservative orthodoxy. She will wage war, Trump may. As a foreigner that is the decisive difference to me.

    But if I were a voter in the U.S. my position would be based on economic policies. There Bernie Sanders is surely preferable to Trump and very much preferable to Clinton.

    Posted by b at 01:45 PM | Comments (113) Inkan1969 | Mar 22, 2016 2:16:02 PM | 2
    rg the lg | Mar 22, 2016 2:25:10 PM | 3
    So, I guess what all this means is that the Repubs have accepted Trump as less evil than Hillary? But, what if the nominee of the Democ side isn't Hillary? What if it is the Bern? Not that it makes a dimes worth of difference. Did anyone read Dimitri Orlovs post for today? I have to say that his take is pretty close to where we are headed ... if not soon, eventually.

    I have no idea who really originated the bit about interesting times ... but I suspect it may be what we are living through. That is, if this is living ...

    aaaa | Mar 22, 2016 2:25:37 PM | 4
    "Trump is pure marketing. A salesperson throughout. This video explains how his linguistics works - words with only very few syllables, strong buzzword at the end of the sentences. It is fourth grade reading level language. Exactly the level needed to sell his product to the U.S. public and the Republican party. He is an expert in doing this."

    Gee, did you miss the whole Obama campaign? Does CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN/HOPE? ring a bell?

    Kalen | Mar 22, 2016 2:31:07 PM | 5
    Trump, an quintessential oligarchs himself, famous for marrying supermodels and losing half of his Dad's fortune. The MSM long before elections virtually created Trump as Flaccid Clown TV persona.

    This Flaccid Clown made himself a mirror of a fascist American society that through him can bask in its ugliness, ignorance and narcissism of exceptional mediocrity of Trump_vs_deep_state.

    Trump salesman has qualities of a self-invented cult leader, characterized by extreme bullying, intimidation, threats and/or violence and disregard to humanity reaching fair beyond any acceptable human conduct. He is a phony opportunist, a sewage excretion of his personal puny psychopathic insecurities for profit and fame with no other program, idea or thought behind it.

    He did not appear on the political stage accidentally, he has his role to play and he is playing it well so far, whatever establishment wants him to play. These are political puppets, stooges, chicken hawks, and front-men of the establishment who are scared, afraid that their services will no longer be needed by true ruling elite who run this abhorrent regime for about 240 years..

    This Flaccid Clown is an artificial phenomenon. He is a media phenomenon "hired by a establishment ", to tell establishment "You are fired" in a group psychotic episode of surrealistic transference of a cartoon character of reality show into empty desperate lives of those rejected by ruling elite, unable to effectively serve it or submit to power and hence forcefully alienated from delusions of American Serf Dream. He is uploaded by his oligarchic handlers, with misconceived populist utterances passes for ideas that he has no interest in, no understanding of or any intention or intellectual capability to follow. This is all about the show, and he is the entertainer of the moment.

    The establishment has all the bullets, criminal, political, economic, tax evasion, socio-sexual, financial to kill Trump candidacy in a week, even to indict him. Few front pages with this Flaccid Clown portrayed as a pariah, Russian spy, a commie, baby killer, thief, Antichrist, terrorist supporter, with no facts but innuendos would unravel his shallow support among desperate, scared, confused, blind, revenge seeking mob who now supports and idolizes him regardless what nonsense he is uttering. All bullets are ready to fire unless he submits and betrays his following and that's what he did just recently with bending over to AIPAC and refusing to run as independent if not nominated, another betrayal of his mindless, raging hormones followers. After all he does what he is hired to do.

    What he is actually used for by the Oligarchic establishment that supports him so far (Christie [and others, establishment bullies], is first one to admit it) is to galvanize desperate public, who finds his ignorance appealing and refreshing on such a calcified political stage of puppetry as well as moves those who see in him a danger of fascist narcissistic megalomaniac taking power.

    All the political commotion is aimed to insidiously entice Americans all to rush to voting booths thinking that they could make any slightest difference in their own lives and life of the nation by supporting or denouncing a puppet of the ruling elite.

    Unfortunately, this time as well, millions of irrational, desperate and helpless in their daily lives electoral zombies, under a spell of exciting political masquerade, are aligning themselves with an anointed winner of a popularity/beauty contest, in a delusional feat of transference of a fraction of elite's power to themselves just for a second of a thrill of power. And they will continue to authorize their own suicide mission, since even baseless, continually disproved hope of any chance of influencing of the political realm via means of begging is the last thing that dies.

    What's really shocking but beyond the political sensitivity level of Americans is a fact he is yet to formulate any coherent policy he would like to implement and that's the plan, so he, if anointed by the establishment will be able to backpedal, deny or ignore his utterances, leaving gullible crowd betrayed yet again.And people he "listens" to are all hopeless neocons or wall street hacks, symbols of status quo.

    Most of Americans, not unlike a cargo cult, are impatient, nervous, excited and scared sitting and waiting before an impregnable curtain of political manipulation of the ruling elite, turning to magic, superstition, appeasement or begging for mercy or praying for a caprice of good will to save them, while blatantly abandoning their unalienable rights to self-determination and democratic system of people's rule, based on equality in the law, and one voter one vote principle.

    May be the elites will conclude that if mob wants this Flaccid Clown, they will get a them this Flaccid Clown as a puppet figure sitting in oval office replica in Hollywood following and watching himself.

    It is old principle of rulers: "Vox Populi Vox Dei" that was originally applied in the totalitarian Roman Imperial regime during imperial games at Circus Maximum and Coliseum as a pressure valve release for unruly, enraged of cronyism, and fixed, unfair rules of aristocracy, roman proletariat i.e. people with no power, to pacify them cheaply and prevent costly riots and killing expenses.
    What we have here is:
    Vox Animali, Vox Inferi.

    Trump loves two things, himself and $. He'll follow the $ if elected, by doing what his owners tell him to do. The sensible utterances by Trump are an act, designed to siphon support from other candidates.

    Posted by: ben | Mar 22, 2016 2:52:48 PM | 6

    P.S.-I'm still quite skeptical Trump will be the GOP's guy.

    Posted by: ben | Mar 22, 2016 2:55:54 PM | 7

    A big shout out to Kalen @ 5: Great post, think you nailed it..

    Posted by: ben | Mar 22, 2016 2:59:56 PM | 8

    farflungstar | Mar 22, 2016 3:00:19 PM | 9
    After Change We Can Bereave In and Mr. 9/11 GW Bush, I don't know what to believe. Trump's populist rhetoric sounds good to the ears of working proles and it amuses me that Chosenites on both the Left and Right side of the aisle as well as the media seem to be worried about him.
    This was supposed to be the end of the white male rule not only in Amerikkka, but also in formerly homogeneous Western Europe, ushered in by economic migrants, refugees often escaping from non-war zones, large explosions and heavily armed Wahabbs killing people in the train stations, bus stops, highways and by ways of these countries!
    What went wrong??
    Jake | Mar 22, 2016 3:20:43 PM | 10
    What's the problem with the haters here. trump wants to keep NATO out of Russia's hair. WHY slam him for that. even if he doesn't mean it, he can't suffer an electoral defeat now without making it radio active for another candidate to see her talk that way. what part of that do you not understand? It doesn't matter if he's just a puppet if the elites see yet another anti interventionist electoral phenomenon.
    Jack Smith | Mar 22, 2016 3:33:59 PM | 11

    "But if I were a voter in the U.S. my position would be based on economic policies. There Bernie Sanders is surely preferable to Trump and very much preferable to Clinton."

    Becoming another apologist Mr. b? Your previous "Strategist" votes bring about another Neoliberal warmonger in Canada?

    This is where we stand apart and will remain respectful to you and readers.

    Between Killary, Bernie and whoever, I will vote Trump for now , he's no different for any politicians - liars and warmonger . Trump may likely destroy the two party systems and brought change we need so badly.

    What if he (Trump) starts another endless war? Do you really believe Killary and Bernie any different? The answers, better the devil who will start another war than the one who lies? My opinion, Bernie is far more dangerous than Obomo another Trojan horse.

    I maybe a minority here, but in the real world the numbers are growing - as I came across anyone I met regardless parties affiliation.

    Economic..?. blah! You believe in Fiat money, Wall Street or Banksters?

    fast freddy | Mar 22, 2016 3:38:17 PM | 12
    Trump is nasty, mean, corrupt, a bully and a nut, but he is the only candidate who offers a chance (however slim) of breaking the stinking rotten corrupt status quo in any way.

    I am sorry that he coddled the rotten, murderous Israel. But we are too far down the rabbit hole - these days all of Congress must express their devotion to Israel. This is craziness, but it is a sickening fact. They're all Xtians, too. This is also nuts and disgusting pandering.

    It's going to take a nasty Republican like Trump to break (or to make a valiant effort to crack) the nasty machine.

    Obama has shown himself and the corrupt D Party to have been a comprehensive, dismal failure for the common people. The D Party offers no hope and no change.

    Perhaps it won't be necessary for Trump to malign and attack the BDS movement as the slavering Hillary is doing. It's running off her fangs and down the front of her blood- soaked shirt.

    ben | Mar 22, 2016 3:38:28 PM | 13
    Jake @ 10: "trump wants to keep NATO out of Russia's hair."

    "Why slam him for that" Glad to hear you believe everything someone tells you.

    Simple observation, and comment. Hate? Take a deep breath and relax.

    aaaa | Mar 22, 2016 3:38:51 PM | 14
    @7 he isn't the GOP's guy, and that's why they might sabotage the convention and almost assuredly give the election to Hillary.

    Trump is Trump; he's been in the media since the 1970s.. here he is in 1980: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5VEjF1uhYo and an interesting analysis of NYC from 82 + Trump
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNq9Bjch6UA

    tom | Mar 22, 2016 3:45:00 PM | 15
    Trumps non-interventionist line ( not his policy, because making it up as you go along is not policy. ) is BS. That freak would be a gleeful war criminal by bombing a dozen countries if it got him more popularity, or he needed a boost from the polls, or he invested in the arms industry. All the non-interventionist BS, is just a PR counter to his establishment rivals. He doesn't mean any of of it.

    The Sanders campaign is a sick joke. Sacrificing genocide against people across the world so Americans can have a bit better health care is disgusting.

    Sanders has been so weak in taking on the evil US Empire and the US capitalist establishment, then how can he do anything as president where there will be much more pressure as president then there is now. Sanders would be the lamest sheep political history, and not because of the resistance by the elite, but because Sanders has no resistance. That way lies childish delusions.
    Sanders exists to give motivational speeches in some areas of social politics and that's all he is good for.

    Jack Smith | Mar 22, 2016 3:45:17 PM | 16
    Posted by: fast freddy | Mar 22, 2016 3:38:17 PM | 12

    Well said! Amen.

    Jack Smith | Mar 22, 2016 3:50:13 PM | 17
    Posted by: tom | Mar 22, 2016 3:45:00 PM | 15

    " The Sanders campaign is a sick joke. Sacrificing genocide against people across the world so Americans can have a bit better health care is disgusting.

    Behind Bernie is MoveON, Soros "invested" over a billion to keep Israel the endless slaughter of Palestinians civilians.

    ben | Mar 22, 2016 3:51:58 PM | 18
    If anyone here believes ANY candidate can change the Empire's direction, they're delusional.

    Only a massive public movement can make that happen, history has proved that. Without people in the streets, it can't happen.

    So, pick who YOU think might make that happen, but keep in mind this fact:

    Computer Voting and Stealing Democracy
    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14545

    VietnamVet | Mar 22, 2016 3:54:07 PM | 19
    If anyone represents the ruling Establishment, it is the Washington Post. They did force Richard Nixon out for no better reason than his withdrawal of the troops from Vietnam. Hardly the criminal acts that are ignored today. The editors' words are clear; endless war including the use of nuclear weapons. Damn the consequences.
    james | Mar 22, 2016 4:13:31 PM | 20
    in a world where packaging/appearance is everything and content means nothing - trump is the ticket.. the usa and the world by extension get what the marketers/propagandists have to offer... forget about anything to do with content..
    alaric | Mar 22, 2016 4:52:33 PM | 21
    Trump's vaunted "independence" would prove a problem to him as president because the ruling elite could attack his sources of income (the trump biz) and destroy his independence. If elected, he will be subjected to every nasty attack to sway him to do the bidding of the foreign policy establishment. He might want to call Putin for tips on how to deal with the nastiness.
    Penelope | Mar 22, 2016 5:02:22 PM | 22
    b, thank you. I agree entirely. Bernie would be better than a pig in a poke, and a b* in a poke would be worse.

    However, the point is moot because votecounting in the primaries has the overwhelming probability of having been fraudulent. And I would be shocked if the actual election votes were honestly counted.

    Here's what I heard in the Trump voice on the radio first thing, "My first priority is to get rid of that Iran agreement. That's a bad deal. For our safety. For Israel's safety. That deal needs to come down. That was a bad deal, and we gave them $--.--!" (He was talking about the part of their own money which we returned to them years after we "froze" their money.


    Here, take a gander at this; it's funny if you don't take it seriously. http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/03/22/the-2016-presidential-race-do-our-votes-really-matter/

    Jessica | Mar 22, 2016 5:04:38 PM | 23
    If I vote this election, it will be for Jill Stein. Foreign policy is #1 to me, and no other candidate comes close. I don't play the LOTE game or any variation. Besides, the majority of the voting population are so dependent on what their TV, radio or whatever tells them, there's no room for sanity.
    claudio | Mar 22, 2016 5:14:47 PM | 24
    Trump is simply stripping the "politically correct" packaging off of decades-long fascist rhetoric: "welfare queens" against the poor, "criminal environments" against the black, clash of civilization against the Muslims, "axis of evil" against any opponent of Us suprematism, etc

    so now he comes along and draws conclusions ... except for the "infinite war" meme, which is a purely imperialistic effort that seemingly doesn't resonate anymore with the people's frustration and anger


    virgile | Mar 22, 2016 5:15:11 PM | 25
    I think Trump's fans after a few more months of the same speech where money is prominent will be fed up.
    The trouble is that it would be too late and Trump would have offered the presidency to Hillary on a silver plate.
    We'll have to get used to the idea of seeing that witch often on the TV when she will be president.
    john | Mar 22, 2016 5:35:06 PM | 26
    perhaps all this will be rendered moot, we'll have an 'event,' Obama will initiate the Continuity of Operations (COOP) executive directive...

    whatever, it matters little...

    in the words of the late, great American composer and statesman, Mr. Frank Zappa:

    The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater

    fast freddy | Mar 22, 2016 5:40:34 PM | 27
    perhaps all this will be rendered moot, we'll have an 'event,' Obama will initiate the Continuity of Operations (COOP) executive directive...

    The Chicken Coop.

    MadMax2 | Mar 22, 2016 5:48:42 PM | 28
    Key phrase: 4th grade level of reading

    Fkn aye...

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/21/1504728/-Hillary-and-Trump-give-virtually-identical-speeches-at-AIPAC-get-standing-ovations

    Posted by: okie farmer | Mar 22, 2016 6:00:26 PM | 29

    aaaa | Mar 22, 2016 6:11:08 PM | 30
    Funny - zerohedge posts a new headline about radical left beheading trump.. What about the radical establishment?
    aaaa | Mar 22, 2016 6:11:28 PM | 31
    beheading an effigy**
    Jackrabbit | Mar 22, 2016 6:13:57 PM | 32
    b:

    It seems to me that Trump appeals to a large group of people who have been screwed. He is a true populist that says things that shake up the establishment like calling politicians "puppets".

    He's vague about where he stands on many issues to allow for moving toward the center after the nomination. Along those lines, he sometimes pays lip service to the establishment so as to reduce friction.

    Sander's position are much much more detailed and people-friendly. But Sanders doesn't seem to be willing to do what it takes to win. What does it take? Attacking Hillary's character. Demanding media time.

    And Sanders hasn't created a Movement. He is too wedded to the Democratic Party to do that. A real progressive movement might switch allegiance to the Greens if Sanders isn't the Democratic nominee. Sanders wants to deliver his voters to the Democratic nominee (likely to be Hillary).

    Each of us has to decide for themselves: can we trust a demagogue (Trump)? Can we trust a career politician someone that doesn't fight to win (Sanders)? Can we trust ANYONE that comes through the duopoly?

    #2-not anti-latino but illegals latino smart head !!!!

    Posted by: sejmon | Mar 22, 2016 6:38:17 PM | 33

    Nobody | Mar 22, 2016 6:40:26 PM | 34
    The point I had been mulling over is whether Trump is aware of the forces that rule the world and whether he would take them on. Would he open up the can of worms behind 9/11, lies to go into Iraq, Benghazi etc. Well my answer to that is he will if he has to (strike that) if the puppeteers decide that they want to.

    I think that he will be the next president, the Hegelian Dialectic that is being set up is that the "Government" has been taken over by bad elements and Trump will lead the charge against them as a "non-bought" free American and maybe the Clinton's take the fall. This of course directs anger away from the real perps. I base this on F William Engdahl in a wide ranging interview promoting his latest book on the Genesis of ISIS opening up a glimpse of the lifestyles of the wealthy at a place called "studio 54".

    I think that the next US president will be the one who "collapses" the dollar (the puppetmasters decide when this will happen, their puppet will be the one that deals with the resulting upheaval, and the pieces to deal with this are being put on the chessboard right now (Expect ISIS activity in the US).

    BTW, Engdahl makes a prediction in the video that "something big" will draw American boots on the ground into Syria.

    That didn't quite come out as planned. Here is the link to more details on Engdahl's thoughts on Trump http://journal-neo.org/2016/03/20/a-mafia-don-with-a-pompadour/

    Posted by: Nobody | Mar 22, 2016 6:45:08 PM | 35

    likklemore | Mar 22, 2016 7:00:54 PM | 36
    What choice is there? With the other two written off, what are their names? B And K ?---

    There is Ted Cruz: Politics Trumps the Constitution, Calls for Anti-Muslim Gestapo
    http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160322/1036776935/ted-cruz-anti-muslim-gestapo.html

    There is Hiltery Clinton: "What difference does it make." Out damn spot from my hands. Her victims are many, but who is counting.
    ... when we left the WH, we were broke. Hmmm. In 2008, a $35 million campaign debt was magically paid by anon donor. Her history is documentable, too many links. In the Whitewater saga, Hillary could not recall what work she did at the Rose Law firm for client Madison Guarantee Savings and Loan bank and, when subpoenaed by Prosecutors said she could not find the billing records.


    You have Donald Trump: whose speech at AIPAC indicates the status quo is affirmed. That sliver of land on the Med Sea which shall not be named or critiqued. Read his 5 most important declarations at AIPAC -link here
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/21/trumps-five-most-important-declarations-at-aipac-speech/


    How confident can we be that our votes will be counted as marked?

    You have Soros: whose Board member chairs the company counting the Utah votes in today's caucuses.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/20/soros-board-member-chairs-firm-running-online-balloting-for-tuesdays-utah-caucuses/

    In a season of hate and hoping and, with the Constitution declared a relic – in Denver, CBSnews finds no apartment lease for you.

    You Can't Live Here If You Are Voting For Donald Trump
    http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/03/20/grand-junction-apartment-donald-trump/

    A circus? If only the consequences were not so serious.

    You think the USA society will remain intact at the end of 2016?

    On Voting: HRC is right. What difference does it make? All bought and paid for. You cannot become President unless selected by the guys and gals managing the Deep State.

    jfl | Mar 22, 2016 7:21:37 PM | 37
    Forget the elephants and donkeys. A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step - write-in elections . I'm all ears as regards a better plan. We need to stop complaining/chasing our tails and instead to plan, organize, and to seize power to effect real change.

    If we'd begun in 2004 we'd be very nearly home by now. So let's begin in 2016. Just as 2016 has succeeded 2004, whether we choose to continue to suck our thumbs or to act, the leaves will fall off our calendars and the year 2028 will arrive, one way or another ... I'd prefer another.

    ralphieboy | Mar 22, 2016 7:32:59 PM | 38
    A lot of Americans have developed such a low opinion of politicians and politics as usual that they believe that an outsider with no experience as an elected official can come in and improve the situation.
    TG | Mar 22, 2016 7:39:33 PM | 39
    Yes, well said. We don't really know what Trump will do - but we DO know what Hillary Clinton, Kasich, Rubio etc. will do and it's terrifying. We can at least HOPE that Trump will be somewhat less horrible than Hillary Vlad-the-Impaler Clinton.

    They say that 'hope is not a plan.' Actually hope is a plan - just not a very good one. But still better than cutting your own throat.

    I do disagree with you about Sanders. Yes, I mostly like him on foreign policy too, but economics? Sorry, his open-borders immigration policy WILL crush the average American into third-world poverty no matter what else he does. Because nobody but nobody beats the law of supply and demand. "People are the ultimate resource" is the slogan of India where over a half a billion people are chronically malnourished and the standard of living is inferior to late Medieval England...

    Funny that not that long ago Sanders admitted that open-borders immigration was something dreamed up by the Koch brothers to ensure a supply of cheap labor, but now he's gone full Wall Street on the issue and he's lost me.

    P @ 22: Thanks for the link. And the veil is lifted a bit further.

    Posted by: ben | Mar 22, 2016 7:45:51 PM | 40

    metni | Mar 22, 2016 7:52:59 PM | 41
    Trump's cloying tribute to AIPAC made him look like a penitent buffoon in search of redemption as he desperately scanned the crowd anxiously anticipating and appearing relieved at the sound of applause after each sentence he uttered.

    When it comes to Hillary, however, she has the record of past actions (and even more machinations) to prove her swooning fealty to The Lobby. Had her groveling not earned her enough kudos with AIPAC, Hillary could have read to the convention the contents of her recently disclosed email in which she explained how putting Syria neck under the butcher's knife was salutary for Israel.

    http://newobserveronline.com/clinton-destroy-syria-israel/#comments

    Al Neuman | Mar 22, 2016 8:11:07 PM | 42
    Trump has been clear about his economic policies. He has criticized the TPP, H1B visas, lopsided trade deals, offshoring US jobs and stated repeatedly he wants to place a tariff on companies that move to low wage countries.
    On the other hand, Sanders is completely inconsistent by calling for open borders while claiming to be for higher wages. How is flooding the market with cheap labor going to raise wages?
    On foreign policy Trump has questioned the logic of eliminating secular dictators who kill terrorists. If is was a mistake to remove Saddam & Gaddafi, then how can we do the same to Assad? Also Trump has said countries receiving US Military protection will start paying for it's cost and that money will be used to rebuild US infrastructure.
    Regarding ISIS Trump has called for neighboring countries to send their troops backed by US airpower. He also thinks Gulf countries should pay for refugees' safe zones.
    On the other hand, Sanders says the US should be "tough but not stupid" in destroying ISIS. Now that sounds like a "pig in a poke" foreign policy if I ever heard one.
    roger erickson | Mar 22, 2016 8:11:15 PM | 43
    "Trump's pander was so extreme that one ponders the possibility that he was mocking the audience"

    :)

    just like keeping a straight face at a bankruptcy hearing

    best political cartoon of the year?
    ... http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/teflon-trump-the-one/

    Penelope | Mar 22, 2016 8:56:43 PM | 44
    Thank you Ben @ 18. Stealing the election is really the most important issue, I agree.
    https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/ is the site of a statistician who studies election/primary fraud for us.

    At the following site he gives us an overview of incredible things you didn't know. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NoLTeS9HflwTNJgi5n8nNLdomjxh6eKjoy5FuOmqsVU/edit

    Elsewhere on the site he indicates that the public chose Bernie, not Hillary in MA, MO, MI & IL. Also the exact method by which Richard knows this. Did you know that once the results are in they ADJUST the exit polls to agree?
    It's fantastic the amt of info he has; he even knows how many votes on which type of machines where two types are available.

    So it's really a tragedy. If Bernie had been allowed to do better at the beginning he might have created a bandwagon effect. In those 4 states people didn't vote for that horrible woman.

    h | Mar 22, 2016 9:10:40 PM | 45
    Everything I'm reading at conservative/activist news blogs is Trump is being sold as an 'insurgency' candidate. Conservatives have been working to kick the RINO/neocons out of the leadership of the national R Party for years. They see Trump as the guy who can crack the ceiling so to speak and they are pulling out all of the stops to get him to the General. Period.

    Their coalition that is growing enormously, daily, which includes moderate Evangelicals (if there is such a thing), conservatives, some Tea Party types and more conservatives.

    Many here may dismiss Trump, but I'd suggest that would not be wise. Like it or not, he is a keen strategist, he's extremely well connected which means his peers are intensely intimidated, he's a deal maker and breaker, he's been working the conservative side of the aisle for at least a decade now, he uses people to his advantage yet their is a shady loyalty that goes with it...shady as in shadows.

    As for Hillary, her base just isn't fired up. BUT, and this is a big BUT, when she gets cornered she comes out fighting, and when chooses to 'turn it on' she acts/behaves like a fighter and she becomes unstoppable.

    Bernie, well, he's Bernie...his policy proposals are worth looking at. He's not offensive. He's not a Neanderthal. And he's decent. The likelihood of Hillary being indicted is nil, IMHO, thus, his challenge lies with how he out 'fight's' her and I'm not convinced he has the MOJO to succeed.

    As for Jill Stein. When she ran the last time, I tried to do a basic background check on her. I'm an A2 girl, that is I wanted to learn if she met the three qualifications laid out in the Constitution, which is Article II, Section 5. I ran a very novice check on her, I admit, but I found it difficult to learn anything about her upbringing, local schools she's attended, her mom and dad, grandma and grandpa, brothers and sisters. Dead ends everywhere.

    All of the above search info is readily found on just about any of us, which makes me suspect, that is, she doesn't meet the U.S. Contitution's Presidential qualifications. She may. But I couldn't confirm it. Which in my mind, should be relatively easy. There is something 'amiss' about her. Just instinct. Can't place my finger on it.

    And Cruz? Ha. Ppppffffttttt....very dishonest IMO. And doesn't have a credible shot at the General.

    Donald's meeting with Sheldon was a fait ac·com·pli. He's there man as evidenced by his AIPAC debut...

    fast freddy | Mar 22, 2016 9:12:17 PM | 46
    Engdahl says no hop in Trump. Trump is a Mafia Don with a pompadour. Direct Mafia Ties via casinos, attorneys, dad's construction biz. Likes Hillary even less.

    Engdahl talks a good game and backs it up, but no mention of Israel's role in the balkanization of MENA states and the remapping of MENA in accordance w/ Yinon/PNAC Plans.

    ben | Mar 22, 2016 9:24:21 PM | 47
    AN @ 42: Do you REALLY believe the "Donald" will be able to live up to his progressive rhetoric? If so, I applaud your faith. I, on the other hand, do not. We could well find out in the future.
    Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 22, 2016 10:08:39 PM | 48
    ...
    I maybe a minority here, but in the real world the numbers are growing - as I came across anyone I met regardless parties affiliation.
    Economic..?. blah! You believe in Fiat money, Wall Street or Banksters?
    Posted by: Jack Smith | Mar 22, 2016 3:33:59 PM | 11

    I suspect that you've zeroed in on the Trump 'difference'.
    All he needs to get into the White House is to keep dangling the insinuation that he'll be the least worst of the last dozen or so POTUSes. And he can do that with everything except his tongue tied behind his back. I'm also inclined to agree that if he turns out not to be anti-establishment then the next POTUS probably will be.

    #2 Trump is anti-latino? That is news to me. I believe he talked about MEXICO. Mexico is not Latin America, please do not use the race card. Trump makes lots of sense, NO MORE illegal immigration, out, out out I say. The real unemployment rate in the country is stratospheric. There is a black boy in Chicago who needs that job, there is a young white boy in Appalachia who needs that job, there is a young native american boy on a res who also needs that job. Everytime I hear, "these immigrants are doing jobs americans don't want to do" I get sick to my stomach. Enough is enough.

    Posted by: Fernando Arauxo | Mar 22, 2016 11:01:22 PM | 49

    Penelope | Mar 23, 2016 12:10:42 AM | 50
    b, sorry for the OT, but CISA is even worse than CISPA & they are s'posed to vote for it this week. I guess it would affect you too. Just what we don't need-- business controlling what we say on the internet.

    There's a short vid here that explains it https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/cisa-and-the-trifecta-of-fascism-another-american-everyman-video-production/

    Jack Smith | Mar 23, 2016 12:26:36 AM | 51
    Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 22, 2016 10:08:39 PM | 47
    Posted by: Fernando Arauxo | Mar 22, 2016 11:01:22 PM | 48

    I'm not trying to convince you voting for Trump, but remain steadfast write-in for Jill Stein. However, an extract from John Pliger:

    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/336785-world-war-break-silence/

    "....In 2009, President Obama stood before an adoring crowd in the centre of Prague, in the heart of Europe. He pledged himself to make "the world free from nuclear weapons". People cheered and some cried. A torrent of platitudes flowed from the media. Obama was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

    It was all fake. He was lying.........In the last eighteen months, the greatest build-up of military forces since World War Two – led by the United States – is taking place along Russia's western frontier. Not since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union have foreign troops presented such a demonstrable threat to Russia. What makes the prospect of nuclear war even more dangerous is a parallel campaign against China..........The propaganda laying the ground for a war against Russia and/or China is no different in principle. To my knowledge, no journalist in the Western "mainstream" – a Dan Rather equivalent, say – asks why China is building airstrips in the South China Sea...............

    ................In the circus known as the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump is being presented as a lunatic, a fascist. He is certainly odious ; but he is also a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our scepticism ...........

    Trump's views on migration are grotesque, but no more grotesque than those of David Cameron. It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama............

    .........Most of America's wars (almost all of them against defenceless countries) have been launched not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama .................."

    jfl | Mar 23, 2016 12:57:42 AM | 52
    @49 pen '... CISA is even worse than CISPA & they are s'posed to vote for it this week. ...'

    Gosh, and I thought CISA 2015 was passed already, on 27 October 2015 ... must have been another hoax, eh?

    Jack Smith | Mar 23, 2016 1:15:56 AM | 53
    Further to John Pliger on China.... 2016 presidential election is crucial whether our elected liar will go to war with China. Watch YouTube (South Front Channel) US massive buildup in South China sea with known lapdogs especially The Jap and Australia. Missing is Singapore's US naval base, one of the over a thousands bases around the world encircle Russia and China.

    Current Escalations in the South China Sea

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Rxo0BW9R8

    One needs to have poor political insight to analyse a political trend by studying one individual psychology. Miss this entire point.

    Posted by: HLD | Mar 23, 2016 1:56:24 AM | 54

    brian | Mar 23, 2016 3:09:56 AM | 55
    'We beat the Nazis '

    no you didnt...the soviets did, and US was the biggest agent of repression on earth last century...eg backed Apartheid in SA and Chiles Pinochet

    There are many financial advisory who gives beneficial trading tips but sometimes the market is volatile and that prediction may be wrong.

    Posted by: Epic Research | Mar 23, 2016 3:28:47 AM | 56

    Forest | Mar 23, 2016 3:38:19 AM | 57
    @22 Thanks, I think taste vomit in my mouth (or is that brains)?

    We came, we saw, it died.

    dan | Mar 23, 2016 4:37:25 AM | 58
    I wish Arnie was running!
    Piotr Berman | Mar 23, 2016 6:32:47 AM | 59
    Mr. Trump just made a bold appeal for prompt and severe application of torture. The combo of "some sensible non-interventionism" and torture somehow lacks appeal, and perhaps it is just me.

    In the meantime, as I surfed for a direct quote, I got distracted. American politics is something indeed. A group styling itself "Make America Awesome" distributed in Utah the picture of Mrs. Cruz from her maiden days looking, well, awesome. Cruz cleared the caucuses in Utah (and so did Sanders without similarly appealing pics of his wife).

    TomV | Mar 23, 2016 6:40:31 AM | 60
    B writes:
    "As a foreigner ... If I were a voter"
    B is not an American! I'm shocked!
    Mendel | Mar 23, 2016 7:23:33 AM | 61
    Most disgraceful are the ridiculous western left that bash Trump but have no problem with Hillary. Talk about being stupid!
    john | Mar 23, 2016 7:25:46 AM | 62
    Jack Smith @ 50 says:

    It was all fake. He was lying

    well, no shit sherlock. politicians have to lie so that the proles get to hear what they want to hear(just check out these here comment threads).

    it's a terribly vicious cycle.

    jfl | Mar 23, 2016 8:30:07 AM | 63
    Interesting entrapment, AIPAC Guests Slam Netanyahu's Racism, Thinking It's Trump

    Khalek read racist and homophobic statements to the interviewees, claiming they were made by Trump. Little did they know that the quotes actually came from the mouth of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or other Israeli leaders.

    Israelis : Judaism :: Wahabis : Islam :: xtian prosperity fundis : Chistianity.

    Like three peas in a pod. Ollie.

    As a matter of fact, rising fast in the wings it's xpf Ted Cruz himself : Jeb Bush Endorses Cruz for Republican Presidential Nomination .

    Is Ted Cruz more dangerous than Donald Trump? Probably. Is either one electable? Probably not.

    Sheepdogs for the horrid demoblican harridan, whomever he/she may be. But fail-safe.

    But what do I know. I'm thinking of who I'd really like to be president : write-in elections .

    Daniel Shays | Mar 23, 2016 8:33:15 AM | 64
    Donald Trump has done more to awaken the American people than anyone in recent memory. His repeated mentioning of our massive $19 Trillion dollar deficit, job killing trade deals (no one has mentioned NAFTA since Patrick Buchanan), getting us out of NATO, our taxpayers paying for everyone's defense, how lobbyists and special interest groups control our politicians like puppets, and that immigration and especially Muslim immigration is very bad for America, is priceless. His bringing up Saudi Arabia's responsibility for 9/11 from the depths of the Orwellian memory hole is also worth mentioning. For a while there I was hoping he was going to mention Vice President Joe Biden's, 4 Star General Clark, and US General Martin Dempsey's revealing that ISIS is a fake terrorist organization funded, controlled, and armed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, & Turkey, and indirectly funded by the US, France, UK, & Co with their huge arms sales to those same nations who than give them to their terrorist puppets. Viva the real revolution of truth!
    jfl | Mar 23, 2016 9:33:08 AM | 65
    Attacks on Marine firebase reveal secret US escalation in Iraq

    ISIS mortars slammed into the base, dubbed Firebase Bell, killing Staff Sergeant Louis Cardin and wounding several more Marines. Some of the wounded had to be evacuated out of the country in order to receive proper treatment.

    Cardin, 27, from Temecula, California, was on his fifth deployment in a war zone. He had served three tours of duty in Afghanistan and one previous tour in Iraq before he was airlifted into Makhmour last month as part of the deployment of the US Marines 26th Expeditionary Unit from the USS Kearsarge, a troop carrier stationed in the Persian Gulf.

    On Monday, a small ISIS unit attacked the base, home to 200 Marines, with small arms fire. They were driven off without casualties. At that point, Pentagon spokesmen acknowledged the existence of Firebase Bell, the first US-only facility to be set up in Iraq since the formal end of the US military occupation of the country in December 2011.


    Five tours. How long is a tour? A year? Time between tours? Louis Cardin was a Marine stationed abroad, fighting the US wars of aggression for how many years? Five? Seven? More? Did he start at 18? Poor bastard. Poor bastards he undoubtedly killed, too.

    How can it be that there is not even one outlier campaigning on 'give peace a chance' or its equivalent? Or is there? I haven't heard of one.

    lizard | Mar 23, 2016 9:49:55 AM | 66
    I'm voting for Donald...Duck.
    ALberto | Mar 23, 2016 9:51:17 AM | 67
    Dan @57

    "I wish Arnie was running!"

    you forgot to insert this after your sentence ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpaOy8b8X6A

    dahoit | Mar 23, 2016 10:07:05 AM | 68
    Trump went to AIPAC to make nice so they would stop the propaganda re his campaign.
    From the looks of it today,he failed,as from the Graun to The NY lying times to Wapoo,the venom for him remains.
    Sanders is terrible foreign policy wise,he is totally invested in the thought Israel is unique and worthy of support,he calls Hezbollah the terrorists,and backed Cast Lead and PE as rational response to bottle rockets by mice trapped in a cage of Zionist steel.I do believe him pretty good domestically,and he has called for border control as a logical extension of nationhood,although yes,he needs Latino and black voters,hence his call of Obomba being good.Its bad enough blacks won't vote for the NY Jew wo estranging them even more.
    HRC tough?A fighter?How about a bubble headed bobblehead of nada,a MSM call girl for Zion.(nobody else would want her)
    That leaves Trump as our only American hope to lead US from the rocks of neoliberalism from Zion.
    ben | Mar 23, 2016 10:09:17 AM | 69
    DS @ 63 said: "Donald Trump has done more to awaken the American people than anyone in recent memory. "

    Where the issues you mentioned, that's partly true. Gotta' give Trump credit for being relevant on certain subjects, that's where he gets much of his support. But Sanders mentions those subjects, and more in every speech.
    I have to assume you've never heard Sanders speak. Even HRC mentions populist issues sometimes.

    The challenge, as always, is...Can their actions match their rhetoric? I, for one, doubt it.

    Shadyl | Mar 23, 2016 10:13:11 AM | 70
    @ Daniel 63, right there with you.
    ben | Mar 23, 2016 10:14:53 AM | 71
    Two candidates went to suck-up to AIPAC. HRC and Trump. Does that speak volumes? Maybe.

    Here's an video titled "Did Trump play AIPAC?" You decide.
    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15958

    vote for kodos | Mar 23, 2016 10:40:43 AM | 72
    Proposition: BERNIE, A PROP FOR KILLARY (Team "D" establishment)

    Given Bernie's milquetoast criticism of Killary and Obombo, I've started contemplating he's a decoy to create the illusion of a progressive choice within Team "D", to keep progressives engaged with Team "D", and, in the end, convince them to vote for Killary.

    Considerations IMO supporting this proposition:

    1. Killary has not pivoted to the left at all. Bernie's been ineffective at changing the Team "D" platform, which suggests more of a stage prop than actual political threat.

    2. As a corollary, Bernie would've had more influence on Team "D" had he run an independent campaign.

    3. Had Bernie -- or someone else with at least a little "progressive street cred" -- not entered the Team "D" primary, progressives would've gasped over a "Hillary only" primary. In turn, they would've started an independent campaign that would, even in failure in the general election, cost Killary too many votes for her to win. "A prop for Killary" was a prerequisite for her success.

    4. As stated at the outset, Bernie's milquetoast criticism suggests he's trying to avoid wounding her so badly that she can't win the general election.

    Oldhippie | Mar 23, 2016 11:45:23 AM | 73
    Trump and the Clintons are friends and good friends. They are not simply casually acquainted because they are all rich New Yorkers. Any casual web search will reveal that the two families are close and thick. Would anyone believe Bill Clinton and Donald Trump could spend hours and hours together on the golf course and not talk politics?

    I don't have any positive evidence that Hillary and the Donald conspired to rig the current election season. It does beggar belief they have not coordinated in an way.

    ben | Mar 23, 2016 11:50:13 AM | 74
    @ 71: "Killary has not pivoted to the left at all."

    Guess you missed a lot of her speeches.

    Ya' know, I've felt that same feeling you're expressing, only about D. Trump.

    The last victory speech I listened to from HRC,( after her last super Tuesday victories) she sounded more Sanders, than Sanders.

    The Empire wants HRC badly.

    john | Mar 23, 2016 12:34:44 PM | 75
    jfl asks:

    How can it be that there is not even one outlier campaigning on 'give peace a chance' or its equivalent

    the neocon mindset prevails across the political spectrum and, in fact, it seems to me that most Americans are pretty much jake with it as well. what's precipitating the currently rising citizenly angst is the currently falling citizenly purchasing power.

    (but in keeping with the adage that 'no crisis should go to waste' it seems a good opportunity to flesh out the root causes and give them a good public airing)

    AriusArmenian | Mar 23, 2016 12:47:03 PM | 76
    Trump is what America is, which is cleverly masked by marketing in Hillary, Bernie, Ted, and all the rest. It won't matter who get elected. Neocons = Neoliberals. More millions will die and more destruction by the Empire.
    Noirette | Mar 23, 2016 12:58:40 PM | 77
    If, a big IF, it is the case that the Repubs. now accept Trump, it is because they are afraid of splitting the Republican Party (it is split, but that's not public) thus destroying it.

    They want to conserve the advantages they have with a 'face unity for the public' - Senate, House, power brokers, funding, corruption, Big Corps, Banks, Energy, etc. etc. - capitalising on the past. Far prefer that to winning the Presidency. (See Obama-Romney.)

    H. Clinton is guaranteed to continue the 'old system', like Obama, but even more collaborative? (Aka 'Unity Governement' coupled with fake oppositions…)

    Possibly, also because they can't stand the runner-up, Cruz, a minor figure, an objectionable nut-job. A party that proposes two 'final' candidates whom the Cadres despise or even passionately hate. Heh. History will make hay…

    The Republicans are half-burned toast, the whole system is exposed as a decrepit sham, yet they will try to hang on.

    Imho, Trump cannot win against Sanders, and likely not against H. Clinton either. Once again, the Repubs. will bank on a loss, accept it, to survive, and in their minds perhaps find Glory Another Day. So accepting Trump as the nominee (if they do) is just part the same-old.

    In any case, while the US prez. has tremendous powers, the US is run by other actors behind the curtain. The Circus trumpets on.

    Skip | Mar 23, 2016 1:10:43 PM | 78
    Donald Trump carries with him several flaws: Under informed; self Absorbed; lacks real grace; too combative in ways that eliminate potential supporters etc etc. One trait I believe the Donald does not sport: He's not a liar. A Salesman, yes. But not a liar.

    He is the collective middle finger of millions of Americans who feel they've been ridden hard and put up wet by the elites in general and more specifically, by the Republican Party leadership and those Republican losers in Congress like Boehner, Ryan, McConnell, Graham, McCain and others.

    He is/was smart enough to sense the frustrations of the forgotten and repeatedly parrot THEIR talking points. He's preaching to the choir and the choir is growing geometrically larger, day by day. One of the posters above clammers for a street revolution, decrying any actions short of that as ineffective. Trump for all of his character defects has ignited a prairie fire of contempt for the system as we know it. The horse is out of the barn, for good.

    Hail (not Heil) to the Chief!

    Nice catch regarding the 4th Grade comprehension level. At the link is quite a well crafted diatribe vis-ŕ-vis Trump written by a worldly woman, http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/03/23/let-donald-trump-be-our-unifier

    Posted by: karlof1 | Mar 23, 2016 2:25:42 PM | 79

    ben | Mar 23, 2016 2:46:09 PM | 80
    Anyone spotted this story on corporate media?

    http://mrctv.org/blog/sanders-rally-san-diego-draws-tens-thousands-majority-young-voters

    30,000 estimate.

    Par Lang | Mar 23, 2016 4:02:59 PM | 81
    Despite his pandering, I still believe he's the best America has and what America deserves. The only way to the other side of this is through it. There is no way around it. Hold your nose but don't close your eyes, otherwise you'll miss all the fun. Weeeee!!!!!!

    My name is Par Lang and I approve this message.

    psychohistorian | Mar 23, 2016 4:07:03 PM | 82
    karlof1 @79 Thanks for the link. Lots of good thoughts in the article.

    Unfortunately, what it doesn't talk about directly is our worship as Western humans of the Gawd of Mammon which is represented by private finance. Humans have not evolved to the point where we have made finance a public tool. It is still a private tool of the global plutocrats and not just America has to unify over the effort to throw off the jackboot of private finance. Worldwide the curtain hiding the effects of private finance needs to be ripped off to show the core of our form of social organization.

    Humanity has made great strides in the past to define a more humanistic and egalitarian world. The execution of efforts to instantiate those goals have been corrupted by the remaining "non sharing/public" aspects of our social organization, the major of which is private finance. There used to be an argument that the global plutocratic families represented the best and the brightest. That was a myth to begin with and is now resulting in our species being channeled into extinction.

    All banking worldwide needs to be "nationalized" and inheritance needs to be neutered to stop producing families that accumulate enough to effect ongoing social policy.

    fastfreddy | Mar 23, 2016 5:11:24 PM | 83
    There used to be an argument that the global plutocratic families represented the best and the brightest. That was a myth to begin with...

    The global plutocrats cannot be described this way any longer. Doesn't sell.

    The new propaganda is two-pronged:

    First, commoners en masse are told that they are extremely bright and gifted (mockingly, but they relish the compliments!) highly intelligent, can-do spirited, tenacious, rugged individualists, willing to sacrifice, help their neighbor, bootstraps and etc. (exceptional Americans!).

    Second: obscene wealth and usury is excused (and applauded!) because these rich folks possess this same can-do spirit and the other traits which they have simply applied in an effective manner.

    Reinforcement of same is done by pretending that every American begins on a level playing field and he was born with the same potential and opportunities as Mitt Romney or Donald Trump or any of the Bush Klan.

    The persistent propagandizing manifests itself thus: If I win the lottery, I want to keep all the money, so like the rich people, I am in favor of low taxes or a flat tax (even better!).

    john | Mar 23, 2016 5:28:05 PM | 84
    Par Lang says:

    Hold your nose but don't close your eyes, otherwise you'll miss all the fun. Weeeee!!!!!!

    spoken like someone who revels in the benefits that are beyond the reach of most others

    karlof1 | Mar 23, 2016 5:44:42 PM | 85
    Psychohistorian @82--

    Do you agree with the argument for a Steady-State Economy with one global currency backed by specie and processed through a globalized public bank, or would you keep everything at the State-level, eliminating private, fractional banking?

    jfl | Mar 23, 2016 6:38:41 PM | 86
    @83 ff

    Any collection of oligarchs - the few - will craft a world that suits themselves and their own perceived interests. To hell with everyone and everything else. In 'a nice way', of course.

    Democracy is essential because it enables the oligarch's victims to countermand their suicidal ways. Their victims (ourselves) are the onliest ones who can even perceive the oligarchs' errors. Oligarchy, as masturbation is said to do, makes its practitioners deaf, dumb, and blind. Democracy is not a luxury, something 'nice' to have, it is essential - if we humans and life on earth as we've known it during our so brief, banal sojourn is to continue.

    I must admit that I do not understand American public. I made a mistake reading hastily this morning. Now correction: "Make America Awesome" distributed in Utah pics of Mrs. Trump (not Cruz!) from her maiden years looking totally awesome, and yet, take that! it was Mr. Cruz who cleared Utah caucuses. I must admit that web search "Heidi Cruz images" does return some appealing pics like this beaty , but apparently, Ted did not replace his wife in, like, ages.

    Posted by: Piotr Berman | Mar 23, 2016 7:13:40 PM | 87

    jfl | Mar 23, 2016 7:21:43 PM | 88
    @80 ben

    All those folks need to write-in Bernie if/after the demoblican machine kicks them in the teeth.

    Debs is dead | Mar 23, 2016 7:24:02 PM | 89
    It is possible to watch the circus without picking sides Trump has never done anything worthwhile or meaningful in his life and there is zero evidence to suggest that has changed, As for the rest of em. they're all just the usual hacks running against Trump the unusual hack.
    Which got me thinking I wonder if trump travels with a food taster. Not that it will do him any good the poisons currently in use seem to be slow acting.
    Take the case of Rob Ford who had become an exceeding embrassment to the conservative wing of the neoliberal movement just as trump has. The progression of that fellow's illness syncs pretty neatly with his rise fall and rise again.
    No matter how much the media tipped buckets of shit on him it just seemed to make him more popular which is somewhat similar to the trump. Ford's illness appears to be similar to what Yasser Arafat went through.
    Of course saying this stuff out loud generates calls for the tin foil bonnet but I do hafta say that a helluva a lot of pols I'm aware of have fallen off the twig early - particularly those who don't conform to the 'rules'.
    And that is the thing with trump - if he doesn't suddenly get sick you do have to wonder exactly how beyond the pale the amerikan political establishment considers him to be.
    ben | Mar 23, 2016 8:21:03 PM | 90
    @ 82&83: Great posts, both truthful social comment. Wish I could compose as well.

    jfl @ 88: "after the demoblican machine kicks them in the teeth."

    And best believe, it will.

    MadMax2 | Mar 23, 2016 8:45:02 PM | 91
    b: "...Donald Trump toured Washington yesterday for backroom meetings with Republican party bigwigs..."

    1st Republican Bigwig (standing in corner): Ok Mr Trump, well done at AIPAC, glorious stuff. You've unlocked the Back Room.
    Trump: It's true, I was Huge.
    2nd Republican Bigwig: Would you like to come upstairs now Mr Trump...? Or should I say, Don...?
    Trump: Ah, sure, let's go upstairs then. And you can call me Don.
    2nd Republican Bigwig (stands up, leans on table): Now, Mr Trump... Repeat after me "what is building 7? I've never heard of building 7"

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0lD-Qrn3XI

    MadMax2 | Mar 23, 2016 9:10:33 PM | 92
    @psychoH 82
    Inheritance does indeed work against the evolution of humankind. Who knows how far along we'd be now if it were not for idiots, clowns and tyrants assuming wealth upon conception. One should only leave enough dosh for cremation or burial. Each person with varying amounts of desire, more or less, to contribute what they can inside humankinds' most precious commodity - our time.

    ...until then, parasites and cannibals.

    fairleft | Mar 23, 2016 9:43:28 PM | 93
    @psychohistorian 82

    Your solution is exactly right. But we won't get there unless the global corporate-owned mass propaganda system is largely replaced by a democratic mass media.

    Most people aren't smart/wise enough and/or just don't have the free time and educational resources to figure out on their own who the enemy is and how to fight it. And such resources and the free time to use them declines for the bottom 80% in the evermore inegalitarian world the financiers are creating.

    psychohistorian | Mar 23, 2016 9:45:02 PM | 94
    karlof1 @whatever asked
    "
    Do you agree with the argument for a Steady-State Economy with one global currency backed by specie and processed through a globalized public bank, or would you keep everything at the State-level, eliminating private, fractional banking?
    "

    Ending private finance must happen globally and I believe we need to learn how to get along globally to survive. Isolating a public utility like finance to nation states, IMO, is a fools game. After a while we would just end up where we are now.

    We need to "grow up" as a species and throw off the vestiges of the middle ages with Kings and such. There are 8+ billion of us and its sadly laughable how little advancement we have made in some ways. The circus we live led by the global plutocrats is a sick legacy to the children who have to live with the mess we have allowed to continue.

    Daniel Shays | Mar 23, 2016 9:52:29 PM | 95
    If you would have told me after the Trotskyite Liberal Neocons sabotaged and destroyed Patrick Buchanan's 1996 (prophetic) Anti-NAFTA/WTO, Immigration Moratorium, New Hadrian's Wall, stopping the US's endless wars, and Cultural War campaign, and that Donald Trump would be the one to become its standard bearer, I would have said that is absurd.
    On another note, I read a book called "Conspiracy Against The Dollar" and in that book which was written in the 70's, Ross Perot popped up at a billionaire Globalist insider meeting with the Bush crime family & associates. Remember Ross Perot was created to split the Anti-NAFTA/WTO vote so that the Globalist CFR golden boy Clinto could get elected, and relected. He than tried very hard to keep Buchanan off the Reform party ticket in 2000. Notice how after the anti-NAFTA/WTO was passed and the movement destroyed, he disappeared
    The Trotskyite Neocons ran "Songbird" McCuckoo & the choke artist Romney so that Obama would win, and in 96 the pathetic Beltway insider Bob Dole.
    MadMax2 | Mar 23, 2016 11:13:13 PM | 96
    Daniel Shays @ 64
    Those things you say are true. Trump threw a lot of light on subject matter many can never even think of approaching. He deserves credit for that, no doubt. It's trump, and so you have to ask, does he use it all to become the human headline that he is...? Of course, most likely. Will he double on those efforts as Prez...? Unlikely.

    Trump had a good limber up for the AIPAC event at the Jewish Republican Coalition presidential show in December. Told the crowd " you're not gonna like me, don't want you're money" about 5 times... Highlight reel stuff.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PQYOvDmWqjo

    We are talking Trump.

    And so, Trump wins.

    Jack Smith | Mar 24, 2016 12:28:19 AM | 97
    Posted by: AriusArmenian | Mar 23, 2016 12:47:03 PM | 76

    "Trump is what America is, which is cleverly masked by marketing in Hillary, Bernie, Ted, and all the rest. It won't matter who get elected. Neocons = Neoliberals. More millions will die and more destruction by the Empire."

    Amen!

    rufus magister | Mar 24, 2016 8:13:05 AM | 98
    Here's an interesting take on the appeal of The Donald, by Scott Adams, creator of "Dilbert."

    "If you see voters as rational you'll be a terrible politician," Adams writes on his blog. "People are not wired to be rational. Our brains simply evolved to keep us alive. Brains did not evolve to give us truth. Brains merely give us movies in our minds that keeps us sane and motivated. But none of it is rational or true, except maybe sometimes by coincidence."

    If one is a firm believer in Enlightenment rationalism (like your humble poster), this while disturbing must be acknowledged. A contradiction -- one apparently needs to appeal to the emotions to get people to make rational choices.

    Adams notes that the greatest emotional appeal that The Donald has made is to acknowledge the suffering of the working class, which neither party has really addressed. If there were an effective labor party here, we proles would be addressing this ourselves.

    And so, what is to be done?

    Kashoggi | Mar 24, 2016 8:37:23 AM | 99
    Realising how much and why the "working class" despise and distrust people like yourself might be a good start.
    Jackrabbit | Mar 24, 2016 8:59:43 AM | 100
    Blame the victim clap-trap.

    A Hillary supporter defines 'rational' as what is good for the establishment.

    Humble? LOL.

    What is to be done? Beware snakes in the grass.

    Noirette | Mar 24, 2016 12:18:29 PM | 102
    …a steady state economy, one global currency backed by specie, and processed through a globalized public bank… ?? - several posts.

    Well the 'steady state' part is moot, and globalized not, as Switz. is just a tin-pot postage-stamp place, but ideas of this type are very much afoot.

    In June we will vote the Vollgeld (full money - sovereign money) initiative, which would return money-creation to one organism, the Central Bank. (link, eng. - campaign site and rather simplistic.) Commercial banks would effectively be totally neutered. The Swiss love their Central Bank (in contrast to attitudes to the FED in the US) as its profits are returned to the ppl, half or 2/3.

    We will also vote on a guaranteed minimal income (link eng wiki.)

    Neither of these initiatives are from the 'left.' They are based on certain monetary theories and strands of 'libertarian' thought.

    As everyone is still reeling from the Feb. 2016 vote serious discussions haven't even started. This promises to be highly interesting.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendums,_2016

    http://www.vollgeld-initiative.ch/english/

    here the Feb vote for me, in F, but one look at the issues will show it takes some dedication..

    https://www.ge.ch/votations/20160228/doc/brochure-cantonale.pdf

    psychohistorian | Mar 24, 2016 2:15:57 PM | 103
    Noirette @102

    Thanks for the links. I was not aware of the Swiss banking initiative. I hope it passes.

    ruralito | Mar 24, 2016 3:08:32 PM | 104
    A compilation of pro-Israel sentiments from Trump, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wnu9WyH_iM
    With bonus clips of Alex Jones, another "maverick", lol.


    They're both scum.

    jfl | Mar 24, 2016 5:49:51 PM | 105
    @103 psycho

    Have you seen Creating New Money ? I think it's all about finance as a utility and how to get there. Coupled with a suitable inheritance tax structure it would effect your program, wouldn't it?

    To me the salient facit of privately created money is that it's lent into existence. Yes it enriches its creators, but just as (more?) importantly it puts in place the cornerstone of 'the miracle of compound interest', the foundation of the unsustainability of 'capitalism'. Rich or poor we're all headed over the falls in a barrel as long as that's in place.

    If you look at the key staff and advisers Bernie looks the best, I think.

    Posted by: ProPeace | Mar 24, 2016 10:09:53 PM | 106

    Chu-Teh | Mar 25, 2016 1:35:17 AM | 107
    Rufus@98
    Adams' view of mental processes has demonstrated workability.

    Mind and brain have long been considered separate mechanisms, altho they may well intersect.

    The psychologist Alice Miller showed how the first 3 years of human life allowed the recording of potentially] all senses [sights, sounds, etc.] without any inspection or evaluation by a child. Such could lay dormant or become active at later time as, for example, fixed ideas and unknowingly interfere with present-time senses and considerations and evaluations.

    As for the mind and brain, a crude demo might be:
    1. Create a mental picture of a horse being ridden by a whale.

    2. Look at your mental picture.

    3. Consider that you used the brain compose the picture.

    4. Consider that the result [picture} is stored in your mind. Also, you can probably move the picture around in space.

    5. Consider the brain is clearly a physical object and its location is known.

    6. Consider the mind is not clearly physical and its location is not clearly known.

    And I know that Alice Miller's "First 3 years" studies were preceded by more comprehensive work of others [much earlier]. Nevertheless, her work explained much to many.

    As for "spirit", that subject is a religious hot-potato and I'm feeling too cowardly at the moment to continue this post.

    rufus magister | Mar 25, 2016 1:45:17 AM | 108
    Chu-Teh at 107 --

    I thought that I had suggested that I agreed in very large part with Adams view. And just because we have difficult being rational doesn't mean why shouldn't try. Religion does tend to be a hot one.

    in re 99 --

    Isn't it funny how the elite always attacks anyone who seeks to challenge their power. The folks raping us keep telling us, there is no alternative. That's why we reds are always hated.

    And I would note, the rising generations have a more positive view of socialism than my Cold War cohort.

    psychohistorian | Mar 25, 2016 2:22:00 AM | 109
    Cnu-Teh @107 said
    "
    6. Consider the mind is not clearly physical and its location is not clearly known.
    "

    I consider this statement BS. Do you have some supporting documentation?

    And you thought you had problems writing about spirit......

    dahoit | Mar 25, 2016 10:06:24 AM | 110
    79;You gotta be sh*tting me;Eve Ensler?Common Dreams?Nirvana is just around the corner!
    I bet she'll call the hell bitch the words promise.
    Cruz posts nude photos of Trumps wife,but won't concede that his wife is now fodder.What a little pos.The zionists love him.
    95;They had a opinion piece in the lying times today,where McCain calls the Gary Cooper character in For whom the Bell Tolls a personal hero,despite being a commie.What a hoot.
    BTW Hemingway might be the most overrated author in American history.Only The Old Man and the Sea holds anything for me,the rest irrelevant between war turgidity.
    He probably realized it too,so he snuffed himself.

    Posted by: dahoit | Mar 25, 2016 10:12:12 AM | 111

    100;Yeah,real funny dat;Humble.sheesh.And the bit about the enlightenment.And he'll vote for the hell bitch?double sheesh.
    The Zionist have put the enlightenment on permanent hiatus.

    Posted by: dahoit | Mar 25, 2016 10:16:13 AM | 112

    jfl | Mar 25, 2016 4:40:14 PM | 113
    @105

    The Great Ponzi Scheme of the Global Economy


    Michael Hudson:

    [I]n order to have access to credit, in order to get money ... you have to pay the banks. ... It's not production, it's not consumption. The wealth of the One Percent is obtained essentially by lending money to the 99 Percent and then charging interest on it, and recycling this interest at an exponentially growing rate. ... The head of Goldman Sachs came out and said that Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive in the world. That's why they're paid what they are. ... That's why I used the word parasitism in my book's title. People think of a parasite as simply taking money, taking blood out of a host or taking money out of the economy. But in nature it's much more complicated. The parasite can't simply come in and take something. First of all, it needs to numb the host. It has an enzyme so that the host doesn't realize the parasite's there. And then the parasites have another enzyme that takes over the host's brain. It makes the host imagine that the parasite is part of its own body, actually part of itself and hence to be protected.


    And 'the banks' have created the money they lend at interest from nothing. Why not ourselves through our government, right? Just as the fed is doing now, but make the money available to real people with real needs rather than just to the keep the grand larceny machine's bubbles inflated. 'Growing'. Until they burst. A few strategic changes to the plumbing could put things right in no time.

    [Mar 21, 2016] Paul Krugman Trump Is No Accident

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trumpsters are against the billionaires in their own way. Bernie Bros are against billionaires in a different manner. Neo liberals are not disposed to engage the billionaires. Crubio are all for the billionaires. While neo libs and Crubio are peas in a pod for international violence for the billionaires' neocon themes. ..."
    "... Krugman : "Let's dispel with this fiction that the Trump phenomenon represents some kind of unpredictable intrusion into the normal course of Republican politics." I must have missed Krugman's forecast of the rise of this phenomenon. I'm sure he would have cited a prior column if it existed. What is happening on the US right and left is the same thing happening on the European right and left. The dominant status quo political parties have utterly failed large swathes of the electorate for a long period of time. I think the person who did get this early on was Bill McBride. ..."
    "... There is less and less reason to read Krugman columns. Economically, he rarely discusses the policy issues most Americans now want to talk about, and when he does, the discussion is flippant, derivative and superficial. ..."
    "... Yesterday's propaganda with little innovation and seldom anything that would be accepted by an academic publication. Does he write that trash? A ghost writer? For his rubber stamp? What he gets paid for the stamp? What did he pay for the Nobel Prize? Starting to make people wonder ..."
    "... "The establishment composed of journos, BS-Vending talking heads with well-formulated verbs, bureaucrato-cronies, lobbyists-in training, New Yorker-reading semi-intellectuals, image-conscious empty suits, Washington rent-seekers and other 'well thinking' members of the vocal elites are not getting the point about what is happening and the sterility of their arguments. People are not voting for Trump (or Sanders). People are just voting, finally, to destroy the establishment." ..."
    Mar 16, 2016 | Economist's View

    ...endless austerity and depression would eventually be rejected in a democracy

    ...the underlying assumption behind the establishment strategy was that voters could be fooled again and again

    ...That rage was bound to spin out of the establishment's control sooner or later.

    ilsm -> DrDick...
    Trumpsters are against the billionaires in their own way. Bernie Bros are against billionaires in a different manner. Neo liberals are not disposed to engage the billionaires. Crubio are all for the billionaires. While neo libs and Crubio are peas in a pod for international violence for the billionaires' neocon themes.
    New Deal democrat -> pgl...
    Krugman : "Let's dispel with this fiction that the Trump phenomenon represents some kind of unpredictable intrusion into the normal course of Republican politics." I must have missed Krugman's forecast of the rise of this phenomenon. I'm sure he would have cited a prior column if it existed. What is happening on the US right and left is the same thing happening on the European right and left. The dominant status quo political parties have utterly failed large swathes of the electorate for a long period of time. I think the person who did get this early on was Bill McBride.

    Dan Kervick -> pgl...

    There is less and less reason to read Krugman columns. Economically, he rarely discusses the policy issues most Americans now want to talk about, and when he does, the discussion is flippant, derivative and superficial.

    Politically, his analyses are no more insightful that those of any number of other routine liberal commentators.

    If the stuff that floats your boat is the inflation rate in Japan, or yet another try at the idea that there is no socioeconomic problem that a little bit of additional demand management won't solve, then go ahead - Krugman is still your guy. But from my point of view the world is passing him by.

    π day ->Dan Kervick...

    Yesterday's propaganda with little innovation and seldom anything that would be accepted by an academic publication. Does he write that trash? A ghost writer? For his rubber stamp? What he gets paid for the stamp? What did he pay for the Nobel Prize? Starting to make people wonder
    New Deal democrat -> pgl...
    Here's an example:

    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2015/07/sunday-night-futures-greece-says-no.html

    "Years ago we discussed how endless austerity and depression would eventually be rejected in a democracy."

    Did he specifically foresee Trump_vs_deep_state? No. Did he foresee that alternatives to the status quo would gain traction? Absolutely.

    BenIsNotYoda -> DrDick...

    Those of us who have lived and run away from socialist democracies (because they do not work) are afraid of Bernie. These are someone else's words that sum it up perfectly.

    Socialism sounds great in speech soundbites and on Facebook, but please just keep it there. In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions out of poverty. Talking about socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury made possible by successes of capitalism. The idea that more government, regulation and more debt will lead to less risk and cure inequality is dangerous and absurd. And Scandinavia is not a great example, because implementing some socialistic elements AFTER becoming a wealthy capitalistic economy works as long as you dont choke off what got you there in the first place.

    Dan Kervick -> BenIsNotYoda...
    Scandinavia's form of socialism has been in effect for almost a century. But the US is a classic case for your recommendation. The US isn't Russia or China, trying to jump from an agrarian to socialist economy. The US already knows how to do capitalism, which it has been doing double-time and in spades forever, both in industrial and post-industrial forms. It's now time to mix some sensible socialist elements into the extremist US capitalist formula. All of the market and free-enterprise infrastructure exists here in the US to build a successful Nordic mixed economy socialism on the foundation.
    cawley -> BenIsNotYoda...
    I'm just dying to see some examples of social democracies that people are fleeing ...

    Dan Kervick -> cawley...

    Well, I guess Anders Breivik doesn't like modern Norway all that much. For almost everyone else, though, it's A-OK.
    Dan Kervick -> BenIsNotYoda...
    It's not an either/or thing. All modern developed economies have some combination of liberalized institutions and socialized institutions. Does socialism work? For some things, definitely yes: health care, education, retirement, for example. We could also do more to reduce gross income inequalities by partially socializing income flows without getting rid of private property, private enterprises and the incentive system.
    BenIsNotYoda -> Dan Kervick...
    Agreed. Single payor healthcare, public education etc should be done. But, if people have the delusion that they can raise marginal tax rates much higher from here (40%+8% state + 8%FICA+3.5%Obamacare+7%sales tax+%real estate = roughly 70%) and are not going to kill any incentive to work, they are wrong. and no, people dont have ways to get around taxes unless you are private equity fund managers. There. That IS the marginal tax rate right now. I said it. Have at it socialists.
    Chris G -> cawley...
    > I'm just dying to see some examples of social democracies that people are fleeing ...

    Be patient. You never know what the next few hundred years might bring.

    Jesse :

    "The establishment composed of journos, BS-Vending talking heads with well-formulated verbs, bureaucrato-cronies, lobbyists-in training, New Yorker-reading semi-intellectuals, image-conscious empty suits, Washington rent-seekers and other 'well thinking' members of the vocal elites are not getting the point about what is happening and the sterility of their arguments. People are not voting for Trump (or Sanders). People are just voting, finally, to destroy the establishment."

    Nassim Taleb Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl...

    The Chicago Anti-Trump Protest Was Only the Beginning
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-chicago-anti-trump-protest-was-only-the-beginning
    via @JohnCassidy - NYer - March 13

    For the past eight months, Donald Trump's divisive, racially tinged Presidential campaign has been tearing apart the Republican Party. Over the next eight months, if Trump wraps up the G.O.P. nomination, it could well have a similar impact on the country at large.

    The fracas at a University of Illinois at Chicago campus on Friday, in which hundreds of protesters clashed with Trump supporters live on national television, shocked many people. But something like this was inevitable once Trump took his rabble-rousing campaign from predominantly white suburbs and exurbs to polyglot Northern cities, which are home to many of the people, including Hispanics and Muslims, who serve as the objects of Trump's rhetoric, as well as to an energetic left-wing protest movement.

    The effort to shut down Trump's rally was prompted by anger that the New York billionaire would seek to bring his campaign to the college, which has a very diverse student body. As Alex Seitz-Wald detailed in a report for NBC News, a number of student organizations decided at a meeting last Monday to organize a protest. "He's marginalized and dehumanized a lot of different groups, and they all come together," Juan Rosas, one of the student organizers, told Seitz-Wald. After a student posted a petition on MoveOn.org, outside groups and activists also got involved. "Everyone, get your tickets to this. We're all going in!!!! ‪#‎

    [Mar 21, 2016] Cruz Hires Neocon Loons, Gaffney, Ledeen, Abrams

    Antiwar.com
    Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, has unveiled his new foreign policy team, stacked with some of the most aggressive hawks imaginable, saying they are a group of his "trusted friends" who believe in a "strong America."

    At the center of his team is neoconservative ultra-hawk Frank Gaffney, a loudly anti-Muslim figure who believes in a wild array of conspiracies, including that a number of top political figures from both parties of being part of a secret Muslim cabal plotting the conquest of America.

    Gaffney had previously been speculated to be a Trump adviser, as his dubious work has been cited by that candidate repeatedly in trying to back up his proposals to ban Muslim immigration. Gaffney's overt hostility toward Muslims in general made him a virtual pariah during the 2012 campaign. Incredibly, a number of Republican hopefuls have courted him this time around, with Cruz declaring him "clear-eyed" and "a patriot."

    Also featuring prominently in the Cruz team is Michael Ledeen, the man at the center of the yellowcake uranium forgeries, among the pretexts for the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Ledeen has been involved in a litany of scandals, dating all the way back to Iran-Contra. He was also, notably, the man who got Israeli spy Jonathon Pollard his job at the US Navy.

    Of course speaking of Iran-Contra, one must inevitably discuss Elliott Abrams, who famously pled guilty to two charges of withholding information related to the scandal from Congress, and is likewise a central player in the new Cruz team. In addition to the Contra scandal, Abrams was involved in myriad ugly Reagan-era operations, and was a close ally of both former presidents Bush, receiving a pardon for his Reagan-era crimes by George H.W. Bush, and being appointed as a special adviser to George W.

    During his tenure with the later Bush, Abrams was accused by The Guardian of being at the center of a failed 2002 US-backed coup attempt against Venezuela, and was said to have personally given the go-ahead for the effort.

    Abram's most recent media comments, interestingly enough, were railing against Cruz, accusing him of being anti-semitic for even using the term "neocon." Now that Cruz is establishing himself as the neocon candidate of choice, that allegation has been quickly brushed aside.

    With this team and more, Cruz is surrounding himself with warmongers and criminals of the highest caliber. While the attempt appears to center on making him a more straightforward Republican insider, to serve as a counter to Trump, the jingoist and xenophobic policies these advisers portend also threatens to sabotage any hope he has of presenting himself as a safer alternative.

    [Mar 20, 2016] Republican plan to stop Donald Trump election

    www.theguardian.com

    Over the last six months, GOP leaders have watched helpless as the Republican presidential race has transformed from the usual loveable farce into a terrifying prequel to Mad Max: Fury Road as tangerine reality show host Donald Trump gained, attained and retained frontrunner status. With only a few months left before the Republican National Convention, party luminaries, bigwigs and eminences grises have come up with a secret blueprint for how to stop the New York business mogul from becoming their candidate. Exclusive to the Guardian, here is their 10-point plan:

    1. Change the Republican party rules so that all presidential candidates must disclose the length of their fingers prior to receiving the nomination. Trump will drop out of the race by the end of the day.
    2. Leave a trail of spray tan canisters and ground beef leading from the door of his penthouse to a barge about to set off for the Far East.
    3. Lure him into a space shuttle by telling him there's a photograph of his daughter Ivanka in a bikini onboard and then blast him into orbit.
    4. Attach a $5 bill to a greased pig's back and set it loose backstage before his next campaign stop. He'll chase that thing until he's out of breath, and miss the speech, which, due to his inhumanly hectic campaign schedule will have the cumulative knock-on effect of making him miss the next day's speech, then the next morning's chummy appearance by telephone with his pals on Morning Joe, then the next four primaries, and before you know it he's missed the convention and is safely back to being an appalling but harmless reality TV star.
    5. Force Trump to spend as much as five minutes with one of his own supporters.
    6. Remind him that the White House executive residence is a paltry 55,000 square feet and that presidents are constitutionally prohibited from painting it gold.
    7. Invite Trump to a pool party and before he arrives glue a bunch of nickels to the bottom of the deep end.
    8. Invent time travel, go back to 2008, and stop ourselves from attacking the Obama administration with the exact same vitriolic, divisive rhetoric that Trump picked up on and has now ridden to his present position.
    9. Stop sheepishly acquiescing to Trump's bluster and acting like he isn't a despicable racist monster in hopes that it's not too late to prevent the complete collapse of society.
    10. Change election procedure so that the remaining delegates must pledge their support to whichever nominee scores highest on a seventh grade vocabulary test. Unfortunately this will probably give the edge to college debate champ Ted Cruz, an opportunistic, bigoted liar whose vision for America is a theocracy engaged in an apocalyptic war against Islam run by a man who looks like Dracula's fat cousin smugly eating a sour candy he received as a prize for tattling. But you can't have everything.

    [Mar 19, 2016] Trump's Hilarious New Anti-Hillary Ad

    We don't need to be a punchline.
    www.truthrevolt.org

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE4h6tOgVgc

    the Donald Trump campaign released a new ad yesterday touting his slogan, "Make America Great Again." It also hilariously puts down his Democrat opposition candidate Hillary Clinton, who is depicted as a joke in terms of her ability to get tough with America's enemies.

    The 15-second ad begins with "When it comes to facing our toughest opponents," followed by images of Russia's Putin performing martial arts and an ISIS fighter waving a gun at the viewer, "the Democrats have the perfect answer..." The video then cuts to Hillary's bizarre barking from a recent rally, which earned her a good deal of ridicule.

    The video then cuts to laughter from an amused Putin. "We don't need to be a punchline!" the ad concludes.

    Watch above and enjoy.

    The Freedom Center is a 501c3 non-profit organization. Therefore we do not endorse political candidates either in primary or general elections. However, as defenders of America's social contract, we insist that the rules laid down by both parties at the outset of campaigns be respected, and that the results be decided by free elections. We will oppose any attempt to rig the system and deny voters of either party their constitutional right to elect candidates of their choice.


    golightly • 2 days ago

    i have to say that dear ol' Trump has some talented folks working for him.

    Arlo • 2 days ago

    Golly, could at least one Republican have the guts to use the Democrats' Alinsky tactics against them? Isolate, Ridicule. Defeat? Could it work? I don't know. But, I do know that playing gentleman/nice guy against the Demoncrats doesn't work.

    Crusader Ron :E • 2 days ago

    I pray Cruz will just join forces with Trump! Cruz is YOUNG... he has a future! He can learn soooo much from Trump and refine Trump's bulldog conservatism into True Conservatism... Christianity... Cruz... HUMBLE THYSELF... and work with Trump!!!


    CoolTolerance -> Crusader Ron :E • a day ago

    Won't happen. Cruz is hiding many things, of which his wife Heidi's involvement with globalists, as well as banks giving him too much of a friendly helping hand.
    Should he win the nomination, he will lose against Hillary. Why? That Texas twang and his preacher mannerisms.
    And lastly, the Democrats did say last November they will contest his eligibility should he be the nominee. A sword hanging above his head.
    I used to like him. No more. Too devious.


    TheCarMan • 2 days ago

    When Putin watches this, don't be surprised if he keeps hitting that RESET button over and over that she sent him.

    Kpar -> TheCarMan • 2 days ago

    Did he get a replacement? The first one said "overcharge" in Russian.

    nacho mamma • 2 days ago

    This is just the opening salvo from Trump toward Hillary. Despite her bluster, saying she looks forward to running against Trump...Hillary knows Trump will get down in the gutter with her to throw punches.

    The Clintons are dirty politicians who've never had a problem with taking the low road, and Trump will not play nice when the race heats up. This could get real interesting...


    tom tuttle • 2 days ago

    Mocking old granny is as challenging as poking fun at a useless drunkard

    Oh wait that is the same thing

    [Mar 19, 2016] Donald Trump attack ad on Hillary Clinton

    www.youtube.com

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE4h6tOgVgc

    [Mar 18, 2016] Pro Killary presstitutes at NYT try to deceive and brainwash voters again

    Notable quotes:
    "... Were it not for the DNC's Machiavellian planning of this primary and, had the states been ordered differently, we wouldn't be at roughly the halfway point with such skewed results. Were it not for the horrendous media bias shown Sanders, across mainstream corporate media, voters probably wouldn't be quite so disgusted and angry with the DNC's decision making. ..."
    "... This is fundamentally the problem in our system. Each person enters the voting booth in November with two principal choices: Stinks and Stinks-Even-More. ..."
    "... Instead, Bernie's chances are slim (#StillSanders), especially thanks to the major establishment outlets. Even if Clinton wins the nomination a lot of us aren't voting for her. She's hardly distinguishable from a Kissinger fangirl. ..."
    "... To paraphrase Franklin, we choose not to have our vote manipulated by the fear of the lesser of two evils. We choose not to give up our "essential Liberty" to purchase a little safety because those that give that up deserve neither safety nor Liberty. ..."
    "... We can hope that Sanders can come back and win the nomination because if we have Hillary for the Dem nominee Donald Trump will be a very unkind opponent. Sanders could handle the Donald in a debate. At this very moment the Trump campaign is doing their research on the Clintons. ..."
    "... The Clintons define "corrupt." Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Hillary Clinton, who never traded commodities, made hundreds of thousands of dollars trading commodities with only several trades. Yet she claims she wasn't tipped. They leased the Lincoln Bedroom like it was their AirBNB. If someone can tell me where Clinton money ends and Clinton Foundation money begins, please let me know. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton refuses to release transcripts of her expensive speeches to Wall Street executives. I, a lifelong Democrat from a family of lifelong FDR Democrats, won't vote for Clinton until I know what she said in her speeches. The Clintons and I have come to the end of the road. ..."
    "... I am a 76 year old life-long Democrat, and I would never vote for anyone who voted for the invasion of Iraq, or who supported NAFTA. These two issues have been the undoing of America - - along with Citizens United. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    Here's How Bernie Sanders Could Win the Nomination - The New York Times

    One of two parents, USA 11 hours ago

    I'm going for the longshot. In fact, I just donated to Bernie again yesterday. Even if he doesn't win, we need him to have as many delegates as possible going into the convention so that we have a strong voice against interventionist policies and pay to play government as the party platform is crafted. We need to send a loud message to the Democratic establishment: Enough is enough! #feelthebern

    Sarthak, Jain 11 hours ago

    America needs him. A guy who stands up for everyone. A guy with no baggage. A honest politician who wants to swim against the established norms and bring change. People are still living in recession. Big corporation are still making big money. Why can't young people afford to go to college?, why can't old people retired in peace?, why can't people not afford healthcare?, Why we need to bomb n kill innocent people abroad? Change is hard to bring. Bernie has a vision, I hope everyone can see it. Peace!

    Rima Regas. is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 12 hours ago

    Well, well...

    That's exactly what the Sanders people have been saying will be the case.

    Were it not for the DNC's Machiavellian planning of this primary and, had the states been ordered differently, we wouldn't be at roughly the halfway point with such skewed results. Were it not for the horrendous media bias shown Sanders, across mainstream corporate media, voters probably wouldn't be quite so disgusted and angry with the DNC's decision making.

    But here we are... Yes, we do have the other half of the primary to get through and it gets Bernie-friendly from here on out.

    Meanwhile, Democratic voter turn out is very low. When is the mainstream media going to stop promoting Donald Trump and turn its attention to that? For all the talk about how scary a President Trump would be, nothing much is being said to voters about the low turn out. Reading most papers, one might be led to think everything is hunky dory in that respect. It isn't.

    Tough Call, USA 9 hours ago

    This is fundamentally the problem in our system. Each person enters the voting booth in November with two principal choices: Stinks and Stinks-Even-More. By voting for Stinks, we compromise our own passion only to send the wrong message that we somehow support the policies and approach of the lesser-evil. This then just continues our decline, and encourages the press to continue to ignore folks like Bernie who stand for truly profound, positive change. We can collectively talk ourselves blue about income inequality, but failing to give Bernie his due time and press coverage is a travesty.

    Shameful. What good does it do for Kristof, Blow, Friedman and the Editorial Board to opine about gross income inequality, only to turn around and deny Bernie his share of the press coverage. The press has truly let America down. This includes the 24-hour news cycle, low-quality CNN types and the presumably more deliberate and thoughtful NY Times. All of them have (for reasons that the average citizen could probably guess) have decided Bernie wasn't worth the air time and print space.

    Brandon Sides, Middletown, CT 11 hours ago

    "Why? These states aren't as bad for him as those in the South, but they force him to confront his two weaknesses: diversity and affluence."

    These weaknesses could have been mitigated over time had the Times and the mainstream press actually told its more diverse readers how Sanders' policies would in fact help them, and its affluent readers that, by the way, their neighbors are starving.

    Instead, Bernie's chances are slim (#StillSanders), especially thanks to the major establishment outlets. Even if Clinton wins the nomination a lot of us aren't voting for her. She's hardly distinguishable from a Kissinger fangirl. (Kissinger, as a reminder, had no trouble authorizing the murder and systematic starvation of hundreds of thousands of East Timorese going into the 80s, which, surprise, the Times didn't mention *at all* for at least a few years.) She disgusts me, and I will never support her. I suspect it's the same for other Berniebros (as you would mockingly call us). You've created a fascist beast, American press. Do your job.

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandba...

    Gottwulf, Oceanside, CA 9 hours ago

    Our family loves Bernie. We have waited so long for someone who we truly knew was leveling with us. God help us if it comes to the disastrous consequences of 2000 when Bush won as some people abandoned the Dems for an alternate choice but we must vote with our conscience and will write his name in if that is what it comes to. We just hope the 'great beast' we see within the hearts of so many Americans will not awaken yet again as it did in 2003 leading us into the obsenity known as Iraq or worse .

    To paraphrase Franklin, we choose not to have our vote manipulated by the fear of the lesser of two evils. We choose not to give up our "essential Liberty" to purchase a little safety because those that give that up deserve neither safety nor Liberty.

    We stand or fall with Bernie and if the latter be true, it is with the hope that the next generation finds its way into the light. It appears, from what I am seeing, that they may be better suited to run this country than my generation has. My apologies to the Greatest Generation for failing to deliver on their gift born of such great sacrifice.

    vacuum, yellow springs 11 hours ago

    We can hope that Sanders can come back and win the nomination because if we have Hillary for the Dem nominee Donald Trump will be a very unkind opponent. Sanders could handle the Donald in a debate. At this very moment the Trump campaign is doing their research on the Clintons. If it ends up being a contest between Trump and Clinton the vulnerabilities of the Clintons will be on full display. And Trump is not known for his kindness or restraint. It would not be pretty. If Hillary is the candidate then Trump's path to the White House will be much easier. She's got too many flaws.

    Kilroy, Jersey City NJ 11 hours ago

    The Clintons define "corrupt." Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Hillary Clinton, who never traded commodities, made hundreds of thousands of dollars trading commodities with only several trades. Yet she claims she wasn't tipped. They leased the Lincoln Bedroom like it was their AirBNB. If someone can tell me where Clinton money ends and Clinton Foundation money begins, please let me know.

    Hillary Clinton's brothers were influence peddlers. Hugh Clinton accepted a large amount of money to influence Pres. Clinton to offer a pardon. Tony Clinton sells his connections to the highest bidders.

    Hillary Clinton refuses to release transcripts of her expensive speeches to Wall Street executives. I, a lifelong Democrat from a family of lifelong FDR Democrats, won't vote for Clinton until I know what she said in her speeches. The Clintons and I have come to the end of the road.

    Carol Ann, Harrisburg, PA 11 hours ago

    I will never understand why black voters would choose Hillary over Bernie when Bernie is the one who actual has a tracjk record of fighting for civil rights.

    Robert, Ridgefield CT 5 hours ago

    The Democratic Party and its corporate affiliates' support for HRC has blinded them to a large problem, viz. that HRC is very likely to be beaten in the general election. Whether earned or not, there exists a very high level of antipathy for HRC, among Independents, and yes, Democrats. Senator Sanders is widely regarded as honest and straightforward. If he is not nominated, the legions of young Democrats and the large numbers of Independents that support the Senator, will stay home on election day and/or the extremely disaffected will vote for Trump if he is nominated...very, very few will vote for HRC (this is my anecdotal observation from many conversations with the Senator's supporters). It is also well-known, but often suppressed information that Senator Sanders does better against Trump than HRC in most national polls. The reality is that Senator Sanders is by far the best choice for Democrats to beat Trump or any other Republican crazy.

    I am a 76 year old life-long Democrat, and I would never vote for anyone who voted for the invasion of Iraq, or who supported NAFTA. These two issues have been the undoing of America - - along with Citizens United.

    Jonathan Palmquist, Los Angeles, CA 11 hours ago

    The Bay Area is one of Sanders' strongest regions of support in the entire country. San Francisco and Oakland have the 2nd and 4th highest donations to Bernie per capita (behind only Seattle). http://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/efb76d1c-e700-...

    ddd, Michigan 11 hours ago

    Yes, Sanders is down. Yes, his task is a daunting one, but less daunting than Kasich's path to the Republican nomination, which is getting more media coverage than the 2.8 million votes that Sanders drew on Tuesday. Sanders "revolution" is revolutionary only to those who accept the current Republican view of government as our collective nightmare - an us vs. them fight to the death over guns, immigration, abortion, deteriorating air and water, income inequality, student debt, access to health care - funded by sacred and unlimited corporate and PAC dollars.

    Sanders proposes nothing that has not been done before, here or abroad, by representative governments promoting the health, education, and welfare of all their people. I like to imagine Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower looking down on Sanders' proposals of what America should be able to do for its people. Maybe the Ides of March got Sanders. Maybe not?

    Reggie, OR 11 hours ago

    I keep reading in "The New York Times" that it's over. As I recall, a legendary figure, associated with two legendary New York baseball teams, used to say that "It aren't over 'til it's over. . . ."

    Why "The New York Times" is so anxious to call the Election of 2016 seems to be a question fit for an investigation. Where is "Woodstein" when we need them!?

    TR, Saint Paul 9 hours ago

    I cannot bring myself to vote for the Clintons (you always get both of them) so I hope the scenario of Bernie winning the nomination plays out.

    cbadgley, Long Beach, CA 9 hours ago

    Months before Sanders made any noise about running, I only hoped that we would have someone besides a Bush or a Clinton as a candidate. In a country this big, don't we have any other qualified candidates, I wondered. Politics aside, I just didn't think the idea of sending another Bush or Clinton to the White House was good for (the appearance of) democracy.

    Fast forward to today: Bush is out and Sanders is struggling to stay in. Look what happened to the other democrats (and we won't even talk about third party candidates). They didn't have a chance. It's an absolute miracle that Sanders has come this far given the toxic role of money in American politics and the corporate control and neutralizing of American media.

    Trump pushed Bush out of the race, but this was hardly a victory over the "establishment". Trump's money and fame gave him instant access -- and he was quickly able to compete with establishment candidates.

    For me, Sanders is a glimmer of hope. I have no illusions about his chances of securing the democratic nomination. But I find solace in the idea that, despite everything and everyone working to get him out, he's still there and his campaign in resonating with young people. He has started a movement, and that is what can lead to real change.

    Rima Regas, is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 12 hours ago

    I have to disagree with Cohn on his assessment of the Black vote. While it is true enough that Clinton had a lock on the South, her narrow win in Illinois and a close look at the Black vote there gives us a glimpse of what's to come and there are good ideological and factual reasons for it as I explain in my essay. Mrs. Clinton, in her campaign, has shown a disdain for the new civil rights movement. While it may not have swayed older voters, younger ones are not pleased. Their power, as voters will be felt more in the coming primaries and caucuses:

    http://www.rimaregas.com/2016/03/would-james-baldwin-endorse-berniesande...

    senior citizen, Illinois 11 hours ago

    A few more ways Bernie can win- 1)
    the FBI or leaks show Hillary used classified server for emails that she didn't want seen by voters or the press because they are damning to her election. 2) a larger stronger Yuan devaluation sets off Wall Street volatility, exposing weaknesses in her economic policcies 3) transcripts of her Wall Street talks are leaked exposing high level corruption 4) a book is written on how the global leaders did not take her seriously as Secretary of State 5) polls show that independents don't like or trust her and will not toe the DNC party line ) etc

    Eastsider, NYC 8 hours ago

    Bernie Sanders has a better chance of beating Trump, as several polls show. Trump supporters want an "outsider" who is not "owned" by either party. He has the advantage over Clinton and Trump in that he is not corrupt. The Times has been biased through the campaign. They endorsed Clinton a long time ago, and give her the benefit of coverage. But the REAL story is how Sanders has raised money from small donors. Why aren't they interviewing those donors on a daily basis? Who are they? Democrats? Republicans? Independents? The Times is not doing their job, such as conducting investigative reporting on the Clinton Foundation, and asking will the Clintons close down the Clinton Foundation if Hillary is elected? Will Bill Clinton continue to give $million dollar speeches when married to the President? Will he be a co-president, back in the oval office that he disgraced? The Times should be pushing for Hillary to not only publish the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street, but also her and Bill's speeches to Chinese billionaires, and others listed on Clinton Foundation web site). The Times might also ask how the Clintons turned a nonprofit foundation into an engine of personal wealth after leaving the White House claiming poverty. Do your job, NYT!!

    American Plutocracy

    U.S.A. 10 hours ago

    It is tragic that what is oft referred to as 'the black vote' may well usher in a Donald J. Trump Presidency. And It is ironic that votes for H. Clinton, as polling suggests, serves to do a few things a.) it decreases Sen. Sanders chances to be POTUS, which is obvious, but it also b.) will galvanize Republican voter turnout and may even c.) shift Independents and even some Democrats to the Right during the generals. I hold accountable the media and its collusion with DNC establishment and, honestly, the low-information voter.
    H. Clinton offers very little, in stated policy goals, for the poor and middle-class, which is in stark contrast to Sen. Sander's historical record and future policy goals. Sen. Sanders, even if I were not a fan, is offering positions (e.g. education w/ out debt, single-payer health care, combating crony capitalism, defeating citizens united, breaking up the largest banks) that have clearly promoted equality in many other developed nations. There is a direct correlation between these policy positions and bettering the lives of others. Piketty, Galbraith, Saez, Stiglitz, and countless other elite economic minds all agree these measures level the playing field.

    It is disheartening to witness, yet again, so many people voting against their own best interests by responding to dog whistle appeals to the color of one's skin and not the truest needs of the poor and middle-class. I am resigned to 8 more years of "hope and change" that does nothing for equality.

    Jeff, Evanston, IL 8 hours ago

    Bernie Sanders gives the impression that he will achieve major changes soon. He'll bring about single-payer health care (with everyone saving money). He'll end super PACs and huge corporate/billionaire contributions in political campaigns. He'll redo our foreign trade agreements to protect American jobs and bring manufacturing jobs back. He'll do away with income inequality and make labor unions strong again. If he expressed these goals as dreams in the manner of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, I'd say fine and good. Let's work towards these ends. But leading his followers astray by claiming that a revolution is taking place now and that these things can be achieved soon is just outright disgraceful. I'm not sure why African American don't support Senator Sanders, but they definitely know better than anyone the difference between dreams and reality. They know, as Dr. King did, that change takes hard work and a lot of time. The political pendulum may be starting to swing leftwards again (I hope so). But a revolution? No way.

    Manny, Washington DC 11 hours ago

    I have worked on too many campaigns to count, before I quit my addiction to pain and got a real job. His was an odd campaign.

    He expected the media to be a partner in helping him get elected. No candidate ever expects help from the media. Sander got the third best media coverage of all who ran--and arguable the most favorable given most of Clinton's coverage was the email scandal. At best you can get from the media is benign neglect. But the minute you are winning expect a scrubbing that would make a Brillo pad look gentle.

    He assumed he would have inroads to groups without courting them believing success with one group meant everyone would like him.

    He never seem to understand Clinton's strengths. He then seemed surprised by them. You always understand your oppotrengths at the very least to mitigate the damage.

    He fought with the establishment despite running in the establishment. Not only are they voters --they have business intelligence on local operatives and state level politics. He hit a brick wall in Nevada and got his clocked cleaned in South Carolina despite outspending Clinton because the apparatus that existed preferred Clinton.

    And lastly, where everyone in this business pours over data--their relationship with data seems foreign. There are several instances where you get the sense they made something up on the fly--and honestly surprised at the result.

    Renee Goethe, Iowa City 13 hours ago ,

    Oh dear. Another white person telling all those ungrateful and ignorant people of color, the African Americans, the Hispanics, that they're doing this voting thing all wrong. Makes right thinking Bernsters wonder why we even bother to let them vote, if they're just going to mis-use it so.

    Sanders was involved, 60 years ago, in some civil rights activities. Since then, he's been the elected official of some of the whitest sections of the country and has not depended on the black or Hispanic vote to ge re-elected. If you want to tar Clinton with the '95 crime bill, even though she wasn't a senator then, it ricochets to hit Sanders, who voted for it.

    Clinton worked to develop connections and a reputation in the African American and Hispanic sectors. Bernie Sanders, though a good man, did not. Nor did he work with the existing Democratic party to support down-ticket elections or democratic events. He always ran as an outsider. Now, he wants to be in the party and benefit from what the DNC has to offer. Funny that his supporters cry foul when he, a non-Democrat, doesn't get the full breadth of support from the party he shunned.

    So to all those Bernsters out there - please calm down. Everyone deals with favorite politicians getting rejected, it's life. and the millennial vote is no more or less important than any other group.

    Sam I Am, Windsor, CT 8 hours ago

    Now that the press and the political actuaries have crowned Clinton the presumptive nominee, some of the passion that has sustained Sanders will ebb, and we'll see him do less well. Progressives will slowly accept Clinton and either sit out the primary or curb their enthusiasm for the Bern.

    Clinton has, from the beginning, garnered votes by presenting herself as inevitable, not inspirational. Not so much "Yes We Can" but "Yes I Will."

    It's a shame, because a transformational FDR-style Democrat is desperately needed at this point in our history.

    Renee Goethe, Iowa City 11 hours ago

    Here's the thing - general elections are part of the democratic process, but the nomination process is controlled by the parties, who make the rules and call the shots. For 40 years or so, Ms. Clinton has been involved in fund raising and campaigning for senators, congressmen, and governors. She has been involved in the DNC and has been supported in return.

    Sanders runs as a pure outsider. He shunned the party until he decided to join in order to run. He has few supporters in the Senate, and little good will among down-ticket Democrats.

    Clinton isn't winning on superdelegates, but on pledged delegates from the states. She has earned a plurality of votes. Claiming otherwise demeans the millions who have already cast their votes in her favor, and assumes that they are ignorant, stupid, or insane. Their decisions were other than what you would want. That's democracy. Get over it.

    Rick Spanier, Tucson 12 hours ago

    The DNC has stacked the deck in Clinton's favor with its Superdelegate apparatchiks clogging the arteries of a fair nominating process with 465 clots of greasy fat. Where is the Democracy in the Democratic party when viable contenders are forced to run the race in hobbles? Not even the Republicans have come up with Tammany Hall tactic - yet.

    So yes, Hillary will most likely be the nominee of the Democratic Party. As an independent I will not be voting for her or any members of the Republican Insane Clown Posse. More than likely I will be writing in for the /bernie_sanders.Warren ticket as a protest to rigged elections.

    DougJohnsonHatlem, Toronto 9 hours ago

    While otherwise quite good, this article contains a factual error that continues to play into the false Clinton narrative about racialized voting and the Sanders campaign.

    According to exit polling, Oklahoma's Democratic Primary was only 74% white. Sanders won the vote in that state by 10.5% points. This means that the following statement is false: "Mr. Sanders's best showing in a state where less than 75 percent of voters were white was his two-point win in Michigan."

    And, while we do not have exit polling data from Colorado, the electorate there was almost certainly less than 75% white. Sanders won by 18.5%. Take for instance Denver County. Denver County is just 53% white only per United States Census's Quick Facts. 31% of Denver is Latina or Latino, 10% is African American, 2% is Native American, and 4% is Asian. Sanders won Denver County by 9.4%.

    To pretend, as this article does, that Arizona (31% Latino) or even Washington State (70% white only per US Census data) are "whiter" states than Tennessee (75%) and Arkansas (73%) is to betray exactly the kind of anti-Sanders bias that Margaret Sullivan had to call out in another context this morning.

    At the very least, the Times owes it to its readers to correct the factual error here in a prominent way.

    drejconsulting, Asheville, NC 12 hours ago

    It's actually shameful that black voters in SC refused to listen or engage with the second candidate in two candidate race, even when he came to their church:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/politics/in-a-black-church-in-south...

    And can we please stop referring to a state where 60% of the primary voters were black as "diverse." In a country with a 13% black population, it's more accurately described as "extremely unrepresentative"

    "Diverse" does not mean "minorities overrepresented by a factor of 4." New Hampshire is far closer to the racial mix in America than the electorate in any Democratic Primary in the south.

    power hitter, 60559 14 hours ago

    Bernie never said this would be easy. He has lost a few battles, but he will win the war. We have to stay the course & get his message out to the people.
    Democrats must realize that we can not win the presidency with only the support of southern blacks & senior citizens. The way this election has been run by the DNC & media has totally alienated Bernie supporters to the point that a great majority will go green or vote Rep. rather than back Clinton & the DNC. This is becoming a reality more & more every day. I hope that the super delegates figure this out by the time we reach the convention or all is lost.

    East End, East Hampton, NY 14 hours ago

    The establishment media favoring the establishment candidate paints a rosy picture for HRC. We get it. The Bernie Blackout marches along in lock-step with the Trump Trumpet. This scenario is far more than mere perception. Empirical data will be mined for years to come to show the glaring disparity. Future journalism majors will compose graduate theses using this fodder. Should we end up, as currently appears likely, with President Trump, the "golly-how-did-that-happen?" crowd will have it all explained later by some kid who is now in junior high school because today's print news editors and broadcast news producers suffered from the "if-it-bleeds-it-leads" school. Even the vaunted NY Times betrays its "all the news that's fit to print" motto and remains mesmerized by the Trump con act. Hey fellas, how about a new motto? "Covering Carnival Barkers Since 2016"?

    rebecca, 7 hours ago

    I have to be honest here; I don't see much hope for Bernie to get the nomination. I do hope he wins my state, and yes, I'll be caucusing for him next weekend, but the numbers don't look good and I'm feeling depressed.

    I intend to vote in November for all races on the ballot. If my state is not in play--if we're safely blue, like we usually are--I'm writing in Bernie. If there's a chance we might go red, I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary.

    I didn't like her in 2008 and I don't like her in 2016. She's a neoliberal hawk and I don't want her getting the US entangled in more wars we'll never get out of. I don't want her starting negotiations with the Republicans already close to the center so we'll end up all the way to the right. I don't think she's trustworthy and I think her only guiding principle is ambition.

    Needless to say, I'm depressed, and frankly tuning out of the race at this point. The Republicans are making the US a laughingstock around the world and the Dems appear to be saddled with a candidate we don't particularly want. Any way you slice it this is going to be an ugly election, and while I've been a political junkie all my life, I just don't have the enthusiasm to care about it. I don't see a winning solution in this any way I look at it.

    *This* is Hillary's big problem. People like me, who will grudgingly vote for her if we have to, but who have absolutely no enthusiasm for it. How many of us will just stay home instead of voting for the lesser evil?

    drejconsulting, Asheville, NC 9 hours ago

    If electability is your main criteria, you should be voting for Sanders.

    Sanders does better against every Republican opponent, in every poll in the last month, because he gets 3-1 support from independents (40% of the electorate), even if he doesn't get a majority of democrats (30% of the electorate).

    Sanders got 71% of the independent voters in Illinois, 72% of the independent voters in New Hampshire, and 73% of the independent voters in Michigan (exit poll data)

    Clinton has high favorability within the Democratic Party, but among all Americans, she has a 55% NEGATIVE rating (versus only 42% positive), rivaling Trump. Nothing is red meat to Republicans like Clinton, and she has no appeal to Independents (see above)

    It's why in every poll for the last month among REGISTERED VOTERS, Sanders does better against every Republican opponent than Clinton.

    Ron randall, new Jersey 14 hours ago

    Bernie's most likely winning opportunity is the self-destruction of his opponent, whose high unfavorability ratings could prove decisive if her email controversy or any number of other vulnerabilities gains public attention.

    Jonathan Swift, Illinois 11 hours ago

    There is much talk of a disqualifying event that will knock Hillary out of the race and allow Bernie to receive the nomination. Talk of indictments, the content of the Wall Street speeches, e-mail servers, Benghazi, and so on. The talk on both sides often seems to miss the mark. I agree with those, generally Clinton supporters, who doubt she said or did anything appalling in any of these regards. However, I agree with the Sanders supporters that she is not giving adequate answers on these questions. There is really an element of "I'm not going to address such a ridiculous question". The problem that I see is that Bernie Sanders, who for the most part is on the same side as Hillary Clinton and her supporters, has been not forcing the issue- nor would it be appropriate for him to do so. The Republican nominee will certainly do so, to great affect with the many people who are not currently strong supporters of Clinton. I don't refer to the people who intensely dislike her, or would never vote for Democrat/woman/centrist/non-conserative anyway. I mean the people who when Trump/Cruz raises the question about her speeches or lack of e-mail security will wonder whether there might be something to it. It is clear that there are many voters looking for a fresh start away from the usual politics. The Clinton campaign needs to address these questions with coherent and substantive answers now.

    Doug Broome, Vancouver 7 hours ago

    Bernie is the future of Democratic policy; Hillary the past.
    Among voters younger than 45 Bernie wins big; by 40 points among millenials.
    In 2008 Obama offered a new future of justice but most of his program was broken on the shoals of mindless GOP hostility. Bernie is more of a fighter.
    And now the Dem establishment wants to choke off the voices of the young, those paying the biggest price for plutocracy and Wall Street government.
    Bernie is offering a very limited version of the social democracy that has worked so well in minimizing poverty and maximizing personal opportunity across Europe, Canada, Australia.
    Mass grotesque life-killing poverty is destroying the American 100 million underclass as a parasitic plutocracy is more and more engorged.
    There is an alternative. Continue the Clinton-Sanders debates to the floor of the convention. Should Hillary win, Bernie is committed to uniting the party behind her for he has actually made her a better, more progressive candidate, shedding off the muck of triangulation.
    Bernie is the hope and change candidate. And he also consistently does better than Hillary matched up against Cruz/Trump in polling.

    charlotte scot, Old Lyme, CT 13 hours ago

    As one of those 69 year old millennials, I think I know how the system works. The political parties put up candidates who take money from huge special interests, they get elected, nothing is accomplished other than more Corporate control of our country: AKA the buying and selling of elections and a commitment to becoming a total oligarchy. I recently read that some of the DNC's super delegates are actually lobbyists. The Democrats and Republicans are running our country into the ground: polluting the planet, killing our kids in wars for profit; jailing minorities and thereby disenfranchising them from voting, dumbing down the education system, forcing families into bankruptcy over medical bills, more rights taken away from citizens (out of fear that people (like me)are going to take to the streets with their pitchforks). If I may quote Laurel and Hardy (who this campaign often resembles) This is a fine mess you got me into. I'd like to remind the Clintons and the DNC of how foolish G W Bush looked after standing under that MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner at the beginning of the Iraq War. When more than half the country has not yet voted I am enraged by the arrogance.

    horatio, Danbury, CT 6 hours ago

    The elephant in the room is the potential for an email indictment. Against Trump, Hillary would be damaged beyond repair if the FBI investigation goes against her. The Clinton campaign is way too sanguine about this and nobody in the commentariat is talking about it ... but the whole campaign could turn on it. The FBI is said to be out for blood because Petraeus got off lightly ... and lesser players getting immunity can't be a good sign.

    Bernie needs to keep going if for no other reason than we need another option.

    Dr Jonathan Smith, Lost In space 5 hours ago

    To the Clinton supporters who drone on about HRC's "experience" and track record of getting things done, please provide citations/links to support your assertions.

    The facts show that the bulk of her experience lies in her amazing talents of fabrication and obfuscation of facts. As First Lady--her longest "political" role, she successfully covered up and lied for her serially philandering husband, destroying the reputations of his victims in the process.

    During her stint as Senator of her adopted state, backed by Wall Street, big pharma and other corporate interests, she succeeded in endorsing the disastrous and ongoing war in Iraq and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, among other dubious votes.

    Her time as Secretary of State can be characterized as inconsequential at best and disastrous at worst, resulting in an FBI investigation and possible indictment.

    Her private life, as an obscenely compensated speaker to the Wall Street firms directly responsible for the financial meltdown, comprise the bulk of her actual accomplishments.

    And her refusal to release transcripts of those speeches and the convenient wiping of her unauthorized email server suggest major character, trust and honesty issues.

    Again, citations of what practical experience at running the country she possesses would be illuminating.

    Paul, Atlanta 6 hours ago

    I am ready for a change. I am ready to elect Senator Sanders to be the next President. Let us leave the establishment behind and make the necessary change for the better. Unlike those who have been characterized as his mainstay supporters (the young), I am 68 and have waited my entire grown up adult life for a leader of our country who was not a bought and paid for apparatchik of the moneyed elite. Never before have I contributed to any political cause or candidate before Bernie. Now I find someone worth nominating and electing!

    JP, Virginia 11 hours ago

    The strength of Sanders candidacy has been less in "revelations" about Clinton, and more about the recognition by voters that there is an alternative to Clinton. This is especially true for younger voters who don't tend to see the 1990s through rose-colored glasses.

    As more people have gotten to know Sanders, his numbers have gone up. The problem for Sanders has been a question of time and the sequencing of the primary calendar.

    Clinton has done exceptionally well with older party regulars, especially in the south. She lost the 45 and under vote to Sanders 70-30 in Illinois; she is not growing the party.

    If Clinton wins in November, she can thank Trump and/or Cruz for doing the work for her. She can also thank Sanders for getting younger voters engaged in the process and for providing her with her platform. Al Gore and John Kerry also dominated the primary process. That didn't mean they were strong general election candidates.

    E Griffin, Connecticut 9 hours ago

    I am a female, late baby boomer. I've voted a straight Democratic ticket my entire life. It will be a real battle with my conscience to vote for Ms. Clinton. So, if there's any hope for Bernie Sanders, I will be sending him more funds.

    • Reply
    • 27 Recommend
    Joseph Fleischman, Missoula Montana 12 hours ago

    I think college should be provided for everyone who can't afford it. I think medical care should be provided for everyone who can't afford it. In total, I think everyone should have a substantial safety net, a floor beneath which no one should fall.
    We think of food and shelter in the same way -- as liberals we believe in providing ample food stamps and decent shelters for those who can't afford it. In our service economy, a formal education is no longer a luxury but a necessity. As circumstances change, so should our thinking. That's what true liberalism is all about.
    Taxes should be raised on extreme wealth because inequality has already gotten way out of hand.
    Joseph in Misoula

    Pam, NY 9 hours ago

    @Eric

    "I'm a liberal democrat. But I don't think college should be free for everyone. I do not want my taxes to go up even more. I do not think Wall Street is an evil entity that should be dismantled. In fact, I don't think we should try and force a far-left version of America on the large portion of the population that clearly does not want it."

    So who has a right to education? Who should reign in the excesses of the Wall Street casino, which nearly destroyed the entire world economy? Who should pay more taxes - the broken middle class, working class, the decimated unions, and the poor, who already all subsidize the exploitation that fills the coffers of corporations and billionaires? The Democrats once vigorously and almost universally supported these groups and the ideas that helped them succeed.

    You're right. You should absolutely not support Bernie. Because you're not a liberal democrat, and you're certainly not a progressive. But you are a great representative of Hillary Clinton's voice, and the Republican lite that now calls itself the Democratic Party. And she's counting on you.

    Texas Liberal, Austin, TX 13 hours ago

    It's disappointing that no enterprising investigative journalist has found somebody ready to spill the beans and provide a pirated copy of the now almost legendary Wall Street speeches. But it may well be that there is such a source, one insisting on substantial compensation, and most journalists are forbidden from paying for information

    It would not be surprising if Trump already has a source picked out, one who, if not subject to the threat of exposure of some hidden misdeed or under direct obligation to The Donald, is susceptible to outright bribery, and that Trump is holding that ammunition, waiting to fire after Clinton has achieved the nomination and is his opponent in the general election.

    If that should be the case: Look forward to a President Trump.

    Matt Von Ahmad Silverstein Chong, Mill Valley, CA 9 hours ago

    Sanders vs Kasich. Only sane choices on both sides.

    Otherwise:

    Clinton: liar, opportunistic, risk of indictment after nomination risking defeat
    Cruz: liar, extremist, not accomplished anything other than shutting the government
    Trump: liar, polarizing, risk of defeat as unable to unify party

    Not that Sanders and Kasich don't have their own thorns, but in my opinion they are the most fit to be elected.

    micky bitsko, New York, NY 13 hours ago

    Ms. Regas, you write: "Were it not for the DNC's Machiavellian planning of this primary and, had the states been ordered differently, we wouldn't be at roughly the halfway point with such skewed results."

    The DNC approved and announced the 2016 primary schedule back in August 2014:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-party-approves-2016-presidential-...

    Senator Sanders announced his candidacy eight months later on April 30, 2015.

    So the Senator and his inner circle of advisors went into this race with eyes wide open knowing full well what the primary schedule would be and what they would face.

    Perhaps you might consider dropping this complaint from your litany.

    John S., is a trusted commenter Washington 4 hours ago

    I ran the delegate numbers through 15 March excluding Missouri, which is basically a tie like Illinois was and there will probably be one delegate difference between the winner and loser, and if the win-to-lose ration stayed the same, then Mrs. Hillary Clinton would still be short over 200 pledged delegates after all the voting is done.

    But the win-to-lose ratio will not remain constant. It will move in favor of Senator Bernard "Bernie" Sanders and against Mrs. Clinton. Consequently, her shortfall in pledged delegates could rise to 300-500 pledged delegates.

    Keep on running Bernie! I will continue to support your campaign right through Democratic Party convention.

    drejconsulting, Asheville, NC 12 hours ago

    Hillary Clinton in no way shape or form represents "what he (Sanders) professes to believe in"

    She represents exactly the opposite: She represents the influence of money and corporations in politics, and politics as usual.

    I'd rather have 4 years of Trump and Elizabeth Warren in 2020 than 8 years of Clinton and politics as usual for the rest of my life.

    Димитър Димитров, България 14 hours ago

    If Bernie Sanders wins, he would become president. If Hillary Clinton wins , in the White House will enter Trump.For the success of cause of the change, which wants many Americans, and Bernie Sanders, must become president ... Trump.
    Only one single-minded Republican could exacerbate problems to burst the boil.

    • Reply
    • 22 Recommend
    Michael, California 6 hours ago

    There are no simple answers to the very real issues this country faces on every level. Unfortunately, the individual developed psychologies of voters combined with the natural desire to embrace the easiest idea that promises to bring a comfortable conclusion to the problems has blinded voters to the very flawed candidates they have to choose from. I am a Sanders supporter but not because he can achieve any of his ideas. I support him because he is a brake on the current business as usual. His qualms about why the two parties cannot get anything done is truth and before we can fix anything we have to acknowledge what is broken and remove it from any solution we might strive for. I don't care if the Sanders car breaks down the moment we get off the road. First thing is first we need to get off the road.

    The DNC and RNC are corrupt and liabilities. The Media is covering up their most important flaws for the sake of business as usual. Too many people have much to lose if this 2 party gravy train is derailed and that isn't just the billionaires and multi-national corps. An entire system has compromised the Republic and it need to be cleansed over a period of a decade to just get rid of the nepotism, corruption, and pay to play shenanigans.

    Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the poster children for this system. I do not favor Ted Cruz but he is right when he says the former sells influence and the latter buys it. If those are options, next time won't be so polite.

    Kodali, VA 7 hours ago

    Every one should vote according to their convictions ignoring what the media has to say or does not say. It is also important not to pay attention who is going to win in the general election. I believe the economy is rigged. The political establishment and corporate America as well as Banks and Wall Street are all in the same bed. They will have a long happy honeymoon until ordinary folks cannot support their honeymoon expenses. That gives rise to people like Sanders and Trump, who will disturb the political order. My vote is for Sanders. Here why? I believe free college is an economic necessity that we cannot afford not have. I believe the economy is rigged and Main street should regulate the Wall Street and not the other way around. I believe health care to all is necessary pre-condition to define a human society. I believe we can afford and we must. Vote what you believe in and the nation will in the right direction.

    Christian Walker, Greensboro, NC 7 hours ago

    Sanders hasn't been allowed to debate, and has gotten little to no media coverage. Our society picks it's leaders based on 2 things. 1) the candidate with the most royal blood connection to King John (this is a real theory, may not be true, but 98% of U.S. Presidents are the great-great-great-great-great-great grand children of Charlemagne and King John,) and 2) which candidate they see in the media the most. If Bernie loses this nomination, Donald Trump will become our next (and possibly final) commander in chief.

    Patrick W, St. Paul, MN 9 hours ago

    Your tone is absurdly condescending, as if many Sanders supporters aren't graduate school educated professionals (doctors, lawyers, accountants, social workers, educators, etc…) In fact, educated people in pro-social occupations make up one of his stronger demographics.

    The differences between the leftists who left their hippie-dropout lifestyles disillusioned and moved on to professional careers later, and the more youthful Sanders supporters a couple generations younger are myriad. Foremost, very few of them are cultural dropouts; they didn't take the "burn out or sell out" brat route of the Boomers. Most are educated, and many are saddled with student debt loads difficult for older people to understand (the mechanisms that force students into debt are especially difficult for affluent Boomers to grasp). They compete for jobs with all those disillusioned brats who settled down to professional practices - and are still working! Not to mention the fact that your bitter ones - those who never learned the folly of egalitarianism - are presumably the same ones who never got graduate degrees and cushy jobs; they're still waiting for representation, for a pro-labor, pro-working-class candidate who never comes.

    Nobody has pulled the wool over anyone's eyes, except perhaps the Clinton, the DNC, and the media outlets that prop them up by appealing to low information voters while engaging only with policy that benefits affluent ex-leftists in high aging professional positions.

    Michael, San Diego 8 hours ago

    In past elections, I have admittedly voted for the "lesser of two evils." Now, I realize that just perpetuated a system which is corrupt. If people got truly educated about the issues and the candidates, there would be only one choice, Senator Bernie Sanders. Alas, as Senator Adlai Stevenson once said, getting the vote of every right thinking American was not enough. He needed a majority. Sadly, this is only more true today.

    Zip Zinzel, Texas 12 hours ago

    > "These weaknesses could have been mitigated over time had the Times and the mainstream press actually told its more diverse readers how Sanders' policies would in fact help them"

    ANYBODY who wanted to be consumers of Mr. Sanders' talking points had more than enough sources for that.
    Sadly, your complaint is exactly the same one that conservatives have be putting on the NYT since the mid-70s

    What an intelligent person 'might' complain about in relation to your concerns is that the MSM spends far too little effort accurately 'telling the voters' how delusional Mr. Sanders' proposals are, and how there is less than a 1% chance they could EVER be implemented under any imaginable configuration of the Congress

    Related to this, I remember sadly, who NYT, WaPo, and others pointed out the lunacy of GWB's campaign proposals were in 2000
    IMPACT: almost zero
    The naked agenda of GWB was to take a roaring economy, running in surplus, and open it up for the private gain of the highest bidder
    The GWB/Cheney agenda was very similar to Mitt Romney's LBO scheme to - take control of organizations
    - strip them of as many of their valuable assets as they could efficiently do in as short a time frame as possible
    - load them up with debt, that went back into their own pockets so that they had none of their own assets at risk
    - dump the operation as quick as possible so that they wouldn't be holding-the-bag when the feces-hit-the-fan
    - look for the next target

    Too complex for ave consumer

    dan mackerman, minnesota 11 hours ago

    I disagree. There has been a very disproportionate coverage of candidates by the media. In fact, I would argue that the biggest story of this election cycle is the media's own influence of the election. I find it quite disturbing. This in not my opinion. It's a conclusion based on studies I've read in the past several days, one of which was published by the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth...

    Here's another: http://decisiondata.org/news/political-media-blackouts-president-2016/#c...

    If you care to refute this, by all means, but please give us some real evidence not just glib opinions.

    JWP, Goleta, CA 8 hours ago

    The mainstream media and its corporate owners are deeply troubled over the issue of Campaign Finance Reform, which has been the most obvious point of Bernie Sanders' campaign--he has financed his campaign through small donations from individual citizens, instead of SuperPacs like Hillary has done, and this has been no small feat.
    Corrupt campaign finance is a powerful tool the corporate elite uses to manipulate American voters into voting against their own interests.
    This is why the MSM has treated Sanders so shabbily. A glaring example of this problem was the first Democratic debate put on by CNN. As it turns out, CNN is a subsidiary of Time-Warner, which is a big donor to Hillary's campaign. Let that sink in.
    So, sure enough, Anderson Cooper asked the candidates Zero questions about campaign finance reform, Bernie Sanders' main issue, and Bernie had to stick the issue into an answer of his to a question on a different topic near the end of the program. If not for that, the issue would not have been raised at all.
    The same syndrome has been evident, albeit in milder form, in most of the media, including the NYT, the WaPo, MSNBC, and so on.
    Corporate forces, including the corporate media, are loathe to have someone like Bernie Sanders come along and take their corrupt financing of American politicians away from them.

    Mel Farrell, New York 7 hours ago

    Of course this latest interesting development must be giving Hillary palpitations; Can a felon become President of the United States ??

    See Business Insider and Link:

    "The FBI is widening its investigation of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's use of a private email account while she was U.S. secretary of state to determine whether any public corruption laws were violated, Fox News reported on Monday.

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been looking into whether classified material was mishandled during Clinton's tenure at the State Department from 2009-2013.

    It will expand its probe by examining possible overlap of the Clinton Foundation charity with State Department business, Fox reported, citing three unidentified intelligence officials.

    "The [FBI] agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," Fox quoted one of its unidentified sources as saying."

    http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-hillary-clinton-email-investigation-2...

    EC Speke, Denver 4 hours ago

    In my mind, the fact that the Clintons have in the past taken money from Donald Trump disqualifies Hillary from the presidency. I'm on the Bernie train, and if he's railroaded away from the nomination by anyone, including President Obama, I'm not going to vote in November. I can't vote for either Trump or Hillary, as they are in cahoots to fleece the average American and criminalize for life, those whom they don't like, and that is mostly those in economic distress or poor substance abusers in our country.

    Obama's backing of Hillary is a disappointment. The self claimed most transparent administration in history we were to get, never materialized, rather just the opposite happened, the least transparent administration in history. His is an administration that went after whistleblowers exposing crimes against the public, embraced perpetual warfare and mass incarceration, supports the surveillance state, and his Justice Department and FBI stood by while unarmed American men and children had their human rights and lives taken away from them by municipalities in Ohio, Illinois, California, Florida, Texas, etc. etc. ad nauseam, this includes Tamir Rice and the kids drinking leaded water in Flint. The list of human and civil rights violations under his watch is a long one that goes on and on and no better than Dubya's. By supporting Hillary over Bernie, the President has proven that he too, got into politics for the money. How cynical are leaders are today excluding Sanders.

    • Reply
    • 16 Recommend
    James Ferrell,
    6 hours ago

    Note that Donald Trump has won 48% of the GOP delegates so far. He would have to win about 54% of the remain delegates to get a majority, and the pundits consider that to be pretty likely.

    Bernie has won 42% of the Democratic delegates so far (not counting superdelegates) and would need to win about 58% of the remaining delegates to win. The pundits seem to consider it to be pretty unlikely.

    Maybe, but I think the pundits might be wrong on this one.

    Woody Porter, NYC 9 hours ago

    This nonsense about Ralph Nader has been repeated so often that almost seems plausible (…not unlike many another myth). The historical truth is as follows.

    The 2000 election came down to Florida. Running as "independents" were Nader (progressive) and Pat Buchanan (conservative). Each of them received almost exactly the same number of votes -- i.e. they cancelled each other out, Buchanan taking as many votes from Bush as Nader did from Gore.

    The one who who gave Bush the election was his brother Jeb. Through his Florida Secretary of State, he ordered the recount ended -- the excuse proffered was the fear of violence: precinct stations where poll workers were counting the votes had been attacked by squads of goons (paid for, as was later revealed) by Karl Rove. The issue of the recount was then thrown to the Supreme Court, which issued one of the most partisan rulings in its history.

    Gore's loss had absolutely nothing to do with Ralph Nader. And those who claim it did are either woefully uninformed, or are deliberately (and cynically!) distorting history to push some different agenda of their own.

    Paula Lappe, Ohio, USA 4 hours ago

    As I see things, Sanders is a better bet for the fall and the future . Mrs. Clinton was a "Goldwater Girl" back in her younger days and was/is actually proud of that. I have to wonder if the African American population realizes what that meant and now means. It hard to believe that she is not owned by big business. Her possible indictment and the Republican reaction to no indictment. I do not trust her for so many reasons. Since the polls seem to show that Sanders could defeat the Republicans it might just be a safer move. Our nation does not want (or should not want) another mess with another 'Clinton'. Nor should our country have to endure the problems that may well accompany Mrs. Clinton into office. And hey, does anyone know why Mrs. Clinton discontinued the use of her maiden name altogether? Has she any identity on her own that is of real value in her thinking or does she just have to try to ride on a wave created by her hubby----not a very sharp move for a true feminist. Shame on Mr. Obama for his comments in her favor. I am with Sanders and probably not bothering to vote for her in the fall if she get the Democratic nomination---just too hard to justify. The voters
    who send her into the fall election just deserve 4 four years of the likes of Mr. Trump. This might not be the year for Sanders and his approach, but the future lies ahead as an college Professor always said.

    ted, portland 8 hours ago

    Nate you are delusional if you don't think Bernie will win big in the Bay Area, the days of smoke filled back rooms with Willie Brown and Diane Feinstein carving up the spoils are thankfully over. The Bay Area has a very diverse, intelligent populace who can spot a phony when they see it, Hillary doesn't stand a chance.

    Sara, Wisconsin 2 hours ago

    Say what you will, Bernie Sanders has breathed life into the Democrat campaign with sound ideas. He has resurrected some of the old labor friendly ways of a party drifted too far to the right. His call for a "revolution" of participation in government and civic lifr will resonate past the election.
    I'm glad he's staying in the race. I'd like my chance to vote for him, even if it proves only symbolicc.

    ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 8 hours ago

    Still waiting for the release of Hillary's transcripts of speeches she gave to special interest who lathered her with millions. If you support Hillary and you don't care about seeing what she told special interests you either work for one, or have your head in the sand.

    Hillary's favorability ratings are below 50% in every poll taken. She is considered trustworthy by a much lower percentage than Bernie.

    But she is the best candidate for the Dems because she supports big money in politics. No way to avoid the FACT the Dem party loves big donors and has absolutely no interest in having it any other way. They are competing with Repubs for big donors.

    A vote for Hillary is a vote for continuing pay to play, which has ruined this country for the past 3 decades. Another bought and paid for candidate.

    Bitter. Nope. Just the facts.

    Tough Call, USA 13 hours ago

    If it's Clinton v. Trump (of whoever v. Trump), and we the citizenry choose Trump, I must say that humankind has really not come very far. In our country, the wealthiest in the world, where by all reasonable measures, we live in significantly better conditions than most (but not all) of the world population, we will have proven ourselves not so different from the typical ups-and-downs that third-world countries and banana republics experience. For all our riches and our advancements, we, as humans, must be somehow consigned, as a collective, to make the same stupid mistakes. I hope we prove ourselves better than that.

    senior citizen, Illinois 13 hours ago

    There are quite a few more ways Bernie can win: leaks expose Hilary's Wall Street speeches,
    ; FBI charges; a strong yuan devaluation causes significant stock market volatility; etc

    Tom, CT 9 hours ago

    It's sad that educated "affluent" voters will support Clinton ostensibly to try to hold onto as much of their wealth as possible even when it's worse for the nation at large. It's the exact confluence of money and politics that Clinton stands for and Sanders rejects. This race is about one candidate who is well-liked, genuine, and looking to honestly help people versus another who pretends to be working for the people, but who's track record is a virtual Frank Underwood guide book of self-serving political maneuvers for wealth and power.

    Sanders ideas to give power back to the people instead of back to the wealthy isn't as radical as the media portrays him. It's the basic tenets of democracy most of us learned back in grade school. Hopefully whatever magic spell Clinton has over the black vote will be broken and voters will wake up to realize there is only one candidate fighting on their behalf.

    SCA,
    8 hours ago

    Actually, public colleges USED to be free for every in-state student. In the flower of my mature years, I can still remember that.

    I also remember making a livable living as a woman with only a HS diploma, serving as an executive secretary for the high-powered and well-connected.

    Many of them were identical to the snarling Democratic women who serve as Hillary*s henchpeople. Even as they worked for the *better good* in the non-profit and socially advanced universe, they were more than happy to trample on people like me.

    And *me* are, like, legion...

    I will never vote for Hillary. I will write in Sanders* name if I have to, and sleep soundly on Election Night, regardless of what happens, because I will have acted according to my own principles and ethics. If we all do so Sanders can win. If others do the usual craven Democratic fold--you*ll get what you deserve.

    susan smith, state college, pa 9 hours ago

    It is time for the NYTimes and the rest of the corporate media to recognize the very real and terrifying possibility that Donald Trump will be our next president. It is time to drop their mindless support of Hillary and to face the facts. Bernie defeats Trump in every poll by wider margins than Hillary. Bernie has no baggage. He has never faced indictment. He is not owned by Wall St. and super pacs. He has not been a cheerleader for endless war in the Middle East.
    Hillary is vulnerable in a general election; Bernie is not. I don't think the Times bothered to report it, but Bernie actually earned more votes in North Carolina than Trump did. Many Bernie supporters will not vote for Hillary. Bernie, however, has higher positive ratings than any other candidate this year. He won his home state by 87% because he is beloved by Republicans and Independents as well as Democrats. It is time to explain to African-Americans, Latinos, etc. WHY he is so beloved. There is no reason on earth for African-Americans not to support him except for the fact that they know nothing about him. That is your fault, corporate media, and nobody else's.

    Charlotte Ritchie, Larkspur, CA 4 hours ago

    The truth is that Sanders performs way better against Trump in general election and state-by-state match-ups than Clinton. He has great appeal for Independents, and even garners 25% of the Republican vote in his home state of Vermont. One can say that Sanders hasn't yet been "tested" against the Republican spin machine in a general election, but honestly, the worst they can throw at him is "socialist," a term that is actually very friendly to those who come to understand the meaning of "Democratic socialism." Clinton has so many lies (think, for just one, of "landing under sniper fire in Bosnia), flip-flops and evolutions in her history that the Republicans will have a field day with her. Independents don't like her, millennials are apathetic to her, and her only real appeal is with strong Democrats, most of whom she doesn't inspire. What I fear the most is a Trump presidency, and that Clinton will end up being another John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale.

    skanik, Berkeley 9 hours ago

    Cannot fathom why anyone would vote for Hillary
    unless you want the "Same Old - Same Old":
    The Rich get Richer and Poor get Poorer.
    Do you really think someone who took $ 675,000 for making
    3 speeches to Goldman Sachs is going to tame the Wall Street Wolves ?

    Give Bernie your vote for the sake of humanity.

    Even Peters, Here 13 hours ago

    I believe Sen Sanders is committing a terrible error that will cost him the nomination and the Democrats the presidency.
    While sparing HRC all the hovering questions by running a clean campaign
    first, he is not only not using the possibility to highlight his superiority on political luggage and history which could help him with minority groups, veterans and others ,
    but also he is not preparing the public for the spectacle waiting the public when the duel with Trump(or Cruz) starts.
    When the issues such as her voting history on wars, Secretary of State
    tragic mistakes such as Libya, endangering nation security with the use of a
    private server , Bill grotesque history with women and her shaming of the women who went trough, her past positions on LGBT,
    profoundly racist comments as the Superpredators, weird insinuations as the gunfire in Kosovo
    start being spit on her by towering, screaming bully of Trump it will be a
    a BLOODBATH.

    There is so many of them and even now she keep on making them
    and when you hear them all spit one by one with a venom and conviction by the "other" candidate, even diehard Dems will be appalled.
    She will be destroyed and no whatsoever credibility will be accorded any
    explanation she could give as the offences are BIGGER then anything we have ever witnessed in president candidate.

    Reps are stocking them like silver bullets and they will hit when the time comes.
    So shoot now Sanders, otherwise other will use them to kill.

    everyman, baltimore, md 8 hours ago

    To bsebird:

    I am a psychiatrist, and I am terrified by the idea that someone with such a narcissistic, and anti-social personality, would put the future and safety of our country at great risk, in order to aquire another "property" that he desperately wants, as another trophy to add to his list of buying everything he wants, no matter the cost or risk.

    Unlike a real estate acquisition, you cannot (or should not) bankrupt this country, write it off as a loss on your taxes, and move on to purchasing another "prize" you want, and feel you are entitled to "collect/own". For a man who continually demonstrates the temper of a 5 y/o when he is challenged, and has no political experience mixed with his "ballistic" temper, would you really choose him to make decisions that involve the safety and welfare of our country, and to make rationally based decisions in our current state of complex and fragile international affairs?

    [Mar 18, 2016] The people are obviously sick and tired of our old establishment politicians

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is winning because he is NOT the establishment. Sanders, coming out of nowhere, with only PEOPLE rather than the establishment behind him, is running a fantastic race against a well oiled machine going on twenty years in the building of it. ..."
    "... US will just follow the rest of the world's trend towards more extremist politicians and options. It is just a sign that these are not good times at least in peoples' minds. The extreme right is doing great in Northern and Central Europe, while the extreme left is doing the same in Southern Europe creating a rift in almost every issue, but specially the immigration policy. many countries are becoming difficult to govern at a time when separatism, both national (Scotland, Catalonia) and supranational (Brexit) is on the increase. ..."
    "... "US will just follow the rest of the world's trend towards more extremist politicians and options. It is just a sign that these are not good times at least in peoples' minds." ..."
    "... The odds are, you are right, about HRC being the nominee, but it is still a race, and it ain't over till it's over. I hope like hell you are right about TRUMP LOSING, regardless of who wins, but I have been following politics since the fifties, and HRC has had a hint of dead fish smell following her from day one. They used to talk about RR being the teflon prez, but compared to HRC, he was Velcro. ..."
    "... She stinks in terms of the public's opinion of her, and elections are generally decided in the middle in this country. ..."
    "... The Republican party is too far to the right for most Europeans, including me. And as of late it seems to even be going farther to the right (Tea party, Trump, etc). ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Oldfarmermac , 03/16/2016 at 7:32 am

    The MSM are doing their usual thing this morning, managing, like the referee at a pro wrestling match, to miss the real action. It is true that a win is a win in a winner take all state when it comes to delegates, but when the results are as close as three points, one or two voters out of a hundred changing sides changes the results.

    The people are obviously sick and tired of our old establishment politicians.

    Trump is winning because he is NOT the establishment. Sanders, coming out of nowhere, with only PEOPLE rather than the establishment behind him, is running a fantastic race against a well oiled machine going on twenty years in the building of it.

    When the actual election rolls around, the people who are pissed at the establishment, meaning damned near everybody except the handful at the top of the economic and political heap, are going to wish they could vote for an outsider.

    The right wing outsiders will get their wish from the looks of things. They will be voting AGAINST INSIDERS rather than FOR Trump. Their fires will be burning hot and bright, unless he goes totally nuts campaigning.

    This looks BAD for the country imo. The D's are in great danger of running a CLASSIC insider.

    It's time for a change, and the younger people of this country feel it in their bones.

    And about this old climate change issue, ahem. We can basically go to bed at night, not worrying about it very much, in terms of people's beliefs, because all that is really left is a mopping up operation as far as public opinion is concerned.

    My generation will soon be either dead or in nursing homes, and the younger generation will vote the scientific consensus, after a while.

    I remember LOTS of people who were DEAD set, pun intended, in their belief that smoking is a harmless pleasure. It has been a decade at least since I heard even an illiterate moron claim that smoking is safe, although I do still hear an occasional smoker in denial say that when your time comes, your time has come, and it does not matter about the WHY of it coming.

    This is not to say we can abandon the fight, but that victory is assured, so long as we keep it up.

    After all, the actual EVIDENCE is accumulating that the world is warming up pretty fast.

    I have no doubt at all than unless the last ten days of this month are very close to RECORD COLD, we will be setting a regional record for the warmest March ever. My personal estimate is that the odds of a frost kill of the tree fruit crop locally are among the highest ever. All it takes is ONE good frosty night once the buds are too far advanced.

    The Koch brothers and their buddies will continue to fight a dirty and ferocious rear guard action of course, but in another decade, the issue will no longer be in doubt, as far as the general public is concerned.

    Ron Patterson , 03/16/2016 at 10:21 am
    The people are obviously sick and tired of our old establishment politicians.

    Guess who has far more votes than any other candidate running, even more than Donald Trump?

    It appears that some of the people are obviously not all that sick.

    Nick G , 03/16/2016 at 11:43 am
    Trump is winning because he is NOT the establishment

    Nobody is more establishment than Trump. He's a perfect example of a crony-capitalist. Again, this is the classic strategy of exploiting people's problems, and diverting their anger towards scapegoats, like immigrants and foreign countries. Trump has proposed a massive tax cut for the 1%, and making life harder for immigrants only helps business exploit them better, and undercuts wages even more for working people.

    Trump is the same ol', same ol', only worse.

    Oldfarmermac , 03/16/2016 at 12:40 pm
    There is more than one way do define the word "establishment".

    In one sense Trump IS the establishment, but in the sense I used it , he is the ANTI establishment, no doubt, but he is also a new face on the political scene, running against the D party as WELL as his own NOMINAL party.

    No real republican thinks of Trump as a republican, if we define republican as somebody who agrees with most or all of the positions and values of the republican party for the last couple of decades.

    What I am saying is that the foot soldiers of the R party have been ready to mutiny for a long time now, and Trump has provided them the leadership necessary to do so.

    The working class conservative voters are THOROUGHLY pissed at the R party establishment, feeling betrayed at every turn.

    People who used to work for a living in the industries sent overseas by the D and R parties working in collusion have felt trapped until today, betrayed by the D party on the social consensus they held dear, right or wrong, and fucked over by the R party they have been voting for as the lesser of two evils.

    Not many such people still believe in the American Dream, because they are simply not able to get ahead anymore, no matter how hard they work.

    And while they are mistaken to believe in Trump, at least Trump has not be been lying to them continuously for the last few decades, AS THEY SEE IT.

    ( That he is lying to them now , in substantial ways, is irrevelant. He is a NEW face. )

    Trump IS Wall Street, and HRC is in the vest pocket of Wall Street, except on cultural issues.

    Now these comments may not make much sense to hard core liberals, because hard core liberals have an incredibly hard time believing anybody who disagrees with them has a brain, or morals, or a culture that suits THEM.

    In actuality, at least half of the country disagrees with the D party social agenda, for reasons that TO THEM are valid and more than adequate.

    Nick G , 03/16/2016 at 1:05 pm
    I agree: Trump has sold himself as an advocate for the working class.

    It's the same strategy Republicans have been using for 40 odd years: using people's fears and hopes to get them to vote for people who proceed to betray them.

    Not that Democrats are enormously better, but, with our current political system they can't be. If they get too progressive, the other party can move to the middle and cut them out.

    ChiefEngineer , 03/16/2016 at 1:17 pm
    Hi Nick,

    It's nice to see you posting again. Your spot on. The Republican establishment has been exploiting their base for the last 50 years with a whisper campaign of racism and bigotry for their own 1% economic gain. The Donald has only removed the whisper from the campaign and increased the amount of lies.

    "Trump is the same ol', same ol', only worse"

    "That's what puzzles me – this idea that fossil fuels are still valuable."

    Nick, you over estimate the educated gray matter of your fellow humans. Most don't have your vision and will not see it until EV's are the norm(10+ years from now). The fossil fuel Republican parties base will be the last in the world to see the light. If they aren't already.

    Javier , 03/16/2016 at 12:09 pm
    US will just follow the rest of the world's trend towards more extremist politicians and options. It is just a sign that these are not good times at least in peoples' minds. The extreme right is doing great in Northern and Central Europe, while the extreme left is doing the same in Southern Europe creating a rift in almost every issue, but specially the immigration policy. many countries are becoming difficult to govern at a time when separatism, both national (Scotland, Catalonia) and supranational (Brexit) is on the increase.

    If we move to the rest of the world we see the very negative result of the Arab Spring. Essentially no single country that underwent those social revolutions has come better afterwards. Even Tunisia, a moderate country, has seen its tourism badly damaged and it is now the biggest contributor to Sirian foreign fighters. Saudi Arabia has a more extremist government that it is making a policy out of foreign intervention, minority repression and confrontation against Iran, while its population is cheering the change.

    So don't be so surprised by developments in US politics that follow what is happening elsewhere. It is a product of the times we live.

    Nick G , 03/16/2016 at 12:32 pm
    the world's trend towards more extremist politicians

    There's nothing new about demagoguery, in the US or elsewhere, or revolutionary sentiment (I guess I shouldn't have said Trump was "worse" – he's just a little less subtle about it than has been the norm lately in the US).

    Have you seen any actual data suggesting that there is a real change in "extremism", separatism, social discontent or other similar things?

    Javier , 03/16/2016 at 1:43 pm
    Nick G,

    "Have you seen any actual data suggesting that there is a real change in "extremism", separatism, social discontent or other similar things?"

    Yes:

    Populism and demagoguery are taking the developed world by storm. New radical (right or left) parties go from zero to taking second or third places in mere months.

    Do you have a better explanation?

    Oldfarmermac , 03/16/2016 at 12:44 pm
    "US will just follow the rest of the world's trend towards more extremist politicians and options. It is just a sign that these are not good times at least in peoples' minds."

    WELL SAID, Javier.

    GoneFishing , 03/16/2016 at 7:33 pm
    Didn't Trump used to be a Democrat?
    Oldfarmermac , 03/16/2016 at 8:27 pm
    I don't have more than the foggiest idea about Javier's personal political beliefs, other than that he occasionally makes a remark indicating he leans more to the left than to the right. I don't think you do either.

    Folks who are so TRIBALLY oriented that they cannot distinguish a skeptic from a partisan will always of course assume that anybody who questions anything associated with their IN group is a member of their OUT GROUP, and a fraud or a phony or an enemy of some sort.

    I disagree with Javier's assessment of the potential risk of forced climate change, but he on the other hand he never has anything to say, other than about the extent of forced climate change, that sets off my personal alarm bells when it comes to environmental issues. On every other environmetal question, unless I have overlooked something, he is very much in one hundred percent agreement with the overall "big picture " environmental camp consensus.

    It is GOOD politics to remember what RR had to say about a man who agrees with you just about all the time. Such a man is a FRIEND, in political terms, and an ally, rather than an enemy.

    Now about that fear card- both parties play it on a regular basis.

    In case you haven't noticed, I support the larger part of the D party platform, except I go FARTHER, in some cases, as in supporting single payer for the heath care industry. I have made it clear that I am NOT a republican, and stated many times that I am basically a single issue voter, that issue being the environment.

    Now HERE is why I am supporting Bernie Sanders, nicely summarized, although I do not take every line of this article seriously.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/33-percent-of-bernie-sanders-not-vote-hillary_b_9475626.html

    Any democrat who is not afraid to remove his or her rose colored glasses, and take a CRITICAL look at HRC as a candidate, will come away with a hell of a lot to think about if he or she reads this link.

    I personally know a lot of people who have voted D most of their lives who would rather vote for ANY other D than HRC. It is extremely hard for a lot of people to accept it, but she STINKS, ethically, in the opinion of a HUGE swath of independents, and a substantial number of committed democrats . A good many of them may stay home rather than vote for her, but they will vote for Sanders, out of party loyalty and fear of Trump.

    Sanders polls better,virtually across the board, in terms of the actual election, and he does not have the negative baggage. I WANT a Democrat in the WH next time around.

    Read this , and think, if you are not so immersed in party and personal politics that you can't deal with it.

    Millions and millions of D voters have digested it already, for themselves, over the last decade or two, which is why Sanders is getting half the vote, excluding minorities in the south, even though he is coming out of nowhere, without the support of the party establishment, without big money backing him, against HRC who has been organizing and campaigning just about forever.

    I am not saying this guy is right in every respect, but he has his finger on the pulse of many tens of millions of D voters, or potential D voters.

    If it comes down to Trump versus HRC, I am not at ALL sure HRC will win, but if Sanders gets the nomination, I think he WILL, because even though he has been around forever, he is the NEW face of the D party, and the PEOPLE of this country are SICK and TIRED of the old faces, D and R both.

    Trump and Sanders have in ONE important thing in common . Both of them are new faces, promising to bring new life to their parties.

    Hickory , 03/16/2016 at 11:23 pm
    I like a lot about what Sanders is bringing to the table. But sorry Mac, I think its going to be Clinton. I'm non-aligned (anti-partisan), but I'd vote for Clinton a thousand times over Trump. And I think a strong majority of the country will as well.
    Oldfarmermac , 03/17/2016 at 6:10 am
    Hi Hickory,

    The odds are, you are right, about HRC being the nominee, but it is still a race, and it ain't over till it's over. I hope like hell you are right about TRUMP LOSING, regardless of who wins, but I have been following politics since the fifties, and HRC has had a hint of dead fish smell following her from day one. They used to talk about RR being the teflon prez, but compared to HRC, he was Velcro.

    Almost every regular in this forum seems to be mathematically literate. I challenge anybody here to explain Cattle Gate as any thing except fraud, pure and simple, in realistic terms.

    Hey, this ain't YET North Korea, where we actually believe our leader made a hole in one the first time he ever tried golf, on a day so foggy nobody could see the green.

    I absolutely will never vote for EITHER HRC or TRUMP.

    If the D's run HRC, the best hope for the country is that the R's broker their convention, and Trump gives up crashing the R party and his own personal hard core stays home. That would make the election safe for HRC, assuming the FBI decides in her favor. Not many prez candidates have ever had a hundred agents on their case.

    Six months ago I was almost sure Trump was a flash in the pan, and would be forgotten by now. I now fear that there is a very real possibility he may win.

    The political waters are so muddy it is impossible to say what will happen a year from now.

    Trump is the sort of fellow who successfully "aw shucks" away most of his nasty rhetoric once he has the nomination, and then he will turn his guns on HRC. He won't have far to go to look for ammo, and he will make damned sure everything smelly is on the front pages from day one, all the way back to Arkansas.

    Sanders is a far more desirable candidate in the actual election.

    This is basically why:

    http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

    She stinks in terms of the public's opinion of her, and elections are generally decided in the middle in this country.

    If she can take her ten years plus campaigning advantage into a big industrial state, Obama's political home, with the party establishment behind her, and win by only TWO POINTS points, what does this tell you?She should have won by thirty points or more, if the people were really behind her, rather than beholden to the party machine.

    The deep south will vote for Trump in preference to HRC, with a couple of exceptions, maybe three or four. So her big delegate lead from there doesn't prove a THING in terms of the actual election. She is taking all the delegates elsewhere in winner take all states by only very narrow margins. The BURN in D voter's hearts is mostly for Sanders.

    Trump would likely be in worse shape in terms of public opinion, except he is a new face, politically, and it takes a long time to build up such negatives, it doesn't happen overnight.

    My personal opinion of HIS ethics is that he makes HRC look like an altar girl.

    Javier , 03/17/2016 at 7:43 am
    Thank you for your words, OFM.

    People tend to put tags way too easily.

    I am not too interested in politics, and even less in US politics. The Republican party is too far to the right for most Europeans, including me. And as of late it seems to even be going farther to the right (Tea party, Trump, etc).

    I do not find myself much of a political space because I do not agree much with both left and right parties in Europe. I am more of a traditional European liberal, which doesn't translate well into a US political leaning, and even in Europe is very minoritarian. Let's just say that I believe that individual rights are above collective rights and I believe in small government. I also think that the economy should be strictly regulated to avoid dominant positions that always go against the individual, and that medical care and education should be affordable to anybody.

    But I am afraid all these belong to a pre-Oil Peak world and we are going to see very different politics being played out as our economy starts to suffer from lack of affordable oil. Right now oil is not affordable because producers cannot afford it, but if it goes up significantly in price consumers will not be able to afford it.

    [Mar 10, 2016] Trump on how much will be two plus two

    discussion.theguardian.com

    Sean Anthony Dylan

    3h ago 0 1 From Twitter, but so true:

    Donald Trump answers the question 'what is 2+2?': "I have to say a lot of people have been asking this question. No, really. A lot of people come up to me, and they ask me. They say, 'What's 2+2'? And I tell them, look, we know what 2+2 is.

    We've had almost eight years of the worst kind of math you can imagine. Oh, my God, I can't believe it. Addition and subtraction of the 1s the 2s and the 3s. It's terrible. It's just terrible. Look, if you want to know what 2+2 is, do you want to know what 2+2 is? I'll tell you. First of all the number 2, by the way, I love the number 2. It's probably my favorite number, no it is my favorite number. You know what, it's probably more like the number two but with a lot of zeros behind it. A lot. If I'm being honest, I mean, if I'm being honest. I like a lot of zeros.

    Except for Marco Rubio, now he's a zero that I don't like. Though, I probably shouldn't say that. He's a nice guy, but he's like, '10101000101,' on and on, like that. He's like a computer! You know what I mean? He's like a computer. I don't know. I mean, you know. So, we have all these numbers, and we can add them and subtract them and add them. TIMES them even. Did you know that?

    We can times them OR divide them, they don't tell you that, and I'll tell you, no one is better at the order of operations than me. You wouldn't believe it. So, we're gonna be the best on 2+2, believe me." Reply Report BG Davis Sean Anthony Dylan , 2016-03-08 17:42:31

    Priceless! Next stop, Saturday Night Live or similar.

    [Mar 10, 2016] GOP Leaders, Tech Execs Plot Against Trump At Secret NeoCon Island Meeting

    www.zerohedge.com

    "The main topic at the closed-to-the-press confab? How to stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump," Huff Post writes . Here's a list of attendees:

  • Apple CEO Tim Cook,
  • Google co-founder Larry Page,
  • Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker,
  • Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk
  • Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),
  • political guru Karl Rove,
  • House Speaker Paul Ryan,
  • GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.),
  • Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.),
  • Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas)
  • Kevin McCarthy (Calif.),
  • Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.),
  • Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.),
  • Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
  • Diane Black (Tenn.)
  • " A specter was haunting the World Forum--the specter of Donald Trump, " the Weekly Standard founder Bill Kristol wrote in an emailed report from the conference, borrowing the opening lines of the Communist Manifesto. "There was much unhappiness about his emergence, a good deal of talk, some of it insightful and thoughtful, about why he's done so well, and many expressions of hope that he would be defeated."

    Heading to AEI World Forum. Lots of interesting guests. It's off the record, so please do consider my tweets from there off the record!

    - Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) March 3, 2016

    Predictably Karl Rove, GOP mastermind, gave a presentation outlining what he says are Trump's weaknesses. Voters would have a hard time seeing him as "presidential," Rove said. Which we suppose is why they are turning out in droves to vote for him.

    corporatewhore |

    Trump just got my vote!

    _ConanTheLibert... |

    Yes. The more the establishment try to bring down Trump, the more it will backfire on them.

    EscapeKey |

    yup - a group of billionaires meeting at an exclusive resort debating how to circumvent the democratic process, failing to consider that's the exact description of what's wrong with America (and the GOP)

    idea_hamster , |

    "Voters would have a hard time seeing him as "presidential," Rove said."

    That's it? That's all that Turdblossom's got?! Holy fuck, what a useless ziploc bag of mayonnaise.

    Dr Freckles , |

    Karl Rove could die ...

    (that would not bother me)

    DownWithYogaPants , |

    Just checked the map. SeaIsland is within strong swimmer's distance right next to Jekyll Island. How ironic man.

    SeaIsland: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sea+Island,+Georgia/@31.1230914,-81.53... !4m2!3m1!1s0x88e4ce2cbf9ff77f:0xc23237ab888a6a22

    Jekyll Island: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jekyll+Island,+Georgia+31527/@31.06856... !3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x88e4dbf62542c839:0x10d22d63ea360435

    KesselRunin12Parsecs , |

    The Creature from JERK YL Island

    Whoa Dammit , |

    Tom Price'is one of the highest net worth Congressmen. His Georgia office is in Roswell, which is a corrupt little city in North Atlanta. Roswell city officials harassed and fined a mildly retarded man who refused to give up his ownership of about 20 chickens to the point that the guy was going to lose his paid for house, and he committed suicide. (Google Roswell Chicken Man). Tom Price fits right in with that bunch.

    All about Tom Price with contact info:

    http://members-of-congress.insidegov.com/l/517/Tom-Price

    Theosebes Goodfellow , |

    ~"Here's a list of attendees:

  • Apple CEO Tim Cook,
  • Google co-founder Larry Page,
  • Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker,
  • Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk
  • Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),
  • political guru Karl Rove,
  • House Speaker Paul Ryan,
  • GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.),
  • Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.),
  • Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas)
  • Kevin McCarthy (Calif.),
  • Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.),
  • Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.),
  • Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
  • Diane Black (Tenn.)"~
  • So work this out with me:

    The top 4 people on the list are committed NWO leftists.

    The next one and third are reknown RINOs, with the second being a political dirty tricks mechanic.

    The rest of the group are owned outright by the banksters.

    "Ladies and Gentlemen, YOUR REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP!"

    Maybe Reince Priebus should get a sworn oath out of these coniving little fucks to support the lead vote getter in the primaries. (Don't count on it.) Say..., where is ol' Reince anyway? Why isn't he out denouncing these weasels?

    [Mar 09, 2016] The people of Michigan have spoken. They are not buying what Clinton, her corporate donors and media backers are selling

    Notable quotes:
    "... The comment that Clinton had seemed to have locked up the Democratic race last Tuesday is laughable now, but it was also way out of line last week. The idea that superdelegates will stay with Clinton if she falls measurably behind in the popular vote is very questionable. ..."
    "... Adding them now to her delegate total makes sense if you're trying to create a perception of inevitability for the candidate you've endorsed. Wake up, Times analysts. She's not inevitable any more than she was in 2008. ..."
    "... The recent polling average at Real Clear Politics placed Clinton ahead of Sanders in Michigan by 21.4%. Zero polls put Sanders ahead of Clinton. Polling organizations projected a Clinton victory chance at 99%. And Sanders just won the state. The victory is stunning. I strongly urge the pundits to revise their inevitability narrative and let the voters decide. ..."
    "... HRC is part of establishment that led to this demise. Thank you to the people of Michigan for choosing Sanders and Trump. You have a beautiful state! ..."
    "... When polls this morning showed Hillary 13% ahead of Bernie, NYTimes called Michigan a state whose diversity was almost perfectly representative of the nation. Now the goal post has shifted and Michigan is suddenly super-white. ..."
    "... Sanders has won in almost all of the states that Obama carried in 2008 and 2012; Clinton has won mainly in the Southern states which the GOP has won in every election since 1968. The DNC should wake up: Sanders is the better candidate. ..."
    "... It's going to be interesting how the super-delegates throw their support to. Right now Hillary is leading the delegate count and that lead is increased with a majority of the super-delegates. However, if this upset is followed by more in the future, those super-delegates may have a change of heart and we could have a very interesting summer in this election. ..."
    "... The rustbelt does not trust Hillary Clinton - and for a very good reason - NAFTA. ..."
    "... The Sanders Clinton divide is almost right on the Mason-Dixon Line thus far. These maps are quite remarkable. They also point to Sanders relative strength in contrast to the queen in a general election. He will carry Hillary's supporters much more so than her ability to expect the support of the Bernie people. ..."
    "... Dearborn, Michigan is about 30% Arab Americans. Early returns show a majority voted overwhelmingly for our first Jewish American presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders. What a wonderful thing that says about Democratic Party values and the people of Dearborn. ..."
    "... Breaking Bad - Michigan is the point the system went tilt. Bernie has the overwhelming white vote and now blacks are beginning going as well to Bernie. The Clinton Machine is running out of propaganda. People sees Bernie's Integrity ..."
    "... It seems that the newspaper of record will have to take a more careful look at its slanted election reporting. The degree of poor and irresponsible journalism from the New York Times regarding the Democratic primaries is astounding! I'm surprised that the Times was able to print the breaking news of a "significant upset over Hillary Clinton." All power to the 99%! ..."
    "... Bottom line: Take away the African American vote in the old South and Hillary is a non-candidate. ..."
    "... Hillary was going to shift to Trump and the General Election. NOT. SO. QUICK. Ms Clinton. You have just about run out of Old Confederacy States and the shine is off of your inevitability argument. Bernie warned the press not to underestimate him. He just won an industrial state with a significant minority population. ..."
    www.nytimes.com
    steve in nc, North Carolina 3 minutes ago

    Don't you think it worth mentioning that most of the states Clinton has won are almost certain to stay red in November? And that Sanders is winning the states Dems need to win in November, and outpolling her dramatically among independents everywhere? Still think she's most "electable"?

    The comment that Clinton had seemed to have locked up the Democratic race last Tuesday is laughable now, but it was also way out of line last week. The idea that superdelegates will stay with Clinton if she falls measurably behind in the popular vote is very questionable.

    Adding them now to her delegate total makes sense if you're trying to create a perception of inevitability for the candidate you've endorsed. Wake up, Times analysts. She's not inevitable any more than she was in 2008.

    Eric, Chicago 10 minutes ago
    The recent polling average at Real Clear Politics placed Clinton ahead of Sanders in Michigan by 21.4%. Zero polls put Sanders ahead of Clinton. Polling organizations projected a Clinton victory chance at 99%. And Sanders just won the state. The victory is stunning. I strongly urge the pundits to revise their inevitability narrative and let the voters decide.
    Just Me, Planet Earth 10 minutes ago
    Michigan serves as an example of the US as a whole- considering the fact that they are part of the rust belt. The manufacturing sector of the US that has been DECIMATED by NAFTA, NATO, TPP and other trade agreements that have ROBBED the middle class of hard working labor with DECENT pay, now we are forced to compete with cheap labor. HRC is part of establishment that led to this demise. Thank you to the people of Michigan for choosing Sanders and Trump. You have a beautiful state!
    Al, CA 10 minutes ago
    When polls this morning showed Hillary 13% ahead of Bernie, NYTimes called Michigan a state whose diversity was almost perfectly representative of the nation. Now the goal post has shifted and Michigan is suddenly super-white.

    In June we'll be hearing about how minority-majority California is grossly unrepresentative. Why not just admit that some people would rather vote for the man who went to jail

    Kevin Cahill, Albuquerque 10 minutes ago
    Sanders has won in almost all of the states that Obama carried in 2008 and 2012; Clinton has won mainly in the Southern states which the GOP has won in every election since 1968. The DNC should wake up: Sanders is the better candidate.
    Cassowary, Earthling 13 minutes ago
    Behold the revolution! The people of Michigan have spoken. They are not buying what Clinton, her corporate donors and media backers are selling.

    Listen up, Democrats. Don't try to fight the will of the voters and usurp Sanders if he wins nationally. Why destroy the party by undemocratically supporting Clinton through superdelegates and risk the meltdown the GOP is going through? Clinton is now the unelectable candidate. Adjust. Accept. Get ready for President Sanders, a true Democrat.

    Martha Shelley, Portland, OR 13 minutes ago
    Just yesterday the NY Times was telling us that Clinton would win a landslide victory in Michigan, and Sanders was history. Um, is this on the same level as the 1948 headline in the Chicago Tribune, "Dewey Defeats Truman?"
    Andrew L, Toronto 13 minutes ago
    "Mr Sanders, who won white voters in Michigan and is targeting them in coming Rust Belt primaries...."

    Wow. Just wow. And Sanders supporters say they are progressive. Has your country come to a point where candidates and their campaigns barely conceal their implicitly racist aims? This is utterly astounding and shameful.

    RCT 13 minutes ago

    Bernie won Michigan and, I believe, will win Ohio. It's not an "upset," NYT: it's momentum. Were it not for the African-American vote, the Clinton campaign would be in the tank. Maybe it's time to reconsider the received wisdom that "Bernie can't win"?

    Liberty Apples, Providence 13 minutes ago

    When will the Clintons ever learn? Bernie, congratulations!!

    Will Hicks , South Carolina 13 minutes ago

    It's going to be interesting how the super-delegates throw their support to. Right now Hillary is leading the delegate count and that lead is increased with a majority of the super-delegates. However, if this upset is followed by more in the future, those super-delegates may have a change of heart and we could have a very interesting summer in this election.
    This is purely opinion, but I feel confident saying that the next president of this country is going to come from the winner of this close Democratic Nomination. The Republican Party is very divided with Trump leading the way, and I cannot see the typical support from losing candidates thrown Trump's way should he win the nomination.

    mike , manhattan 16 minutes ago

    Bernie received almost 40% in Wayne County --Detroit, so let's end the fiction that Bernie can't win the African American vote. His message is spreading in urban America, which is where Democrats win elections.

    The Times unfairly uses the term "prolong" to describe this race. Let's see hoee Bernie does in Philly and Cleveland. Hillary is in big trouble.

    alchemistoxford, oxford, uk 47 minutes ago

    Very poor coverage of the big story of the night - Bernie Sanders beating Hillary Clinton in the rustbelt state Michigan. The rustbelt does not trust Hillary Clinton - and for a very good reason - NAFTA. The dynamics of the Democratic race have just been transformed. Michigan is a gamechanger.

    Billy , up in the woods down by the river 2 hours ago

    The Sanders Clinton divide is almost right on the Mason-Dixon Line thus far. These maps are quite remarkable. They also point to Sanders relative strength in contrast to the queen in a general election. He will carry Hillary's supporters much more so than her ability to expect the support of the Bernie people.

    This Michigan upset by Sanders over Clinton may prove to be historic.

    Mary Scott, is a trusted commenter NY 44 minutes ago

    Dearborn, Michigan is about 30% Arab Americans. Early returns show a majority voted overwhelmingly for our first Jewish American presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders. What a wonderful thing that says about Democratic Party values and the people of Dearborn.

    This is a beautiful night for Bernie Sanders and those of us who believe in him. I think he'll win but even if he doesn't, he proved his candidacyy is very much alive.

    Get ready to feel the Bern, Ohio!

    Janice Badger Nelson , is a trusted commenter Park City, Utah, from Boston 43 minutes ago

    If Hillary and Bernie were switched, you would have called it for her already in Michigan. CNN is doing the same. Sorry, the big story, even if Hillary squeaks out a narrow win, the BIG story is how well Bernie Sanders is doing. Of course by reading the NYTimes, you would never know. Sad state of honest journalism.

    arrot , NYC 41 minutes ago

    Breaking Bad - Michigan is the point the system went tilt. Bernie has the overwhelming white vote and now blacks are beginning going as well to Bernie. The Clinton Machine is running out of propaganda. People sees Bernie's Integrity

    Eddy90 , New York, NY 51 minutes ago

    What an amazing upset by Mr. Sanders. Huge upset and will probably define this race when it's all said and done. This is exactly what Bernie Sanders needed. The polls have been going against him in pretty much every state, but this one was over 10% for Hillary today as per the latest poll. We can't trust the media and the pundits. On to Ohio!!

    Howie Lisnoff , is a trusted commenter Massachusetts 32 minutes ago

    It seems that the newspaper of record will have to take a more careful look at its slanted election reporting. The degree of poor and irresponsible journalism from the New York Times regarding the Democratic primaries is astounding! I'm surprised that the Times was able to print the breaking news of a "significant upset over Hillary Clinton." All power to the 99%!

    mef , nj 1 hour ago

    Kudos to Hillary Clinton, favorite of the Republican South!

    Justicia, NY, NY 33 minutes ago

    Winning the Democratic primary in MS, LA or other deep south states is a far cry from carrying those states in the general election. Hillary is in trouble.

    David Gregory , Deep Red South 37 minutes ago

    Bottom line: Take away the African American vote in the old South and Hillary is a non-candidate. She is strong in states the Democrats will not carry come November. This despite having a huge advantage in name recognition, endorsements - including the NYT and WaPo, money and all the rest.

    If the goal is to win in November, Democrats had better wake up. As of this writing, NBC just called Michigan for Bernie where Hillary was supposedly up by 10+ Points.
    (10:35 PM CST)

    #FeelTheBern #NotReadyForHIllary

    The clown car on the Republican side is of no consequence. Bernie will wipe the floor with Trump.

    David Gregory , Deep Red South 36 minutes ago

    Hillary was going to shift to Trump and the General Election. NOT. SO. QUICK. Ms Clinton. You have just about run out of Old Confederacy States and the shine is off of your inevitability argument. Bernie warned the press not to underestimate him. He just won an industrial state with a significant minority population.

    [Mar 08, 2016] 200PM Water Cooler 3-7-2016 naked capitalism

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    The Flint Debate

    "All you had to do was watch Sunday night's debate in Flint, Michigan, to realize Sanders isn't nearly ready to quit" [ Politico ]. And you know that if Clinton had won, that's what would have been splashed over Politico's home page, and all the other Acela riders, too.

    "Testy debate suggests Clinton and Sanders battle will continue" [ McClatchy ]. Well, that and what Sanders has said, and continuing support from his coalition, as measured by contributions, which means he can tell the DNC to take a hike.

    Clinton said again she would release the transcripts only if all other candidates who have given paid speeches did. She also said that she stood up to Wall Street. "I have a record," she said. "And you know what, if you were going to be in some way distrusted or dismissed about whether you can take on Wall Street if you ever took money, President Obama took more money from Wall Street in the 2008 campaign than anybody ever had."

    Sanders quipped: "Secretary Clinton wants everybody else to release it, well, I'm your Democratic opponent, I release it, here it is. There ain't nothing. I don't give speeches to Wall Street for hundreds of thousands of dollars, you got it."

    I don't have to tell NC readers how weak that "quip" is. (And Clinton's effrontery really is boundless, isn't it? Then again, Russell Simmons agrees with her.)

    "The Hillary Clinton-Bernie Sanders clash over the auto bailout, explained" [ WaPo ]. This is classic:

    "I voted to save the auto industry," [Clinton] said. "He voted against the money that ended up saving the auto industry. I think that is a pretty big difference."

    What Clinton said is technically true, but it glosses over a lot of important nuance, including the fact that Sanders is actually on the record as supporting the auto bailout. He even voted for it.

    So "techically true" means false, thenk? It's a topsy-turvey world! (Even leaving aside the idea that a died-on-the-wool Socialist would do such a thing.)

    The Trail

    "Clinton insiders are eager to begin recruiting to their cause Republicans turned off by the prospect of Donald Trump - and the threat of Sanders sticking it out until June makes the general election pivot more difficult" [ Politico ]. I have long held that Clinton does not want Sanders voters, and now I am confirmed in my view. Clinton wants moderate Republicans instead, for reasons temparamental (Goldwater Girl), financial (ka-ching), and institutional. Socialism and liberalism do not mix (even Sanders' mild version of it). In addition, the Democratic establishment refuses to recognize that Sanders has broken their squillionaire-dependent funding model, and in consequence has gleefully stomped on youth voters (who needs 'em, anyhow?). It really is time for Sanders to start thinking about converting his campaign into a standalone entity that will continue beyond the election. What's wrong with SFA (Socialists for America?)

    "Clinton must make Elizabeth Warren her vice president" [Dana Milbank, WaPo ]. Ugh.

    "Over the next two weeks, Sanders campaign surrogates - and, in some cases, the candidate - will meet with local activists. The campaign has employed this strategy before, but surrogates and aides said now it will be more publicized. Sanders, according to two sources briefed on the campaign's plans, will also be more specific about economic inequality and its effect on black communities in his stump speech" [ Buzzfeed ].

    "Right now, when you look at the political revolution - it needs to be more intersectional , and his economic proposals need to be more more explicit on the ground and publicly," the activist [who wasn't authorized to speak for their organization] said. "The Clintons will exploit that. When he's talking about it, he'll give specific examples on the stump in ways he hasn't before, is my understanding."

    We discuss intersectionality today . Note especially Appendix 1, where the Sander's site's Racial Justice page is presented as a model.

    "The Seattle Times editorial board recommends John Kasich, Bernie Sanders" [ Seattle Times ].

    "Andrea Mitchell Pulls the Mask Off Harry Reid" [ Down with Tyranny ]. How the "neutral" Reid delivered Nevada to Clinton.

    "Hillary Calls for Michigan Gov's Resignation an Hour After Her Spox Slammed Bernie for Same" [ Mediaite ]. Send in the bots! There have to be bots!

    This could be the last time [ Avedon's Sidehow ]. An excellent wrap-up of commentary on Super Tuesday.

    "Mark Zuckerberg's $100 million donation to Newark public schools failed miserably - here's where it went wrong" [ Business Insider ]. Maybe somebody should ask Cory Booker, before his VP aspirations become embarassingly open?

    New York: "On the Democratic side, Clinton had a 21-percentage point lead over Bernie Sanders, 55% to 34%, the same as it was a month ago, the [Siena] poll found" [ USA Today ]. Sanders position on fracking will help him, but only upstate. Was Sanders "pragmatic" enough to offer Sharpton a suitcase full of cash?

    [Mar 08, 2016] How America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi

    Lightweight and uncharacteristically for Matt Taibbi stupid article. He can't spell the word "neoliberalism". It looks like it was USSR people against Bolshevik's oligarchy now it is American people against neoliberal oligarchy. And leaders are mostly symbols. Actually drunk Yeltsin later screw the nation that brought him to power, selling national treasures for pennies on the dime in criminal privatization. Compare Taibbi superficial bubble with Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Here's why by Thomas Frank
    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump's speeches are never scripted, never exactly the same twice. Instead he just riffs and feels his way through crowds. He's no orator – as anyone who's read his books knows, he's not really into words, especially long ones – but he has an undeniable talent for commanding a room. ..."
    "... Trump knows the public sees through all of this, grasps the press's role in it and rightly hates us all. When so many Trump supporters point to his stomping of the carpetbagging snobs in the national media as the main reason they're going to vote for him, it should tell us in the press something profound about how much people think we suck. ..."
    "... Reporters have focused quite a lot on the crazy/race-baiting/nativist themes in Trump's campaign, but these comprise a very small part of his usual presentation. His speeches increasingly are strikingly populist in their content. ..."
    "... both Democratic and Republican politicians unfailingly do upon taking office, i.e., approve rotten/regressive policies that screw ordinary people. ..."
    "... He goes on to explain that prices would go down if the state-by-state insurance fiefdoms were eliminated, but that's impossible because of the influence of the industry. "I'm the only one that's self-funding ...  Everyone else is taking money from, I call them the bloodsuckers." ..."
    "... "I don't know what the reason is – I do know what the reason is, but I don't know how they can sell it," he says. "We're not allowed to negotiate drug prices. We pay $300 billion more than if we negotiated the price." ..."
    www.rollingstone.com

    ...the regular guy has been screwed by a conspiracy of incestuous elites. The Bushes are half that conspiratorial picture, fronts for a Republican Party establishment and whose sum total of accomplishments, dating back nearly 30 years, are two failed presidencies, the sweeping loss of manufacturing jobs, and a pair of pitiable Middle Eastern military adventures – the second one achieving nothing but dead American kids and Junior's re-election.

    Trump picked on Jeb because Jeb is a symbol. The Bushes are a dissolute monarchy, down to offering their last genetic screw-up to the throne.

    "The war in Iraq was a big f ... fat mistake, all right?" he snorted. He nearly said, "A big fucking mistake." He added that the George W. Bush administration lied before the war about Iraq having WMDs and that we spent $2 trillion basically for nothing.

    ... ... ...

    Trump had said things that were true and that no other Republican would dare to say.

    ... ... ...

    Rubio, we were told, had zoomed to the front of the "establishment lane" in timely enough fashion to stop Trump. Of course, in the real world, nobody cares about what happens in the "establishment lane" except other journalists. But even the other candidates seemed to believe the narrative. Ohio Gov. John Kasich staggered out of Iowa in eighth place and was finishing up his 90th lonely appearance in New Hampshire when Boston-based reporters caught up to him.

    "If we get smoked up there, I'm going back to Ohio," he lamented. Kasich in person puts on a brave face, but he also frequently rolls his eyes in an expression of ostentatious misanthropy that says, "I can't believe I'm losing to these idiots."

    But then Rubio went onstage at St. Anselm College in the eighth GOP debate and blew himself up. Within just a few minutes of a vicious exchange with haran​guing now-former candidate Chris Christie, he twice delivered the exact same canned 25-second spiel about how Barack Obama "knows exactly what he's doing."

    Rubio's face-plant brilliantly reprised Sir Ian Holm's performance in Alien, as a malfunctioning, disembodied robot head stammering, "I admire its purity," while covered in milky android goo. It was everything we hate about scripted mannequin candidates captured in a brief crack in the political façade.

    Marco Rubio; GOP Primaries; 2016
    Marco Rubio stumbled badly after Iowa. Charles Ommanney/Getty

    Rubio plummeted in the polls, and Kasich, already mentally checked out, was the surprise second-place finisher in New Hampshire, with 15.8 percent of the vote.

    ... ... ...

    All of which virtually guarantees Trump will probably enjoy at least a five-horse race through Super Tuesday. So he might have this thing sewn up before the others even figure out in what order they should quit. It's hard to recall a dumber situation in American presidential politics.

    "If you're Trump, you're sending flowers to all of them for staying in," the GOP strategist tells me. "The more the merrier. And they're running out of time to figure it out."

    ... ... ...

    Trump's speeches are never scripted, never exactly the same twice. Instead he just riffs and feels his way through crowds. He's no orator – as anyone who's read his books knows, he's not really into words, especially long ones – but he has an undeniable talent for commanding a room.

    ... ... ...

    Trump knows the public sees through all of this, grasps the press's role in it and rightly hates us all. When so many Trump supporters point to his stomping of the carpetbagging snobs in the national media as the main reason they're going to vote for him, it should tell us in the press something profound about how much people think we suck.

    Jay Matthews, a Plymouth native with a long beard and a Trump sign, cites Trump's press beat-downs as the first reason he's voting Donald. "He's gonna be his own man," he says. "He's proving that now with how he's getting all the media. He's paying nothing and getting all the coverage. He's not paying one dime."

    Reporters have focused quite a lot on the crazy/race-baiting/nativist themes in Trump's campaign, but these comprise a very small part of his usual presentation. His speeches increasingly are strikingly populist in their content.

    His pitch is: He's rich, he won't owe anyone anything upon election, and therefore he won't do what both Democratic and Republican politicians unfailingly do upon taking office, i.e., approve rotten/regressive policies that screw ordinary people.

    He talks, for instance, about the anti-trust exemption enjoyed by insurance companies, an atrocity dating back more than half a century, to the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. This law, sponsored by one of the most notorious legislators in our history (Nevada Sen. Pat McCarran was thought to be the inspiration for the corrupt Sen. Pat Geary in The Godfather II), allows insurance companies to share information and collude to divvy up markets.

    Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats made a serious effort to overturn this indefensible loophole during the debate over the Affordable Care Act.

    Trump pounds home this theme in his speeches, explaining things from his perspective as an employer. "The insurance companies," he says, "they'd rather have monopolies in each state than hundreds of companies going all over the place bidding ...  It's so hard for me to make deals  ... because I can't get bids."

    He goes on to explain that prices would go down if the state-by-state insurance fiefdoms were eliminated, but that's impossible because of the influence of the industry. "I'm the only one that's self-funding ...  Everyone else is taking money from, I call them the bloodsuckers."

    Trump isn't lying about any of this. Nor is he lying when he mentions that the big-pharma companies have such a stranglehold on both parties that they've managed to get the federal government to bar itself from negotiating Medicare prescription-drug prices in bulk.

    "I don't know what the reason is – I do know what the reason is, but I don't know how they can sell it," he says. "We're not allowed to negotiate drug prices. We pay $300 billion more than if we negotiated the price."

    It's actually closer to $16 billion a year more, but the rest of it is true enough. Trump then goes on to personalize this story. He claims (and with Trump we always have to use words like "claims") how it was these very big-pharma donors, "fat cats," sitting in the front row of the debate the night before. He steams ahead even more with this tidbit: Woody Johnson, one of the heirs of drug giant Johnson & Johnson (and the laughably incompetent owner of the New York Jets), is the finance chief for the campaign of whipping boy Jeb Bush.

    "Now, let's say Jeb won. Which is an impossibility, but let's say ... " The crowd explodes in laughter. "Let's say Jeb won," Trump goes on. "How is it possible for Jeb to say, 'Woody, we're going to go out and fight competitively' ?" This is, what – not true? Of course it's true.

    [Mar 07, 2016] Democratic debate recap: Clinton and Sanders battle over key progressive issues – as it happened

    www.theguardian.com
    Janosik53 , 2016-03-07 01:38:36
    Now she's hiding behind Slick Willy's record. El Viejito has got his dander up, even Hillary is feeling the BERN!
    Dylan Springer J.K. Stevens , 2016-03-07 01:37:57
    You're in for disappointment. A tough question about her transcripts caused her to ramble on about her record for about two minutes.
    Julian Brown , 2016-03-07 01:37:11
    Bernie is killing her tonight. Great stuff
    OSavvas , 2016-03-07 01:37:04
    If someone pays you $250,000.00 for a speech... I doubt you would remind them of their disastrous policies...
    Juillette , 2016-03-07 01:36:49
    Hillary is on the defense. Go Bernie, in for the kill!
    WarlockScott , 2016-03-07 01:36:18
    Stop hiding behind Obama Hillary, we judge him by his own record and you by yours
    sbanicki , 2016-03-07 01:33:12
    Flint is where I was born and raised. The Governor gave away billions of Detroit's assets for pennies on the dollar with no one challah ginger that theft. Now he is stealing lives in Flint. He needs to step down. I would provide a link for more info but I am not permitted.
    StableQuirks whitehegel , 2016-03-07 01:31:35
    Yep, as was likely. Sanders campaign is all about momentum and whether he can bring people on side or whether they just think he has no chance. In that respect the early ballots were always going to be tough, apart from NH and Vermont.

    March 15 is probably the real decider. Big states, lots of delegates. Sanders really must win a lot of them to keep going, assuming that the superdelegates stay strongly behind Hillary. He has done well though this week, winning some smaller states and building some momentum towards the larger ones. It's not over if he doesn't crush Hillary on the 15th in those big states, but if he loses several of them it will probably be the end of the momentum he needs.

    Sanders is still very much the underdog, but then that's kind of the way he likes it.

    [Mar 07, 2016] Vijay Prashad The Foreign Policy of the 1%

    Notable quotes:
    "... This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation process of global capitalism & its "1%" class. ..."
    "... One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating, is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination economic empire is the goal. ..."
    "... The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see the whole electoral mirage for what it is. ..."
    "... Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing, especially the race war against the Arab people. ..."
    "... Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump? ..."
    "... Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept. It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show. What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing. ..."
    "... Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more acute. ..."
    "... why do American politicians become incontinent when they mention Saudi Arabia ..."
    "... recycling mechanism for capitalism ..."
    "... there is a suicidal death pact between the West and Saudi Arabia ..."
    "... Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. ..."
    "... For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism) has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru history 'The 99%'...). ..."
    "... So long as he rises to militarily protect "National Interests" abroad - read: imperial billionaire class interests - he's really one of them. ..."
    "... He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor. ..."
    "... Excellent discussion and lecture. A very important part of the 'due diligence' of democratic participation and research by the people. ..."
    therealnews.com
    SettingTheNarrative, link
    Be nice to have a book called "The Foreign Policy of the 1%". Maybe include references to GATT, TPP, oil wars as mentioned in the presentation.

    Other questions:

    1) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to Economic Hitman, John Perkins?
    2) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to conservative founders like Jeane Kirkpatrick?
    3) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to rise to Regan Revolution? Trump?

    ForDemocracy, link
    This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation process of global capitalism & its "1%" class.

    Deepest thanks to Vijay Prashad...and to others like professor Bennis (present in the audience)... whose in-depth analysis of the system can, if studied, contribute to putting the nascent 'political revolution' Bernie calls for...into a real democratic movement in this country. We are so woefully ignorant as 'members of the 99%'- it seems worst of all in America-- intentionally kept isolated from knowing anything about this country/corporation's 'foreign policy' (aka as Capitalist system policy or 'the 1% policy) that Bernie cannot even broach what Vijay has given here. But he at least opens up some of our can of worms, the interrconnectdedness of class-interests and the devastation this country's (and the global cabal of ) capitalist voracious economic interests rains upon the planet.

    The Mid-East is a product of Capitalism that will, if we don't recognize the process & change course & priorties, will soon overtake all of Africa and all 'undeveloped' (pre-Capitalist) countries around the globe--The destruction and never-ending blur of war and annihilation of peoples, cultures and even the possibility of 'political evolution' is a product of the profit-at-any-and-all-costs that is the hidden underbelly of a system of economics that counts humanity as nothing. It is a sick system. It is a system whose sickness brings death to all it touches... and we are seeing now it is bringing ITS OWN DEATH as well.

    The '99% policy' (again a phrase Prashad should be congratulated for bringing into the language) is indeed one that understands that our needs --the people's needs, not 'national interests' AKA capitalist corporate/financial interests --- are global, that peace projects are essentially anti-capitalist projects.... and our needs-to build a new society here in the U.S. must begin to be linked to seeing Capitalism as the root cause of so much suffering that must be replaced by true democratic awakening a- r/evolutionary process that combines economic and civic/political -- that we must support in every way possible. Step One: support the movement for changed priorities & values by voting class-consciously.

    Trainee Christian, link
    The 1% or the oligarchy have completely won the world, our only way to fight against such power is to abandon buying their products, take great care on who you vote for in any election, only people who have a long record of social thinking should be considers. They can be diminished but not beaten.
    Sillyputta, link
    One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating, is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination economic empire is the goal.

    The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see the whole electoral mirage for what it is.

    denden11, link
    All of what's been said about the elites, the one percent, has already been said many years ago. The conversation about the wealthy elites destroying our world has changed only in the area of how much of our world has and is being destroyed. Absolutely nothing else has changed, nothing else.

    Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing, especially the race war against the Arab people. Meanwhile, as we continue to speak the ocean is licking at our doorstep, the average mean temperature has ticked up a few notches and we are all completely distracted by which power hungry corporate zealot is going to occupy the office which is responsible for making our human condition even more dire. The circus that is this election is merely a ploy by the elites to make us believe that we actually do have a choice. Uh-huh; yet if I were to suggest what REALLY needs to be done to save the human race I would be in a court which functions only to impoverish those of us who try to speak the truth of our situation objectively. The 'Justice' system's only function is to render us powerless. Whether one is guilty or innocent is completely irrelevant anymore. All they have to do is file charges and they have your wealth. Good luck to all of us as we all talk ourselves to death.

    Vivienne Perkins -> denden11, link
    Dear denden11: You get gold stars in heaven as far as I'm concerned for telling the exact truth
    in the plainest possible terms. Bravissimo. "Talk/ing/ ourselves to death" is, I'm sorry to say, what we are doing. I've been working on these issues for forty years, looking for an exit from this completely interlocked system. I'm sorry to say I haven't seen the exit. I do understand how we have painted ourselves into this corner over the past 250 years (since the so-called Enlightenment), but without repentance on our part and grace on God's part, we're doomed because we all believe the Big Lies pumped into us moment by moment by Big Brother. And it's the Big Lies that keep us terminally confused and fragmented.
    Trainee Christian ->Vivienne Perkins link
    Well-done, you know the truth.
    dreamjoehill -> Vivienne Perkins link
    Don't Believe the Hype was an NWA rap anthem over twenty year ago. I always liked the shouted line, "And I don't take Ritalin!"

    Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump?

    In defeat, will Sander's campaign supporters radicalize or demoralize into apathy or tepid support for Hillary - on the grounds that she's less of an evil than Trumpty Dumbty?

    If not defeated, will Sanders and his campaign mobilize the People to fight the powers that be? Otherwise, he has no real power base, short of selling out on his domestic spending promises and becoming another social democratic lapdog for Capital- like Tony Blair.

    Vivienne Perkins -> dreamjoehill link
    Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept. It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show. What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing.
    dreamjoehill -> Vivienne Perkins link
    As material conditions change drastically for tens of millions of USAns, the old propaganda loses effect. New propaganda is required to channel the new class tensions. Still an opening may be created. People can't heat their homes with propaganda, the kids are living in the basement and grandpa can't afford a nursing home and he's drinking himself to death. That's the new normal, or variations on it for a lot of people who don't believe the hype anymore.

    Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more acute.

    Interesting times.

    WaveRunnerMN , link
    Great work Vijay...got my "filters" back on. Cut and pasted original comment below despite TRNN labeling of "time of posting" which is irrelevant at this point.

    Wow...now that I got my rational filters back on this was a great piece by Vijay and succinctly states what many of us who "attempt" to not only follow ME events but to understand not only the modern history by the motives of the major players in the region. Thanks for this piece and others...looking forward to the others.

    WaveRunnerMN -> WaveRunnerMN link
    Posted earlier while my mind was on 2016 election cycle watching MSM in "panic mode"

    Thought this was going to be a rational discussion on US foreign policy until the part on ? "Trumps Red Book". I had hoped to rather hear, "The Red Book of the American Templars" ...taking from the Knights Templar in Europe prior the collapse of the feudal system. I will say that Vijay's comment on Cruz was quite appropriate though it would also have been better to not only put it into context but also illustrate that Cruz's father Rafael Cruz believes in a system contrary to the founding ideals of the US Constitution: He states in an interview with mainstream media during his son's primary campaign that [to paraphrase] "secularism is evil and corrupt". Here is an excerpt of his bio from Wiki:

    "During an interview conducted by the Christian Post in 2014, Rafael Cruz stated, "I think we cannot separate politics and religion; they are interrelated. They've always been interrelated."[29] Salon described Cruz as a "Dominionist, devoted to a movement that finds in Genesis a mandate that 'men of faith' seize control of public institutions and govern by biblical principle."[30] However, The Public Eye states that Dominionists believe that the U.S. Constitution should be the vehicle for remaking America as a Christian nation.[31]"

    Fareed Zakaria interviewed a columnist from the Wall Street Journal today on Fareed's GPS program and flatly asked him [paraphrased], "Is not the Wall Street Journal responsible for creating the racist paradigm that Trump took advantage of "? Let us begin with rational dialogue and not demagogy. Quite frankly with regard to both Cruz and Trump [in context of the 2016 elections cycle] a more insightful comment would have been...Change cannot come from within the current electoral processes here in the US with Citizen's United as its "masthead" and "Corporations are people as its rallying cry"!

    Alice X link
    Thank you, a valuable piece. There are a number of takeaway quotes, but the ringer for me was from Ray McGovern (rhetorically):
    why do American politicians become incontinent when they mention Saudi Arabia

    Shortly thereafter Vijay Prashad in what he calls the Saudi post 1970s recycling mechanism for capitalism says:

    there is a suicidal death pact between the West and Saudi Arabia
    WaveRunnerMN ->Alice X link
    Not the West....just the F.I.R.E industries...driving the housing bubble; shopping malls; office buildings; buying municipal bonds [as they the municipalities bought and built prisons; jails; SWAT vehicles and security equipment (developed by the Israelis); and keeping the insurance companies afloat while AllState had time after Katrina to pitch their subsidiaries allowing these subsidiaries to file for bankruptcy]...now all the maintenance expense is coming due and cities and counties are going broke... along with the Saudi investments here in US.
    itsthethird link
    Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. What about the 99 percent? While populations simply need and want also income and investment security globally.

    What about populations in massive consumer debt for education, housing, etc. to fund one percent Growth. Laborers across globe are all in same boat simply labor for food without anything else to pass along to progeny but what is most important ethics. A world government established by corporatism advantage by authority of law and advantage all directed toward endless returns to oligarchy family cartels is not an acceptable world organization of division of resources because it is tranny, exclusive, extraction and fraudulent. Such madness does NOT float all boats.

    All this while oligarchs control Taxation of government authority and hidden excessive investment and fraud return taxation. While Governments in west don't even jail corporate criminals while west claims law is just while skewed in favor of protecting one percent, their returns on investment and investments. Billionaires we find in some parts of so called Unjust regions of world not yet on board with cartel game are calling out fraud that harms individuals and society aggressively.

    TEHRAN, Iran - An Iranian court has sentenced a well-known tycoon to death for corruption linked to oil sales during the rule of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the judiciary spokesman said Sunday.

    Babak Zanjani and two of his associates were sentenced to death for "money laundering," among other charges, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejehi said in brief remarks broadcast on state TV. He did not identify the two associates. Previous state media reports have said the three were charged with forgery and fraud.

    "The court has recognized the three defendants as 'corruptors on earth' and sentenced them to death," said Ejehi. "Corruptors on earth" is an Islamic term referring to crimes that are punishable by death because they have a major impact on society. The verdict, which came after a nearly five-month trial, can be appealed.

    sisterlauren link
    Looking forward to a transcript. I really enjoyed listening to this live yesterday.
    aprescoup link
    So when Bernie winds up on the regime change band wagon (of mostly leftist governments) and stays silent in the face of US aided and approved of coups (Honduras/Zelaya being the next most recent before Ukraine) while railing against the billionaire class on Wall Street and the neoliberal trade agreements, he's not only missing the elephant in the room; he's part of this elephant.
    ForDemocracy -> aprescoup link
    For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism) has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru history 'The 99%'...).

    And as all past power-elites have done, our '1%' has misread the age-old evolution of culture when an old system NO LONGER WORKS that makes freedom, imagination & rebellion more acceptable more attractive, more exciting and NECESSARY. Then, once energized BY NEED, DESIRE, and yes HOPE....change begins and can't be stopped like a slow-moving rain that keeps moving. As with past eras & past changes, in our own day this 'millennial plus 60's' powerful generational tide is JUST BEGINNING to feel our strength & ability. Turning what was supposed to be a globalist-coronation into what right now certainly seems like a step towards real change, towards building a recognition of the power, we 'the 99%' can --IF WE ACT WISELY & WITH COMMITTMENT begin the work of creating a new world.

    Criticising Bernie is criticizing the real way progress works...We need to get out of an ego-centric adolescent approach to human problem-solving, understand we need to keep our movement growing even if it doesn't look the WAY WE EXPECTED IT TO LOOK...keep clear on GOALS that Bernie's campaign is just a part of. The 'left' needs to recognize its our historic moment: to either move ahead or SELF-destruct.. Impatience needs to be replaced by a serious look down the road for our children's future. If we don't, the power elite of the System wins again (vote Hillary?? don't vote??). We need to take a breath & rethink how change really happens because this lost opportunity Is a loss we can no longer afford. The movement must be 'bigger than Bernie'.

    WaveRunnerMN -> aprescoup link
    I just hope he does not get forced to resign which the L-MSM is now beginning to parrot so Hillary can win given the huge turnouts the Repugs are getting in the primaries. I want to see four candidates at the National Convention...in addition to Third parties.
    itsthethird -> aprescoup, link
    No one can be elected Commander and Chief by stating they will not defend oligarchs interests as well as populations interests. We agree populations interests are negated and subverted all over earth . That cannot be changed by armed rebellion but it can be changed by electing electable voices of reason such as Sanders. Sanders will fight to protect populations and resist oligarchy war mongering while holding oligarchs accountable. Sanders will address corrupted law and injustice. Vote Sanders.
    Trainee Christian -> itsthethird, link
    You are probably correct in your thinking, but the real power will never allow any potential effective changes to the system that is. People who try usually end up dead.
    itsthethird -> Trainee Christian , link
    This is why we must as citizens become active players in government far greater then we are today, we must do far more then voting. We must have time from drudgery of earning a substandard wage that forces most to have little time for advancing democracy. Without such time oligarchs and one percent end-up controlling everything.

    We can BEGIN the march toward mountain top toward socializations which will promote aware individualizations. We don't expect we will advance anything without oppositions in fact we expect increased attacks. Those increased attacks can become our energy that unites masses as we all observe the insanity they promote as our direction. We merely must highlight insanity and path forward toward sanity. Nothing can make lasting change this generation the march will take generations. The speed advance only will depend on how foolish oligarchs are at attempts to subvert public awareness seeking change. As they become more desperate our movements become stronger. We must refrain from violence for that is only thing that can subvert our movement.

    aprescoup -> itsthethird link
    So long as he rises to militarily protect "National Interests" abroad - read: imperial billionaire class interests - he's really one of them.

    Maybe this will help:

    Vijay Prashad: The Foreign Policy of the 1% - http://therealnews.com/t2/inde...

    Johnny Prescott -> itsthethird link
    What exactly leads you to contend that Sanders is going to "resist oligarchy war mongering"?
    aprescoup -> sisterlauren link
    He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor.

    Instead he does the LOTE thing for the neoliberal-neocon party "D". That's just dishonest bullshit opportunism.

    Rob M -> aprescoup link
    Opportunism with good intent...I'll take that.
    jo ellis , link
    Do not receives daily email for a long time without clue why? so haven't in contact with TRN's daily report until subject video appears on youtube website. and impressed by the panelists's congregated pivotal works done thru all these years.
    Serenity NOW , link
    important lecture for those who want to better understand the crises of capitalism and globalization.
    William W Haywood , link
    Excellent discussion and lecture. A very important part of the 'due diligence' of democratic participation and research by the people.

    [Mar 06, 2016] Theres An Insurrection Coming... The American People Are Sick Tired Of Crony Capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Dewey and Ford emerged from a brokered convention to lose the general election. So why? Because the party elites and elders want to protect us and stop of from falling into the abyss?… Most of us working two or three jobs think we're already in the abyss. The Obama abyss… ..."
    Zero Hedge
    In a stunningly honest and frank rant, FOX News' Judge Jeanine unleashes anchor hell upon Mitt Romney and the GOP establishment hordes.

    She begins:

    "There's an insurrection coming. Mitt Romney just confirmed it. We've watched governors, the National Review, conservative leaders, establishment and party operatives trash Donald Trump. But Mitt Romney will always be remembered as the one who put us over the edge and awoke a sleeping giant, the Silent Majority, the American people.

    Fact. The establishment is panicked. Mitt essentially called for a brokered convention where the Republican nominee will be decided by party activists and delegates irrespective of their state's choice… You want a brokered convention? A primer Mitt. Whenever we have a brokered convention we lose.

    Dewey and Ford emerged from a brokered convention to lose the general election. So why? Because the party elites and elders want to protect us and stop of from falling into the abyss?… Most of us working two or three jobs think we're already in the abyss. The Obama abyss…

    We are sick and tired of legislators of modest means who leave Congress multimillionaires, whose spouses and families get all the contracts from selling the post offices to accessing insider information so they can buy property and flip it. You're so entrenched that you're willing to give Hillary Clinton a win. It doesn't matter to you which party, crony capitalism and its paradigm will not change for the elite."

    And that is just the introduction... Grab a coffee (or something stronger) and watch...

    [Mar 06, 2016] Attack on Sanders Economic Plan By Former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors is Irresponsible

    Notable quotes:
    "... This was a classic case of professional bad manners and rank-pulling. What we had here were four former chairs of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, and two from President Obama, two from President Clinton, who decided to use their big names and their titles in order to launch an attack on a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts who had written a paper evaluating the Sanders economic program. ..."
    "... The four former council chairs announced that on the basis of their deep commitment to rigor and objectivity, they had discovered that this forecast was unrealistic ..."
    "... I've written a whole book called The End of Normal in which I lay out reasons for my chronic pessimism about the capacity of the world economy to absorb a great deal more rapid economic growth. ..."
    March 6, 2016 | naked capitalism

    ... ... ...

    PERIES: James, the Council of Economic Advisors, they put out economic forecasts each year. And there has been some wildly optimistic ones. For example, if you look at the 2010 predictions for 2012 and 2013 they have not quite been attained. And one would say it was done in the interest of trying to make the administration that they were serving more impressive. But what accounts for this particular attack on Friedman's projection and other fellow economists?

    GALBRAITH: This was a classic case of professional bad manners and rank-pulling. What we had here were four former chairs of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, and two from President Obama, two from President Clinton, who decided to use their big names and their titles in order to launch an attack on a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts who had written a paper evaluating the Sanders economic program.

    It's likely that the four bigwigs thought that Professor Friedman was a Bernie Sanders supporter. In fact, as of that time he was a Hillary Clinton supporter and a modest donor to her campaign. What he had done was simply to write his evaluation of the economic effects of the ambitious Sanders reform program. The four former council chairs announced that on the basis of their deep commitment to rigor and objectivity, they had discovered that this forecast was unrealistic. And what I pointed out was that that claim was based on no evidence and no analysis whatsoever. And when you pressed down on it you found that it was simply based on the obvious fact that we haven't seen the kinds of growth rates that Professor Friedman's analysis suggested the Sanders program would produce. And for a very simple reason: the Sanders program is bigger. It's more ambitious than anything we've seen in recent years, so it's not surprising that when you put it through a model it generates a higher growth rate.

    So that was the basic underlying facts, and these guys, two men and two women, announced that they, that it was a disreputable study, but failed to present any analysis that suggested they'd actually even read the paper before they denounced it. And that's what I pointed out in my counter letter, in a number of articles that have appeared since.

    PERIES: James, so in your letter, how do you counter them? What methods did you use to come to your conclusions?

    GALBRAITH: Well, I, no need to say anything beyond the fact that I had looked in their letter for the rigor that they were so proud of, for the objectivity and the analysis that they were so proud of, and I'd found that they had not done any. They had not made any such claim, not done any such work.

    So that began to provoke a discussion. It's fair to say ultimately, without apologizing for effectively launching an ad hominem attack on an independent academic researcher, one of the former chairs, Christina Romer of President Obama's council, and her husband David Romer, a fellow economist, did produce a paper in which they spelled out their differences with the, with the Friedman paper. But that, again, raised another set of interesting issues which we've continued to discuss at various, various outlets of the press.

    PERIES: Now, James Friedman's claim that the growth rate from Sanders' plan to be around 5.3 percent. And some economists, including Dean Baker at the Center for Economic Policy and Research, have claimed that this is unrealistic. What do you make of that?

    GALBRAITH: Well, the question is whether it is an effect, let's say, a reasonable projection, of putting the Sanders program into an economic model. And the answer to that question, yes, Professor Friedman did a reasonable job. He spelled out what the underlying assumptions that he was using were. He spelled out the basic rules of thumb that macroeconomists had used for decades to assess the effects of an economic program. In this case, an expansionary economic program. And he ran them through his model and reported the results, a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

    Now, one can be skeptical. And I am, and Dean Baker is, lots of people are skeptical that the world would work out quite that way, because lots of things, in fact, happen which are not accounted for in a model. And we've talked, we've basically put together a list of things that you think might be problematic. But the exercise here was not to put everything into paper that might happen in the world. The exercise was to take the kind of bare bones that economists use to assess and to compare the consequences of alternative programs, and to ask what kind of results do you get out? And that's what, again, what Jerry Friedman did. It was a reasonable exercise, he came up with a reasonable answer, and he reported it.

    PERIES: Now, Friedman seems to think that the rate of full employment in 1999 is attainable. However, many labor economists seem to think that the larger share of the elderly currently in society compared to 1999 explains some of the lack of labor participation, which creates a lower full employment ceiling that's contradicting Friedman's report. Your thoughts on that?

    GALBRAITH: Well, I think it is a fact that the population is getting older. But as, I think, any economist would tell you, that when you offer jobs in the labor market, the first thing that happens is the people who are looking for work take those jobs. The second thing that happens is that people who might look for work when jobs were available start coming back into the labor market. And if that is not enough to fill the vacancies that you have, it's perfectly open to employers to raise their wages so as to bring more people in, or to increase the pace at which they innovate and substitute technology for labor so that they don't need the work.

    So there's no real crisis involved in the situation if it turns out five years from now we're at 3.5 percent unemployment, and they were beginning to run short of labor. That's not a reason to, at this stage, say no, we're not going to engage in the exercise and run a more expansionary, vigorous reform program, a vigorous infrastructure project, a major reform of healthcare, a tuition-free public education program. All of those things, which were part of what Friedman put into his paper, should be done anyway. The fact that the labor market forecast might prove to have some different, the labor market might have different characteristics in five years' time is from our present point of view just a, it's an academic or a theoretical proposition, purely.

    PERIES: And Friedman's paper, he looks at a ten-year forecast. Did you feel that when you looked at the specifics of that, including college, universal healthcare, infrastructure spending and of course, expanding Social Security and so on, that those categories and his predictions or projections, rather, made sense to you?

    GALBRAITH: Well, again, what he was doing was running a program of a certain scale, of a large scale, through a set of standard macroeconomic assumptions. And that, again, is a reasonable exercise. If you ask me what my personal view is, I've written a whole book called The End of Normal in which I lay out reasons for my chronic pessimism about the capacity of the world economy to absorb a great deal more rapid economic growth.

    But that's not in the standard models, and it would not be appropriate to layer that on to a forecast of this kind. What Friedman was criticized for was not for putting his thumb on the scale, but for failing to put his thumb on the scale. In fact, that was the reasonable thing to do.

    On the contrary, and on the other side, when Christina and David Romer did put out their forecast, their own criticism of the Friedman paper, they concluded by asserting that if this program were tried, inflation would soar. So they there were making an allegation for which, again, they had no evidence and no plausible model, that in the world in which we presently live would produce that result.

    So what we had here was a, what was essentially an academic exercise that produced a result that was highly favorable to the Sanders position, and showed that if you did an ambitious program you would get a strong growth response. It's reasonable, certainly, for the first three or four years that that would transpire in practice. And what happened was that people who didn't like that result politically jumped on it in a way which was, frankly speaking, professionally irresponsible, in my view. It was designed to convey the impression, which it succeeded in doing for a brief while through the broad media, that this was not a reputable exercise, and that there were responsible people on one side of the debate, and irresponsible people on the other.

    And that was, again, something that–an impression that could be conveyed through the mass media, but would not withstand scrutiny, and didn't withstand scrutiny, once a few of us stood up and started saying, okay, where's your evidence, on what are you basing this argument? And revealed the point, which the Romers implicitly conceded, and I give them credit for that, that in order to criticize a fellow economist you need to do some work.

    ... ... ...

    [Mar 06, 2016] Cruz Keeps Up Pressure on Trump; Sanders Takes 2 on 'Super Saturday' - The New York Times

    www.nytimes.com


    B. Mull
    Irvine, CA 32 minutes ago
    Cruz is a clever guy who going to run into the brick wall of his wife being Goldman Sachs. He would be wise to sign on as Trump's running mate and hope for a more favorable electoral climate in 4-8 years. Meanwhile Clinton is likely to win her rigged nomination and go on to hope that come November fewer people dislike her than dislike Trump/Cruz, which incredibly is not a slam dunk.


    RM
    is a trusted commenter Vermont 43 minutes ago
    We are completing the election cycle where Cruz should be the strongest. Reminds me of the Ali - Foreman fight. Ali took all of George's best punches early in the fight, letting George punch himself out. George was then helpless.

    As the race moves to the rust belt, the northeast, and more populous northern states, Cruz will be out of his heart land. Rubio should drop before Florida, or he will permanently damage his political career.

    On the Dem side, much the same, but to a lesser extent. The north should be friendlier to Bernie. But all those establishment Super Delegates will be impossible to overcome. Frankly, the Dem system is less democratic than the GOP system with the Super Delegates keeping the establishment in power.


    PS
    Massachusetts 56 minutes ago
    Cruz is climbing, which is bad news, worse, frankly, than Trump climbing. Cruz is at the bottom of my picks - if a person was forced to pick - for the Republican line up. Kansas going for him is no surprise, as they did remove evolution from the public school curriculum (they put it back but also included "intelligent design"). Ted's kind of place. But Maine? What on earth was that all about? The state with the motto "the way life should be"? Does that now mean "the way pro-life should be"? Completely disappointed, Maniacs. Expected more from a favorite state.


    JWP
    Goleta, CA 1 hour ago
    Hillary Clinton has not done well outside the Old Confederacy. She squeezed past Sanders in Massachusetts, and her two caucus victories in Iowa and Nevada were not particularly overwhelming. All her other victories have been in the Confederate South--in states that are going to vote Republican in November.

    Meanwhile Sanders has won convincingly in New Hampshire, Vermont, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, and Minnesota.

    The race is still wide open.


    Robert
    Maine 2 hours ago
    One very big thing I notice Mr. Martin didn't bother mentioning as he glossed briefly over Bernie's wins, is this:

    Turnout in the Democratic Causus in Kansas, was HIGHER than in 2008. That's a first this election season. Up 'til now, Democratic turnout has been dismally low - lower than in 2008.

    Twitter caucus goers in Nebraska also report huge turnout. Although this isn't official, it may also be that turnout in NE is also greater than 2008.

    The message being, the Democratic candidate who can excite voters and inspire large turnout is Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton. As can be seen from pics of the caucuses today, many much-maligned Millenials turned out to vote for Bernie.

    So, the "Hillary's already won" thing isn't working. Bernie's only going to get stronger once we're out of the South.

  • [Mar 04, 2016] Wait, Max Boot is denouncing Trump for his admiration of dictators? The same Max Boot who lectured us on how we need to stand with a brutal Islamist theocracy in Saudi Arabia while it carpet bombs Yemen and beheads political prisoners?

    www.theamericanconservative.com

    The signatories are well within their rights to reject Trump, and at least some of their complaints are accurate. One problem with this letter is that several of the complaints they level against Trump could be lodged against the other candidates still in the race, but there is no similar effort being made to oppose or criticize them. More to the point, there is not even a brief acknowledgement that Republican foreign policy failures have helped Trump succeed, nor is there any recognition that the hawkish obsession with "resolve" and "strength" have made Republican voters receptive to Trump's unrealistic and reckless promises. Robert Farley made a related point earlier today...

    ... ... ...

    I agree that his rhetoric on torture is deplorable and should be condemned, but then we should also condemn other candidates that endorse the use of torture. We should also condemn the previous administration for using torture on detainees, which had the effect of making support for illegal and immoral methods into a sick litmus test for many on the right. Another question that the signatories don't attempt to address is whether the other candidates are even more dangerous when we have a very good idea of how they would conduct foreign policy once in office. They are appalled by Trump's "hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric," as well they should be, but how is that worse than the other candidates' willingness to inflict death and destruction on predominantly Muslim countries again and again?

    EliteCommInc. says: March 3, 2016 at 10:25 am

    I have got to have a laugh at the letter and anyone the least bit familiar with US foreign policy should.

    It's a little late for the signers and writers to be claiming some manner of moral high ground on foreign policy.

    I guess the trick is to take each signatory and measure their views against the rather weak positions in the letter. One would think that given their education and connection they'd make a more compelling case. These are the promoters and designers of the the policies that brought us here. Its a little late to disavow what you have wrought.

    What they have done is wiped out any ethical veracity they have for considering their views.

    They supported the invasions of

    Iraq
    Afghanistan
    The dismantling of stable democracies in Syria, Egypt, Libya and the Ukraine.
    They have advanced arguments in support of enhanced interrogations
    They have supported treating prisoners from th battle field as terrorists
    They are responsible for the quagmired mess that is Guantanamo

    Even the cliche'd "pot calling the kettle black" doesn't paint the hypocrisy they wear.

    Whatever his rhetorical short comings in making his case and his case is very strong and salient. He is a moderate in the light of most of these signatories and peacenik in light of several.

    Ben Mayo says: March 3, 2016 at 10:27 am
    Why don't the neo-cons, the republican party bosses, and the Democrat machine just go ahead and embrace? Make public the consummation of their union that we all know has existed for some time now? Then let this loathsome Hydra meet her fate against Heracles in November. The harder they come, the harder they fall, one and all. I can't wait.
    Ian G. says: March 3, 2016 at 10:52 am
    Wait, Max Boot is denouncing Trump for his admiration of dictators? The same Max Boot who lectured us on how we need to "stand with" a brutal Islamist theocracy in Saudi Arabia while it carpet bombs Yemen and beheads political prisoners?
    climber says: March 3, 2016 at 10:53 am
    While I agree Trump is a huge risk and a sub-optimal candidate, if he as President could make progress on the following, I'd be pleased.

    IMMIGRATION: Stop illegal immigration, force self-deportation by enforcing hiring laws on business, reduce HB1 visas, etc.

    JOBS: I'm OK with light protectionism and slightly higher prices to keep jobs here. See Harley Davidson

    FOREIGN POLICY: Tap Bacevich (or someone similar in outlook) as an advisor and stop our fruitless meddling around the world. It's the Department of Defense, not Offense.

    Clint says: March 3, 2016 at 10:58 am
    Eliot Cohen,
    "Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin."

    Cohen helped organize The Open Letter.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinton-neoconservatives-220151

    Randal says: March 3, 2016 at 11:06 am
    " Trump gets a lot wrong on foreign policy. "

    It's precisely his lack of experience that should get him a pass on some of the nonsense he puts out on foreign policy. At least he has an excuse, unlike say Clinton.

    And it's not unusual for US presidents to learn foreign policy on the job. The odds are that an obviously intelligent and competent man such as Trump will behave more sensibly when he has had a chance to get on top of the issues, and will likely back off many of these positions.

    With Clinton, Cruz or Rubio, however, the fear is precisely the opposite – that they will probably actually try to do the things they say they think ought to be done. That prospect ought to be truly terrifying.

    The worry about the more mainstream candidates such as

    EliteCommInc. says: March 3, 2016 at 11:48 am
    Wait, Max Boot is denouncing Trump for his admiration of dictators?"

    Every single admin. in US history has embraced dictators. We do so because

    1. it serves our interests and

    2. the manner in which countries govern themselves is largely theirs to choose

    The signatories are being deliberately obtuse and wholly selective of US foreign policy history.

    Irony Abounds says: March 3, 2016 at 11:55 am
    As many have noted, the biggest problem with the signatories of this letter is their support of past policies that were an utter disaster. And it is so ironic that they mention, albeit briefly, Trump's threat to civil liberties, which I find to be one of the most frightening aspects of his character, when they have strongly supported torture, kidnapping and indefinite imprisonment in the past.
    Mr. Libertarian says: March 3, 2016 at 12:48 pm
    The "foreign policy experts" are the exact people I've attacking and criticizing for years now, so of course I'm not listening to them now. I hold them directly responsible for the past twenty-five years of failure, and the fact that they won't even pretend to have to learned anything makes them worse than Hillary Clinton.

    In the past, they either supported, explained away, or ignored: 1) torture; 2) U.S. supporting dictators and authoritarian regimes; 3) illegal, expensive, and/or ill-conceived wars; 4) violations of civil liberties; 5) expansive executive powers for the president; 6) demeaning and degrading their political opponents; and 7) sweeping and irresponsible rhetoric from the president. To call them rank hypocrites goes without saying at this point.

    They know when Trump's in office, the gravy train ends for them that's the real cause of concern, since their parasitism comes to an end.

    Chris Chuba says: March 3, 2016 at 1:12 pm
    And this is exactly why I am a Trumpet, a Trumpeteer, and would be willing to call myself a Trumperican rather than vote for any of the establishment candidates.

    I know that Trump will have some people like this as advisors because they represent 95% of the foreign policy establishment, I just hope that he has a couple of sane rationalists in whatever staff he assembles.

    Trump at least shows the ability for critical thinking and skepticism, a skill that all of the other candidates completely lack.

    1. After the 2nd debate there was a concerted effort to portray him as an unschooled novice after the bookish Carly gave precise answers on which military assets she would use to provoke Russia. Trump held up to the pressure and didn't waver.
    2. In the last debate, Trump gave a common sense answer that being a mediator requires impartiality.
    3. In the debate prior to that, he pointed out that you can't be all over the place and fight everybody all at once and be obsessed with Russia, Assad, Iran, and ISIS, and said that he would focus on ISIS and not the others.
    4. He rebuked the notion that we should be angry at Russia and China for not being submissive to us and pursuing their own interests.

    Is he perfect? No but he is the closest thing to an adult that we have at the moment.

    jk says: March 3, 2016 at 1:34 pm
    Stages of Grief for the touchy feely GOP: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance

    GOP Statisticians Develop New Branch Of Math To Formulate Scenarios In Which Trump Doesn't Win Nomination

    Fran Macadam says: March 3, 2016 at 2:24 pm
    "I agree that his rhetoric on torture is deplorable and should be condemned, but then we should also condemn other candidates that endorse the use of torture."

    The essential analysis must be "why" we are using torture, other than treating it as a standalone phenomenon, as if it exists apart from the unnecessary, illegal and immoral wars. It doesn't exist apart, it is one of the consequences of desperation in waging wars and the fact that wars are being waged is the justification for it, as a necessary means to win.

    Torture continues, but is redefined legally by hairsplitting constitutional lawyers intent on obfuscation by Orwellian redefinitions and secret memos and carried out by secret Presidential covert orders. That is one of the essential reasons that secrecy about the practice continues, why no one has ever been brought to account for it and that those who have engaged in any whistleblowing action have been subject to draconian Espionage Act retaliation. If it were not so, this would hardly be so obsessive. Why? Because the wars proliferate, therefore this behavior that has become part of the arsenal cannot be renounced except in a propaganda sense.

    The end to torture will come when the foreign war addiction ends. Given that Trump is the only candidate appalled by the waste and futile destruction involved in waging the failed wars and wants to end the trillions necessary to keep fighting them and spend it instead for domestic infrastructure, this will end torture in fact.

    It's a simple equation. End war, you end torture by removing the incentive to use it as a means of war. Deeds, not words, will accomplish that in reality, not the duplicitous language of those who rebrand assassination as "the disposition matrix."

    Disinformatics says: March 3, 2016 at 2:46 pm
    We need more on the genesis and development of that letter. At the bottom in small print it says it was "coordinated" by Eliot Cohen. Given that Cohen has advocated for war against multiple Muslim countries and was a leading advocate for the Iraq War, quite a few signatory names seem "off".

    For example, it's hard to believe Dan Drezner would want his name to be associated with Cohen's track record of bad judgment leading to bloody disaster. I don't mean Drezner shouldn't condemn Trump. I mean that reasonable, decent chaps like Drezner, applying the same moral and practical calculus that obliges them to condemn Trump, should not permit their names to be associated with Cohen's.

    Our failure to shame and shun Cohen and other neoconservatives and warhawks for their roles in our recent strategic and humanitarian disasters, in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths and trillions in wasted treasure, continues to compromise and distort public discourse. That someone with Cohen's history can still imagine himself in a position to influence public opinion is shocking, really, a reminder of the drop in public and intellectual standards that goes very far in explaining the rise of Trump himself.

    The letter should be audited, if only to confirm who among its supposed signatories actually agreed to have their anti-Trump opinion "coordinated" by someone implicated in more death, waste, and damage to America than David Duke and his invisible empire will ever inflict.

    (As of this writing the letter as linked above no longer appears.)

    Melvin Backstrom says: March 3, 2016 at 3:39 pm
    EliteCommInc.,

    "The dismantling of stable democracies in Syria, Egypt, Libya." Not sure where you're getting your information from, but these three countries have NEVER been stable democracies. Stable autocracies more like it.

    Chris Chuba says: March 3, 2016 at 3:53 pm
    Melvin Backstrom, you are correct that Libya, Syria, and even Egypt were not democracies but they were stable govts prior to outside attempts to overthrow them. Gaddafi would have defeated the rebels there were it not for NATO intervention.

    The larger point is that the neocons believe in disruptive regime change to promote, U.S. approved Democracies. The neocons are truly activists.

    Over the years, Putin has been repeating a consistent theme pleading that the undermining of existing govt institutions breeds chaos. We can call it 'the Putin doctrine' and it stands in stark contrast to Neocon ideology.

    Even in Ukraine, where Putin is most vulnerable of hypocrisy, he has been very cautious. He has no interest in trying to seize all of Ukraine and rule over a people who hate Russia. Instead, he took a small area heavily populated by Russians that was vital to their security interests. In the Donbass, he prevented the rebels from advancing out of their territory and negotiated a treaty where they would remain part of Ukraine.

    Ken Tratomp says: March 3, 2016 at 4:38 pm
    This throwing down the gauntlet by establishment doyens makes me want to throw down a similar gauntlet by combing through National Review's archives for Pollyannaish quotes on trade pacts, and then posting them online. That will be a graphic way of making clear that the establishment (including the signatories of the Open Letter) are either clueless about what their beloved "Washington Consensus" means for ordinary Americans, or they just don't care. Idiots.
    Myron Hudson says: March 3, 2016 at 6:56 pm Having these fools speak out against Trump pretty much cements my support for him at least in the primaries. I'm all about electing the least dangerous person.
    Colonel Blimp says: March 3, 2016 at 7:04 pm If you want an image of the neocons' would-be future, imagine Max Boot stamping on a human face forever.
    Barry says: March 3, 2016 at 8:24 pm
    Mr. Libertarian: "In the past, they either supported, explained away, or ignored: 1) torture; 2) U.S. supporting dictators and authoritarian regimes; 3) illegal, expensive, and/or ill-conceived wars; 4) violations of civil liberties; 5) expansive executive powers for the president; 6) demeaning and degrading their political opponents; and 7) sweeping and irresponsible rhetoric from the president. To call them rank hypocrites goes without saying at this point."

    I'm astounded at the raw stinking open hypocrisy of these guys. You can look at their list of foreign policy criticisms of Trump, and almost every single one is something that they supported, justified and helped carry out.

    [Mar 04, 2016] Trump wants 'American-first' version of European nationalism and therein lies the rub

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump represents a challenge to the status quo because he doesn't want to democratize the world through bombing raids, says Richard Spencer from Radix Journal. US Congressman Alan Grayson agrees, saying the Republicans are desperate to stop Trump. ..."
    "... The Republican establishment as reflected in Mitt Romney and others is absolutely desperate to stop Donald Trump. But what really is underneath it all is the fact that Trump does not adhere to the Republican Orthodoxy: "they've never met a war they didn't like." ..."
    "... After Donald Trump and Fox news journalist Megyn Kelly's previous meeting, comedians and politicians alike have taken quite a few shots at Trump. What should we expect further? ..."
    "... From Senator Marco Rubio to Mitt Romney Trump doesn't seem to be afraid of any speeches condemning him. Why is he so self-confident? ..."
    "... The fact is Trump's version of nationalism, this idea "it's not be the world's policeman," let's actually look after ourselves, let's use the government to help the people. This kind of nationalism that cuts across left and right, cuts across liberal and conservative, cuts across Democrats and Republicans. It is a new thing for Americans. Trump is leading it. I would never have predicted that, but Trump is leading it. And the fact is the status quo doesn't like it because this is upsetting some of their assumptions. It is upsetting what they take for granted and so they are all in unison attacking him. And in the US the so-called conservatives, the left, the liberals they are all attacking Trump of the exact same reasons. ..."
    "... Is Trump likely to issue an apology after his offensive comments towards Megyn Kelly? ..."
    "... "Megyn Kelly is out to get me." ..."
    RT Op-Edge

    Donald Trump represents a challenge to the status quo because he doesn't want to democratize the world through bombing raids, says Richard Spencer from Radix Journal. US Congressman Alan Grayson agrees, saying the Republicans are desperate to stop Trump.

    US Congressman Alan Grayson: I have to agree, just this once, with Donald Trump. I think it is irrelevant. Part of the problem that we are facing this year is that the candidates want to make this some kind of war of personalities rather than a discussion of what is good for our country. I think that is very unfortunate. I don't think the Trump candidacy should be determined on matters of the value of a degree from Trump University, or any of these ad hominem attacks that we are seeing by one candidate against the other – often, by the way, perpetrated by Mr. Trump himself. I don't really think it matters what the size of his fingers might be; I don't think it matters that Rubio is definitely a thirsty young man. I don't think it matters that Bush is low energy, although he is certainly is. These are not the things that we should use to determine who our national leaders should be. Obviously, they've all indulged in it from one time or another. And I don't think the voters favor that. But the fact is the voters are going to make up their minds based upon what's good for the country, what's good for them individually. I think the voters have this one right.

    The Republican establishment as reflected in Mitt Romney and others is absolutely desperate to stop Donald Trump. But what really is underneath it all is the fact that Trump does not adhere to the Republican Orthodoxy: "they've never met a war they didn't like." It is true that there are hawks within the Republican Party who are dismayed by the fact that Donald Trump rightly points out that the war in Iraq was a disaster in everyone's light. And they are disconcerted by the fact that he is willing to criticize predecessors like George W. Bush, and frankly, rightly so. America lost four trillion dollars in the war in Iraq and we left a quarter of a million of our young men and women with permanent brain abnormalities because of injuries they suffered in that war. At least there is one Republican candidate who is willing to actually address those issues which has caused the hawks a great deal of consternation.

    RT: After Donald Trump and Fox news journalist Megyn Kelly's previous meeting, comedians and politicians alike have taken quite a few shots at Trump. What should we expect further?

    Richard Spencer from Radix Journal: I think we're going to expect fireworks. In fact the mainstream media, the so-called conservative movements and the Republican Party have all declared war on Donald Trump. It was a silent war for many months, now it is an explicit war. They want anyone but Trump; they want anyone else in the Republican Party to win this nomination. It doesn't matter if Rubio is a moderate and Ted Cruz is an extreme Libertarian or something. They want anyone but Trump because Trump actually represents a different ideology from traditional American conservatism. Trump actually represents something closer to European nationalism. It is a version of the right that is "let's look at the Americans first, let's use the government to help the American people, let's actually have friendly relations with great powers like Russia as opposed to: let's democratize the world through bombing raids." So Trump really represents something different. He represents a challenge to the status quo. And that is why the conservative movement, the Republican Party, the mainstream media are all out to get him.

    Read more Trump strikes back at Romney, GOP establishment in 10 quotes

    RT: From Senator Marco Rubio to Mitt Romney Trump doesn't seem to be afraid of any speeches condemning him. Why is he so self-confident?

    RS: Trump is self-confident because he is Trump; he was born self-confident. But he is also self-confident because he has so much popular support. He has brought so many new people into the Republican Party and he has brought so many more people into the Republican Party than Mitt Romney did who attacked him. The fact is Trump's version of nationalism, this idea "it's not be the world's policeman," let's actually look after ourselves, let's use the government to help the people. This kind of nationalism that cuts across left and right, cuts across liberal and conservative, cuts across Democrats and Republicans. It is a new thing for Americans. Trump is leading it. I would never have predicted that, but Trump is leading it. And the fact is the status quo doesn't like it because this is upsetting some of their assumptions. It is upsetting what they take for granted and so they are all in unison attacking him. And in the US the so-called conservatives, the left, the liberals they are all attacking Trump of the exact same reasons.

    RT: Is Trump likely to issue an apology after his offensive comments towards Megyn Kelly?

    RS: I couldn't imagine Donald Trump apologizing. I don't think he said anything completely outrageous towards Megyn Kelly. The fact is Megyn Kelly doesn't like Donald Trump. Megyn Kelly wants the status quo to continue. Megun Kelly wants a neoconservative candidate or a typical Republican candidate. Maybe Kelly doesn't like this new kind of nationalism that Trump represents. So there's no way… that Donald Trump will apologize to Megyn Kelly. What he said effectively is that "Megyn Kelly is out to get me." … But the fact is, Trump has proved that you don't need Fox News; Trump has proved you don't need the GOP establishment; Trump has proved you don't need the conservative movement establishment. Trump is Trump. Trump has a populist base that's bigger than those forces.

    [Mar 04, 2016] Sanders Must Offer Tulsi Gabbard The VP Slot. Now!

    Notable quotes:
    "... Deja Vu All Over Again! ..."
    "... Remember 2008 Obomo the CHANGE candidate, change you can believe in? Even got a Nobel Peace price before he started his presidency and turn out to be a Murderer-in-chief, Liar-in-chief, Warmonger-in-chief.... ..."
    "... Tulsi Gabbard is well-spoken and pretty. Bernie is not. This makes a balanced (appealing) ticket. That she has rescinded her DNC creds for Bernie is wonderful for Bernie. It is imperative that Bernie does not look this gift horse in the mouth. He MUST appoint Tulsi Gabbard as his Veep NOW and run with it. If he does not, then he is a sheep herder for Hillary. This is what I suggested all along. ..."
    "... Aloha. Im Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. As a veteran of two Middle East deployments I know, first-hand, the cost of war. ..."
    "... I know how important it is that our Commander in Chief has the sound judgement required to know when to use Americas military power and when not to use that power. ..."
    "... Shes redefining Bernies campaign, taking over foreign policy as Commandress in Chief of, not the United States, but the armed forces. And shes just about to turn 35. Openly saying give peace a chance. I was going to write-her-in in the TX Democratic primary, now Ill vote Bernie ... if he does the obvious, the only, correct thing. Im afraid he wont though. Im afraid the sheepdog is running to lose. ..."
    "... Corporate media will create a corporate state. I hope one day people will stop calling corporate media the mainstream media. It is corporately controlled media. It is not mainstream. ..."
    "... REGIME CHANGE! She said the magic word! In the official Western narrative a thing called regime change does not exists. It is basically Putins propaganda, a pro-Russian false narrative that Putins Troll Army is trying to insert into the discussion. ..."
    "... I never served but I was friends with a medic and Army Ranger. Neither came back the same. Special Ops do the worst things and medics see the worst things. ..."
    "... The GOP is plotting against Der Fuehrer Trump, and Clintons DNC is busy rigging elections. ..."
    "... I find it interesting that you posted this US political challenge to the Sanders camp. It is hard to not keep smoking that hopium stuff......if only we could nudge t he system a bit here or there and things will get better. I guess it is that or serious evolution and it may be too late for that to be effective for our species long term survival. ..."
    "... POTUS makes fuckall difference. Even if they were saints, the rest of the corporate political complex would eat them alive before they could institute any meaningful change. I simply can not imagine any positive outcome of any US election whatsoever. How many times must we watch this circus repeat itself before connecting the dots? Its ann utter waste of energy. Remember, these idiots only have power that we the people give them. Well, they are not getting any from me. ..."
    "... Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is a two-tour Iraq vet who has given the most blunt and accurate statements on what is really going on in Syria that I have seen from anyone in Washington. ..."
    "... She just resigned her position as co-chair of the DNC to formally endorse Bernie Sanders, specifically because of his anti-imperialist leanings and despite the fact that his record is inconsistent on the relevant issues. ..."
    "... I listened to a discussion on Dutch radio with 4 students attending Webster University on Leiden campus in The Netherlands. Students were divided in 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats and were asked about the election and how they observed it from outside the US. All four were equally abhorred by the circus and show man Trump. The two Democrats would vote for Sanders and the two Republicans were split, one was for John Kasich and the other was split between Rubio and Kasich. If Trump would be the Republican nominee, one of the Republican students would vote for Sanders and with a Trump as president, one of the students said she would not return to the US but live abroad. A particularly strong showing for Bernie Sanders! ..."
    "... In 1906 German sociologist Werner Sombart wrote an essay entitled Why Is There No Socialism in the United States? that sought to explain why the US, alone among industrialized democracies, had not developed a major socialist movement. ..."
    "... Today, however, we need to pose a different question: why are there socialists in the United States? In this nation that has long been resistant to socialisms call, who are all these people who now suddenly deem themselves socialists? Where did they come from? What do they mean by socialism? ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Tulsi Gabbard, a U.S. Congress representative from Hawaii, stepped down as a vice chair of the Democrat National Committee to endorse Bernie Sanders. In the video below the fold she explains her reasoning. It is Clinton's militarism in foreign policies that makes her take the other side.

    Described as "libertarian-leaning progressive" the woman is smart, pretty and speaks well. She is also a former officer in the U.S. military with combat experience and an interest in foreign policy.

    Politically her endorsement is manna from heaven for Sanders.

    Sanders should IMMEDIATELY offer her the Vice-President slot. Her task in the campaign is to stand in on all foreign policy issues. Sanders then can continue to focus on inequality in the United States.

    Hillary Clinton would have no chance to beat that team. Unlike the neoconned Clinton, a /bernie_sanders.Gabbard ticket can attract young voters which will be needed to beat Trump. If Clinton runs against Trump the large and growing "anything but Clinton" crowd would likely let her loose.

    Someone tell Sanders that he better act fast to announce her nomination before Clinton collects more states and takes away the buzz that the Sanders campaign urgently needs.

    Jack Smith | Feb 29, 2016 3:42:21 PM | 12
    Please watch this video..

    http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/196729/Cynthia_Mckinney_AIPAC_is_in_total_control_of_US_Government__few_Americans_know_anything_about_it/

    karlof1 | Feb 29, 2016 3:43:22 PM | 13
    It would appear that b reads Counterpunch and saw Dave Lindorff's very similar article, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/29/rep-tulsi-gabbards-surprise-bernie-sanders-endorsement/

    I agree that she would be an excellent choice for Veep. Her critique of Outlaw US Empire policy is withering, and she has bigtime Cred to do so.

    nmb | Feb 29, 2016 3:46:53 PM | 14
    As expected: The billionaires lanch anti-Sanders propaganda
    Jack Smith | Feb 29, 2016 4:08:54 PM | 20
    Deja Vu All Over Again!

    Remember 2008 Obomo the CHANGE candidate, change you can believe in? Even got a Nobel Peace price before he started his presidency and turn out to be a Murderer-in-chief, Liar-in-chief, Warmonger-in-chief....

    When will we the VOTERS wake up and never trust any politicians?

    Am I the only smart or stupid one here?

    fast freddy | Feb 29, 2016 4:42:59 PM | 23
    Tulsi Gabbard is well-spoken and pretty. Bernie is not. This makes a balanced (appealing) ticket. That she has rescinded her DNC creds for Bernie is wonderful for Bernie. It is imperative that Bernie does not look this gift horse in the mouth. He MUST appoint Tulsi Gabbard as his Veep NOW and run with it. If he does not, then he is a sheep herder for Hillary. This is what I suggested all along.

    I also said that JEB! would be our next President. I am happy to be wrong about that. BUT You can't rule out the Bush Crime Family yet.

    Denis | Feb 29, 2016 5:09:20 PM | 26
    . . . but we need to think this Tulsi Gabbard thing through.

    With a president that would be 75 yo, the country would have a 34 yo VP that is just one busted aneurysm away from the most powerful position in the world . . . I mean, her surfing and karate credentials notwithstanding, what happens when she goes toe-to-toe with Putin? Or Bibi?

    Personally, I don't really care if she would just do a Sports Illustrated bathing suit cover in the WH swimming pool. Or anywhere.

    jfl | Feb 29, 2016 6:00:53 PM | 30
    Aloha. I'm Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. As a veteran of two Middle East deployments I know, first-hand, the cost of war.

    I know how important it is that our Commander in Chief has the sound judgement required to know when to use America's military power and when not to use that power.

    As a vice-chair of the DNC, I'm required to stay neutral in Democratic primaries, but I cannot remain neutral any longer. The stakes are just too high.

    Thats why, today, I'm endorsing Senator Bernie Sanders to be our next President and Commander in Chief of the United States.

    We need a Commander in Chief

    - who has foresight,
    - who exercises good judgement, and
    - who understands the need for a robust foreign policy, which defends the safety and security of the American people, and
    - who will not waste precious lives and money on interventionist wars of regime change.

    Such counterproductive wars undermine our national security and economic prosperity.

    As these elections continue across the country, the American people are faced with a very clear choice :

    - we can elect a president who will lead us to more interventionist wars of regime change, or
    - we can elect a president who will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity.

    It's with this clear choice in mind that I am resigning as vice chair of the DNC so that I can strongly support Bernie Sanders as the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States.

    And now I ask you. Stand with me. And support Bernie Sanders.

    She's redefining Bernie's campaign, taking over foreign policy as Commandress in Chief of, not the United States, but the armed forces. And she's just about to turn 35. Openly saying give peace a chance. I was going to write-her-in in the TX Democratic primary, now I'll vote Bernie ... if he does the obvious, the only, correct thing. I'm afraid he won't though. I'm afraid the sheepdog is running to lose.
    AnEducatedFool | Feb 29, 2016 6:47:44 PM | 39
    Bernie will likely lose the election tomorrow. The Southern States will vote for Clinton and they will decide the election. Its shocking and appalling that the deciding states will be states that the Democrats will never win in a general election.

    I am holding out hope for Texas. A lot of young people will vote for Sanders and I hope that latinos will vote against Clinton. I can not understand why latinos would vote for a candidate that sends back young children and supports the policies of the Deporter in Chief.

    I have had to hold back some rascist sounding rants lately. I am not a racist but it is hard to not sound like one when black voters are voting at 90% for Clinton. How can one hope to not stereotype when an ethnic group is voting at those rates. It'd be one thing if she did not constantly use "dog whistle" language.

    O and on MSNBC, I watch it for background noise, had a 5-10 minute rally for Trump on TV.

    Not a mention of the 40 cities that held Bernie marches or Tulsi Gabbard. Everything is about the republicans.

    Corporate media will create a corporate state. I hope one day people will stop calling corporate media the mainstream media. It is corporately controlled media. It is not mainstream.

    And finally, Jill Stein is a joke. She managed to win a city council seat. If you want to go with a third party check out the Justice Party. The Green Party is a bunch of well off white liberals that managed to chase a Civil Rights leader (Elaine Brown) out of the party. I do not know where Jill Stein stood on that issue. I doubt it was on the right side since many people left the party over that issue.

    Petri Krohn | Feb 29, 2016 7:00:04 PM | 40
    REGIME CHANGE! She said the magic word! In the official Western narrative a thing called "regime change" does not exists. It is basically Putin's propaganda, a pro-Russian false narrative that Putin's Troll Army is trying to insert into the discussion.

    The concept is similar to "Color Revolution". Just two years ago Russian media, including RT , would always write "color revolution" in quotes . Now they are openly using the term.

    Inkan1969 | Feb 29, 2016 6:15:57 PM | 34

    "...interventionist wars of regime change"

    sound like clichés.

    Any revolutionary idea, once it is universally adopted, becomes a cliché. We are still a long way from calling R2P by its proper name, regime change .

    AnEducatedFool | Feb 29, 2016 7:33:39 PM | 47
    @CTuttle

    I never served but I was friends with a medic and Army Ranger. Neither came back the same. Special Ops do the worst things and medics see the worst things.

    Medics treat soldiers and civilians. They give treatment at the front. I do not know if she was on the front lines but medics see action and she has seen some of the worst injuries and deaths. I do not doubt her credibility on this issue. I may disagree on some points but I do not doubt that she is actually aware of what is at stake.

    jfl | Feb 29, 2016 7:58:23 PM | 48
    @34 Inkan1969 'there's no mention of any specific conflicts like Syria or Ukraine.'

    On Syria, see H.R. 4108: To prohibit the use of funds for the provision of assistance to Syrian opposition groups and individuals.


    A BILL

    To prohibit the use of funds for the provision of assistance to Syrian opposition groups and individuals.

    1.Prohibition on provision of assistance to Syrian opposition groups and individuals

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities, or to the National Security Council or its staff may not be obligated or expended to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, stipends, construction of training and associated facilities, and sustainment, to any element of the Syrian opposition or to any other Syrian group or individual seeking to overthrow the government of the Syrian Arab Republic, unless, after the date of the enactment of this Act, funds are specifically authorized to be appropriated and appropriated by law for such purpose.

    @38 Kalen, 'blatantly abandoning their unalienable rights to self-determination and democratic system of people's rule, based on equality in the law, and one voter one vote principle.'

    Yeah. That's our problem all right. You get a gold star for mentioning it. Care to take a stab at a solution?

    @39 AEF ' I am not a racist but it is hard not to sound like one when black voters are voting at 90% for Clinton.'

    Glen Ford's not a racist either. Don't blame the victims ... they've been voting the lessor of two evils since they've been 'allowed' to vote.

    I'll take you up on corporate media over msm.

    V. Arnold | Feb 29, 2016 8:12:33 PM | 49
    On the one hand; it amazes me to see the excitement about "possibilities" in the bread and circuses. There is always the shiny; in this case it's Tulsi Gabbard; she'll save Bernie.

    The GOP is plotting against Der Fuehrer Trump, and Clinton's DNC is busy rigging elections.

    But on the other hand; it's a sad example that most just cannot grasp the reality of what's really happened to the U.S..

    Short of a genuine revolution (you know; in the streets, pitchforks and all) it's over. Your votes are a cruel joke to maintain the illusion.

    But I guess it's just too horrendous to contemplate the present reality for most folks. So, you remain compliant victims of your own sloth.

    psychohistorian | Feb 29, 2016 9:19:57 PM | 53
    I find it interesting that you posted this US political challenge to the Sanders camp. It is hard to not keep smoking that hopium stuff......if only we could nudge t he system a bit here or there and things will get better. I guess it is that or serious evolution and it may be too late for that to be effective for our species long term survival.

    I was an early supporter of Sanders but have lost the energy to face the "no-one-is-good-enough Jack Smith types as well as the "Its Her Turn" types. I wonder how many are being paid to infect MoA with agnotology?

    The next two weeks should be interesting as we see the machinations of the past political machinery react to and attempt to manufacture cohesion around the 2016 race for the puppet house.

    Now it the haters/non-sharing types could be shut down as effectively as the Occupy folks were.........

    Jackrabbit | Feb 29, 2016 9:58:37 PM | 56
    Exactly right b!

    If Sanders wants to win, he should appoint Tulsi as his running mate.

    But she announced her decision YESTERDAY MORNING(!!) and he hasn't done so.

    Now he has missed the opportunity for Super Tuesday (with 12 States voting) .

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Tulsi is perfect because she can appeal to women and people of color and she brings military/foreign experience that Sanders sorely lacks.

    I hope that the failure of Sanders to seize yet another opportunity TO WIN will open the eyes of those that just can't believe that Sanders values his connection to the Democratic leadership (Obama, Hillary, Schumer, and more are 'friends') is far more important to him than winning. He really IS a sheepdog.

    And Sanders is just fine with the neocon establishment foreign policy as I recently pointed out .

    V. Arnold | Feb 29, 2016 10:46:00 PM | 59
    Once we understand that it is about what kind of a society we want to live in, other questions arise. How much is enough for each of us? How much is too much? At what point does someone's amassing of what ultimately are our resources represent an unacceptable taking from the rest of us? When the moral and societal elements are given their rightful place in the discussion, it doesn't take a lot to understand why modern economics and politics go to such lengths to excise any mention of them. Modern economics and politics are tools of the rich and elites whose purpose is to maintain their wealth and position at our expense. If morality is brought up, they have no defense. They lose. So they make sure it is never brought up. Problem solved.
    Hugh, from Ian Welsh's blog - February 29, 2016

    I thought this was a great statement of the U.S.'s dilemma; one which isn't being, and won't be, resolved.

    Petri Krohn | Mar 1, 2016 1:05:21 AM | 67
    #MUSTREAD Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. explains the origins of the U.S.-Syrian conflict in a long article in Politico :
    Why the Arabs Don't Want Us in Syria

    But all that CIA money failed to corrupt the Syrian military officers. The soldiers reported the CIA's bribery attempts to the Ba'athist regime. In response, the Syrian army invaded the American Embassy, taking Stone prisoner. After harsh interrogation, Stone made a televised confession of his roles in the Iranian coup and the CIA's aborted attempt to overthrow Syria's legitimate government. The Syrians ejected Stone and two U.S. Embassy staffers-the first time any American State Department diplomat was barred from an Arab country. The Eisenhower White House hollowly dismissed Stone's confession as "fabrications" and "slanders," a denial swallowed whole by the American press, led by the New York Times and believed by the American people, who shared Mosaddegh's idealistic view of their government. Syria purged all politicians sympathetic to the U.S. and executed for treason all military officers associated with the coup. In retaliation, the U.S. moved the Sixth Fleet to the Mediterranean, threatened war and goaded Turkey to invade Syria. The Turks assembled 50,000 troops on Syria's borders and backed down only in the face of unified opposition from the Arab League whose leaders were furious at the U.S. intervention. Even after its expulsion, the CIA continued its secret efforts to topple Syria's democratically elected Ba'athist government. The CIA plotted with Britain's MI6 to form a "Free Syria Committee" and armed the Muslim Brotherhood to assassinate three Syrian government officials, who had helped expose "the American plot," according to Matthew Jones in "The 'Preferred Plan': The Anglo-American Working Group Report on Covert Action in Syria, 1957." The CIA's mischief pushed Syria even further away from the U.S. and into prolonged alliances with Russia and Egypt.

    jfl | Mar 1, 2016 3:58:15 AM | 74
    Maybe the move is by Democrats worried about their jobs, who see the increasingly likely outcome of a matchup between The Hil and The Donald : The Donald wins. They've already lost the congress.

    The first time I heard the name Tulsi Gabbard was when she co-sponsored HR 4108 calling for a cutoff in support for al-CIAduh in Syria. The link there, posted by somebody, was to herself being interviewed - primed and boosted really - by Wolf Blitzer. I discovered then that she was a vice-chair of the DNC. In her thirties. She must have sold her soul to the devils of DNC already at that point.

    Sorry I'm so cynical about anyone who is allowed to get as far as she has within the beast itself, but it seems the only prudent stance to take. Even though I want to believe that there is an alternative to The Donald/The Hil ... there simply cannot be one - a real one - from 'above'. I know that, knew that ... yet hope dies last.

    The only workable action that I can see is as layed out in write-in elections , or something else along those lines ... but frankly, the silence is deafening. It's a decade+ 'fix', but it's taken several decades to get where we are today ... all my lifetime, I suppose. I was born in 1947, the same year as the CIA

    A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. There will be a tomorrow, no matter how horrid it is, and we need to prepare for it. Well the road will rise to meet us, prepared or no, so we ought to prepare. We are 300+ million Americans ... how can we not be able to gain control of 546 federal positions ... and all the rest ... if we just put our minds and bodies to the task?

    It's a question of acting, or not. Simple as that. 'Not' entails a strict diet of death, devastation, destruction, and deceit. I'm always open to suggestions on the proposed actions to take. If we had begun in 2004 ... so let's finally begin today.

    dan | Mar 1, 2016 4:11:35 AM | 75
    POTUS makes fuckall difference. Even if they were saints, the rest of the corporate political complex would eat them alive before they could institute any meaningful change. I simply can not imagine any positive outcome of any US election whatsoever. How many times must we watch this circus repeat itself before connecting the dots? Its ann utter waste of energy. Remember, these idiots only have power that we the people give them. Well, they are not getting any from me.
    john | Mar 1, 2016 4:46:20 AM | 76
    AnEducatedFool says:

    ...black voters are voting at 90% for Clinton

    'yessa massa'

    ...as Nehemiah rolls in his grave...

    Look down the road
    'Fer as my eyes could see
    Hey-hey, yeah
    'Fer as my eyes could see
    And I couldn't see nothin'
    Looked like mine, to me

    (Nehemiah Curtis 'Skip' James, 1930 something)

    ben | Mar 1, 2016 9:52:04 AM | 85
    The state of e-voting in America:

    http://blackboxvoting.org/

    Jackrabbit | Mar 1, 2016 10:32:25 AM | 90
    Posted by: shadyl | Mar 1, 2016 10:14:04 AM | 87

    I agree. Trump is as racist as Sanders is socialist. Both are populists.

    The only way to defeat the establishment is to be populist.

    Sanders is actually more establishment than Trump. Sanders talks about Obama, Hillary, Schumer as 'friends', while Trump talks about how politicians are puppets.

    At the end of the day, people NEED to stop allowing themselves to be GAMED by the duopoly

    VOTE THIRD PARTY!

    brian | Mar 1, 2016 4:42:32 PM | 95
    Rick Staggenborg
    19 hrs ·

    Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is a two-tour Iraq vet who has given the most blunt and accurate statements on what is really going on in Syria that I have seen from anyone in Washington.

    She just resigned her position as co-chair of the DNC to formally endorse Bernie Sanders, specifically because of his anti-imperialist leanings and despite the fact that his record is inconsistent on the relevant issues.

    With people like her advising him, it might just be possible to educate him on the realities of the "war on terror," what countries are behind them and why. Since Clinton is one of those behind them, those who want to dismiss Sanders for his inconsistencies on these issues might want to think again.

    I called Gabbard's office today and invited her to join VFP. I hope my friends in Hawaii will email her and support the idea, and ask their friends to do the same. And if you are not in Hawaii, you can call her office and encourage others to do the same!

    We would be very proud to have her become one of us.
    http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/02/28/breaking-vice-chair-of-dnc-quits-endorses-bernie-/bernie_sanders.

    Jen | Mar 1, 2016 5:03:05 PM | 96
    I have just found some news that Tulsi Gabbard may have personal links to a Hare Krishna cult known as Science of Identity (whose leader is Christ Butler aka Jagad Guru). Her Chief of Staff Kainoa Ramananda Penaroza and office manager Anya F Anthony are members of this cult. Rather than overload my comment with several links, I suggest everyone should Google the names I have just given.

    I found out also that Gabbard opposed HR 417 which criticised the Indian government's handling of the Gujarat state riots in 2002 that left 2000 people dead and 100,000 homeless. At the time, Gabbard's buddy Narendra Modi was Chief Minister of Gujarat state and there are rumours that he looked the other way when the rioting broke out.

    Text of HR 417: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.RES.417:

    By the way, I am not a US citizen.

    Oui | Mar 1, 2016 8:02:32 PM | 97
    Sanders Is The Choice of Young Americans

    I listened to a discussion on Dutch radio with 4 students attending Webster University on Leiden campus in The Netherlands. Students were divided in 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats and were asked about the election and how they observed it from outside the US. All four were equally abhorred by the circus and show man Trump. The two Democrats would vote for Sanders and the two Republicans were split, one was for John Kasich and the other was split between Rubio and Kasich. If Trump would be the Republican nominee, one of the Republican students would vote for Sanders and with a Trump as president, one of the students said she would not return to the US but live abroad. A particularly strong showing for Bernie Sanders!

    Why are there suddenly millions of socialists in America? | The Guardian |

    [Mar 04, 2016] South Carolina Bush and Carson Territory

    Angry Bear

    Bruce Webb , February 13, 2016 8:05 am

    But Cruz? The man is literally a punch line of a popular joke in D.C.:

    "Why do people take an instant dislike to Ted Cruz?"

    "It saves time"

    [Mar 03, 2016] Why Romney Fired on Fort Trumpter. The GOP civil war is now truly underway. by Jacob Heilbrunn

    Notable quotes:
    "... Odds are that if Trump is close to the nomination, he will offer Cruz the vice-presidential slot and Cruz gets to maintain his anti-establishment bona fides. ..."
    www.politico.com

    But despite his substantial lead in the polls, it's not yet clear whether Trump will be the Robert E. Lee or Ulysses Grant of this war, or how total the war will be. Trump has not locked down the nomination, and the anti-Trump establishment is pursuing three lines of attack against him.

    [Mar 03, 2016] Sanders Campaign Will Travel On, but Path to Victory Is All but Blocked

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bernie Sanders would be crazy to drop out while there is (apparently) an open FBI investigation into the email/Clinton Foundation situation ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders has done more than reversing Citizens United ever could to get big money out of politics, at least for Democrats. I cant imagine anyone ever again running on a progressive platform while hauling in Wall Street/pharma/fossil, etc money by the tanker load. ..."
    "... Sanders actually did really good. Hes up against not just Hillary, but her husband; they are a political juggernaut. Its David vs Goliath. Bernie will most likely lose, but hes done amazingly well using a sling and rocks. ..."
    "... I want Sanders to stay in the race, because each victory or strong finish sends a message to the Democratic Party that a great many of us are tired of business as usual. We are tired of wimpiness and acquiescence in the face of the Republicans top-down class warfare, we are tired of neocon war-mongering, we are tired of knowing that our country is falling behind in indicators of social health while the rich get richer, and we are tired of being told to sit down and shut up and respect our betters until the party needs money and volunteers. ..."
    "... So tired of this author and his shilling for Hillary. Given the incredibly biased media slant, its a wonder Bernie has done as well as he has. ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders is the only hope for the US working class to achieve change for clearly the Clinton regime has in no way shown by past behavior the intense motivation nor policy settings required to overthrow the conservative Democratic and Republican political establishment to break the economic and social chains of the US working class nor provide them with the means by which the US working class can even perceive the true nature of their condition. ..."
    "... I wish all those Hillary voters in southern states be they black, hispanic, asian, white, or whatever, would wake up and realize they are effectively voting for Trump. ..."
    "... I think why people are irritated by politicians, pollsters and the media is because in a 220 meter race, you guys call it after the first 10 meters. Well then whats the point of the race, why do we go thru it all? In a democracy where everyone gets a vote, we all feel that the first 10 voters in line decide the race and the rest of us just confirm the results. Id say this is why everyone throws up their hands in disgust every election cycle. ..."
    "... The movement Sanders started is not about him or just this election. ..."
    "... Remember, one year ago Bernie was at 3%. Now he is drawing sizable numbers of voters and winning outright a few primaries. The issues he champions, which the American people need championed (even Trump voters), dominate the Democratic conversation. Bernie may not win the nomination but the movement he started wins so long so as these issues are addressed. ..."
    "... So, as planned and predicted, the South went for the establishment candidate. However, all those Southern states will go red in November. A large percentage of Bernie supporters would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. So there is much more to be learned about whether Hillary is in fact a viable candidate in the national election. ..."
    "... What a stupid primary system we have. The whole thing is decided by 15 states ..."
    "... Why would black voters who suffer disproportionately from poverty and lack of access to higher education vote for the Wall St candidate who is not proposing universal health care or free college? Not to mention Hillarys other centrist policies which would not help the black community nearly to the degree Bernies would. Is this another situation of low income whites voting Republican? ..."
    "... Hillary as the nominee will lead to a Trump presidency. ..."
    The New York Times

    Mark K, Huntington Station, NY

    Two thoughts: one immediate and one long-term

    1) Bernie Sanders would be crazy to drop out while there is (apparently) an open FBI investigation into the email/Clinton Foundation situation

    2) Bernie Sanders has done more than reversing Citizens United ever could to get big money out of politics, at least for Democrats. I can't imagine anyone ever again running on a progressive platform while hauling in Wall Street/pharma/fossil, etc money by the tanker load.

    Marc New York City 3 minutes ago

    Sanders actually did really good. He's up against not just Hillary, but her husband; they are a political juggernaut. Its David vs Goliath. Bernie will most likely lose, but he's done amazingly well using a sling and rocks.

    Pdxtran, Minneapolis link

    I want Sanders to stay in the race, because each victory or strong finish sends a message to the Democratic Party that a great many of us are tired of business as usual. We are tired of wimpiness and acquiescence in the face of the Republicans' top-down class warfare, we are tired of neocon war-mongering, we are tired of knowing that our country is falling behind in indicators of social health while the rich get richer, and we are tired of being told to sit down and shut up and respect our betters until the party needs money and volunteers.

    Twelve years ago, Dennis Kucinich campaigned on an even more radical platform than Bernie and won no more than 17% in any state. It was easy for the Democratic Establishment to dismiss him.

    Yet tonight, Bernie is ahead in most of Minnesota. Even in my affluent and utterly conventional corner of Minneapolis, the score was Hillary over Bernie, but at 55%-45%. In contrast, in my precinct in 2004, Kucinich got 20% to Kerry's 80%.

    One of the nice features of the Minnesota caucus system is that anyone can submit a resolution which, if accepted, will work its way up to the state level, and perhaps even to the national level. One of the most enthusiastically affirmed resolutions was one urging the replacement of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair.

    The rank-and-file are restless, and the Democrats ignore that at their peril.

    anne, il link

    So tired of this author and his shilling for Hillary. Given the incredibly biased media slant, it's a wonder Bernie has done as well as he has.

    Bernie should continue. It would be risky for the Democrats to settle too early on a candidate who is currently under investigation by the FBI, especially if she were to be indicted.

    markjuliansmith, Australia link

    Voting for Clinton is voting for the past to remain in the present.

    Bernie Sanders is the only hope for the US working class to achieve change for clearly the Clinton regime has in no way shown by past behavior the intense motivation nor policy settings required to overthrow the conservative Democratic and Republican political establishment to break the economic and social chains of the US working class nor provide them with the means by which the US working class can even perceive the true nature of their condition.

    A condition the Clinton regime has no intention of challenging because to do so means questioning the Clinton regime own continuing culpability in keeping the US working class in the cave of shadows whilst they play with the projector along with the rest of the US political elite for their own tawdry benefit.

    Julianz, Mountain View, California link

    I wish all those Hillary voters in southern states be they black, hispanic, asian, white, or whatever, would wake up and realize they are effectively voting for Trump. Bernie has a much better chance of beating Trump - voting for Hillary is dangerously stupid.

    Peter S, Rochester, NY link

    I think why people are irritated by politicians, pollsters and the media is because in a 220 meter race, you guys call it after the first 10 meters. Well then what's the point of the race, why do we go thru it all? In a democracy where everyone gets a vote, we all feel that the first 10 voters in line decide the race and the rest of us just confirm the results. I'd say this is why everyone throws up their hands in disgust every election cycle.

    What's your real job here Nate? To call the election as early as possible. To spin the numbers so as to discourage people to even vote? To what benefit? I don't think your analysis is incorrect, I think the act of analysis is not productive. Its a discouragement to a participatory democracy.

    ... ... ...

    mike, manhattan link

    The movement Sanders started is not about him or just this election. One year ago the conventional wisdom said that HRC would coast to a coronation. That has not happened and will not . Wherever Bernie finishes, he has defined the Democratic platform. He has not only invigorated the Democratic Left, reminding older voters of the idealism of their youth, but imprinted on Millennials the values and virtues of economic justice, social fairness, and political equality. And here's the kicker: to Millennials, there is nothing left-wing about free college education, universal health care, overturning Citizens United to take money out of elections, and ending the excesses of crony capitalism. They are the future, and they are inspired to get involved.

    Hillary is benefiting from the loyalty of African Americans, especially older women, practically every senior Democrat elected official, and the mainstream media. In short, it's her turn, and she is being rewarded for her patience, perseverance and diligence.

    Remember, one year ago Bernie was at 3%. Now he is drawing sizable numbers of voters and winning outright a few primaries. The issues he champions, which the American people need championed (even Trump voters), dominate the Democratic conversation. Bernie may not win the nomination but the movement he started wins so long so as these issues are addressed.

    Sanders has revitalized American democracy and morality, and for that all Americans should be grateful.

    Robert, Maine 44 minutes ago

    Super Tuesday was set up after Jimmy Carter came out of nowhere in the '70s. The whole point, why the DNC was in favor of this, was for the conservative South to favor the establishment's preferred candidate, and hopefully weed out any upstart grass roots candidates.

    So, as planned and predicted, the South went for the establishment candidate. However, all those Southern states will go red in November. A large percentage of Bernie supporters would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. So there is much more to be learned about whether Hillary is in fact a viable candidate in the national election.

    A CNN poll today found Bernie beating Trump, Cruz and Rubio handily. It found Hillary beating Trump (but by a smaller percentage than Bernie) and losing to Cruz and Rubio. And still, there is the FBI investigation . . .

    There is much more to be revealed. This is one election where it ain't over 'til it's over.

    EG, Taipei link

    So my vote doesn't matter Mr. Cohn? The votes of the people in that states that have not voted yet don't matter? What a stupid primary system we have. The whole thing is decided by 15 states. Instead of cowardly using "all but blocked", why doesn't the New York Times "tell it like is" and say, "Hey America, Hillary won big in the South. Your votes don't matter. Just wait until November to vote." That way she saves money, and Americans don't waste their time voting in elections that have already been decided.

    Readers, why don't we all stop checking the NY Times for updates on the campaign? It's over. Just check the aggregate sights to see who got hurt in the latest Trump rally. See you all in November!

    Susan McHale Greenwich CT link

    Black voters in the South are very different than those in the North. In Connecticut, I am working with a number of African Americans with the President Sanders Campaign. These individuals are embarrassed with the terrible turnout, especially because those voters stand to profit substantially in a Sander's Administration. There's a lot of change coming still…fringe candidate to the top of the national polls. It's called exponential slow growth.

    One of two parents, USA 1 hour ago

    Why would black voters who suffer disproportionately from poverty and lack of access to higher education vote for the Wall St candidate who is not proposing universal health care or free college? Not to mention Hillary's other centrist policies which would not help the black community nearly to the degree Bernie's would. Is this another situation of low income whites voting Republican?

    Lesley Cate Donovan, Boston 1 hour ago

    Hillary as the nominee will lead to a Trump presidency.

    [Mar 01, 2016] A lot of people in the military are vary of Hillary as the Commander in Chief

    Notable quotes:
    "... Barring a coup at the nomination convention, Trump is probably going to win the R nomination. We can hope for such a coup, because just about anybody else would be better, imo, in the event of a Republican win. ..."
    "... This is a once in a lifetime matchup, probably the first time ever, with both parties likely running the oppositions dream candidate. Every hard core R hates HRCs guts, ditto every hard core D hates Trumps guts. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    oldfarmermac , 02/29/2016 at 7:45 am
    Things have been changing pretty damned fast for the last few decades, and lots of things that were once considered unthinkable are now realities. I can't see any reason to think fast change won't continue, or that some previously unthinkable things won't come to pass, within the easily foreseeable future.

    With a D in the WH next time around, a substantial increase in the federal oil taxes is a very real possibility. It won't be a very big increase, in and of itself, maybe a nickel or dime a gallon, but just a nickel would be a hugh percentage increase. The D voter with a job won't kick about a nickel or a dime, and poor people who can't afford to drive will enjoy sticking it to supposedly rich R voters any way.

    And for what it's worth, barring HRC being indicted, or some other equally unlikely event, and that idiot Trump getting the nomination, I am now leaning towards believing there will be a D in the WH next time around. Sanders is a long shot,but if he gets the nomination, just about every body who will vote for HRC will vote for Sanders.

    Trump is going to go into the election, if he gets the nomination, with the highest negatives of any R candidate EVER, at least as far back as WWII. Tens of millions of people will turn out to vote AGAINST him, probably even more than will turn out to vote against HRC, who has extremely high negatives herself.

    Barring a coup at the nomination convention, Trump is probably going to win the R nomination. We can hope for such a coup, because just about anybody else would be better, imo, in the event of a Republican win.

    This is a once in a lifetime matchup, probably the first time ever, with both parties likely running the opposition's dream candidate. Every hard core R hates HRC's guts, ditto every hard core D hates Trump's guts.

    The thing about an increase in the gasoline tax is that once the dam breaks, more increases will be politically palatable.

    Jeffrey J. Brown , 02/29/2016 at 8:49 am
    My initial impression last year regarding Trump, which I am still leaning toward, is that Trump's goal is to get Hillary elected president.
    oldfarmermac , 02/29/2016 at 8:57 am
    I am almost cynical enough to believe it.
    likbez , 02/29/2016 at 10:41 am
    Jeffrey,

    My initial impression last year regarding Trump, which I am still leaning toward, is that Trump's goal is to get Hillary elected president

    I doubt it. Trump will definitely try to use email scandal against her. Even among democrats way too many people hate Hillary due to her track record and personal traits.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/04/02/488623/-Is-Hillary-a-Sociopath

    How Trump can help her? Trump voters will never vote for Hillary. The same is true for considerable part of Sanders voters. Many people understand that she is in the pocket of large banks and essentially voting for Hillary is voting for GS.

    Also a lot of people in the military are vary of Hillary as the Commander in Chief (the same is true for Trump). And that is a powerful voting block. Please listen to what Tulsi Gabbard said:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2UM8F4EuUbw

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/28/dnc-vice-chair-resigns-throws-support-behind-bernie-sanders

    What really surprised me is that South Carolina black population was brainwashed or bought to vote for her. That's a slap at Martin Luther King face. I wonder how much money it cost her to buy SC black establishment.

    [Feb 28, 2016] Republicans wage all-out war as Rubio and Cruz seek to destroy Trump

    The crisis of Republican Party then establishment no longer can control rank-and-file members reflects not only the crisis of neoliberalism as a social system, but might also reflect the fact that with 300 million of people the county became too big and too diverse to be governed from a single center of political power in non authoritarian ways. a Hillary v Trump scenario will bee a difficult choice for most Americans. A jingoistic sociopathic woman, essentially a puppet of financial oligarchy, who is a front for the neoliberal forces hell-bent of destroying Russia vs. a narcissistic person with zero political experience and vague set of ideas (but at the same time with more realistic foreign policy ideas at least).
    Notable quotes:
    "... I'm afraid this strategy will have the exact opposite effect. To Trump, an attack from Rubio or Cruz is a badge of honor. ..."
    "... 80% of young people are for Sanders. If he gets unfairly dumped, they will never forgive the Democrapic party. Both parties are in danger of losing the duopoly. ..."
    "... We're a divided country, living separate cultures over four time zones (mainland alone). We're a big big country with big big problems. I don't know how it will shake out, especially when the bills come due. I only wish we had the problems of a small European country that you can drive across in four hours. That's a luxury. ..."
    "... Hillary and Trump make Nixon look like a stand up guy. There is only one authentic, principled and electable candidate in the race. Bernie Sanders, the only candidate with a positive national favorability rating. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is almost entirely a creation of the media. Most people don't realize it, but the media got addicted to him back in the early 1980, when he became one of the most flamboyant characters on the New York scene with a string of bimbos by his side, splashing around money, mostly not his, and creating the Trump brand, which he used to get into business with OPM (other people's money). ..."
    "... Sadly, this is exactly what America has become. Fox News, talk radio, lunatics and raving psychopaths, a cesspool of fear and hate. The candidates are what we have become. We're in a canoe headed for the waterfall and all we hear is "Paddle faster! Paddle faster!" What the American people will do in the end is anyone's guess. ..."
    "... Headline news says in Iran ... hardliners suffer defeat as reformists make gains ... And ... in the USA ...? hardliners on the rampage? O Tempora ... O Mores .... ..."
    "... I agree that the republican party is a despicable joke, but a look at the turnout suggests that they will very likely control the WH, senate, and increass their majority in the House. Its unfortunate, but that is definitely the way it looks right now! ..."
    "... "I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln." Pretty funny comment. They are all con artists. And Hillary can match them con for con. ..."
    "... Yup it's a shitfest all-round, the Dems debate schedule was so openly biased towards Hillary that it was comical but at least they were talking about substantive issues. ..."
    "... "Struggling Americans"? Since when has Rubio's ultra-corporate free market ideology recognised their struggle? What the fuck does he have to offer except rich man's You're OK I'M OK preaching? ..."
    "... Fuck off, Rubio -- We are going to vote Trump. ..."
    "... Trump is not Mussolini, his political, economic and social thinking has very little, if anything, in common with that man. He may be dangerous, but that doesn't mean he is a Fascist. ..."
    "... Yep, MIC depends on bankster puppets like Rubio and Clinton following their orders. Oh and the power of money is so persuasive. Bill Clinton is a very bright guy and he still repealed Glass Steagall under orders...... ..."
    "... The problem is that Rubio and Cruz are just as bad -- or worse. They're a bit more polished politically but they have the same awful mindset and espouse the same awful policies. ..."
    "... Anyway, ganging up on Trump is likely to backfire. Unlike most politicians Trump makes absolutely no attempt to hide who he is and what he stands for. People respect that even as they ignore that what he stands for is corporatism -- he's not the reincarnation of Hitler (as those two MX has-been described him), he's Mussolini. ..."
    "... I think Rubio and Cruz's attempts to destroy Trump will backfire. He can just say he is the outside being ganged up on by the establishment and how he "wont be pushed around just like America wont be pushed around anymore! blah blah". ..."
    "... The establishment will do and say anything to get Trump out. They have total control over all the others but not Trump. Donald is the only candidate who will do what's right for the country and the people and make America great again. TRUMP 2016 ..."
    "... Rubio seems power-mad. Another reason why he is deeply unsuitable to wield ultimate power. ..."
    "... As a democrat I am terrified and so too should all democrats be. Turnout so far has been down about 26% compared to 2008. The republicans on the other hand have seen an increase of almost the smae amount compared to their 2012 numbers! Thats a disaster waiting to happen in November. Turnout in primaries is one of the best indicators, if not the best, of what will happen in a general election. ..."
    "... Indeed. If I was American, a Hillary v Trump scenario would be mindscrewingly difficult to choose between. An evil woman who is a front for all the neoliberal forces out there. Or an evil man who is a complete moron and will drive America to its knees. ..."
    "... "Donald Trump is a liberal Republican" In the crazy world of Republican politics 2016 you're not wrong. You then drift of into a fantasy world where Trump actually wins the presidency. More people hate him than love him, with barely anything in-between. Plus they've only just started digging for dirt. ..."
    "... Guardian sub-heading: "Rubio attacks 'con artist' as Cruz links Trump to mafia" I link all of them to oligarchy, patriarchy and Christian jihadism. Admittedly, there are some conceptual overlaps there. ..."
    "... OMG Cruz, Rubio or Trump vs Hilary Clinton. Jeez, America. I got kids to care about - is that IT? ..."
    "... Rubio isn't what he presents himself as. Look at his voting record- http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/Marco-Rubio-412491 Does that match up to the way he talks about his policies? I don't think so. ..."
    "... One "good" thing about Trump in this election is that he is clearly not a consultant-packaged candidate (like Rubio) or a fake (like Cruz), but Trump is a quintessentially amoral salesman. He pitches whatever the customers want to hear. Customers need to read the fine print before buying products from him. ..."
    "... Truth is both parties pander to the emotions -- the more frenzied the better it seems -- none of the candidates respect voters enough to discuss policy with anything even resembling depth. Politics is cotton candy in America, sprinkled with just enough cayenne to arouse burnt tongues. Oh what a tangled web we weave... ..."
    "... Unless she is indicted before the election. Then it might be problematic. Look up Spiro Agnew if you think investigations are all for show. ..."
    "... I can't stand Trump...but he seems to be better than Cruz & Rubio...the problem seems to be a politically bankrupt party disintegrating before our eyes... ..."
    "... Full blown panic mode now by the GOP establishment, as they belatedly realize they have a problem with no agreeable solution. ..."
    "... But let's notice one more time that all the discomfort about Trump as expressed by the GOP functionaries is centered around their suspicions that he may be a closet "liberal". They're worrying aloud about whether he'd support single-payer healthcare insurance, or refuse to vigorously oppose gay marriage or draconian positions on abortion. ..."
    "... Supporting war in Iraq was spectacularly I'll judged. ..."
    "... Trump's game seems to have been to use The Republican Party's machinery to boost himself, aware that his appeal to the populace is that he is counter the old guard, awaiting that old guard's attempt to ditch him and then becoming his own man with his own party. That would split the GOP's ranks; if, having only, say, half its voters so not winning this time, he will have sown the seed in his long game to win next time. ..."
    "... When Trump was still normal, he left The Reform Party because David Duke from the KKK had joined it. Now, he says doesn't know David Duke, not even the KKK!!!! ..."
    "... As Cruz desperately tries to salvage something before slithering under the exit door Rubio keeps insisting that he will keep receiving participation ribbons just for showing up and they will add up to victory. ..."
    "... Trump looks more and more like the mature actor in the room. From lunatic insider to the presumptive candidate for the republican party in about 6 months. Pretty impressive. The voters will flock to Trump, who in the end will do what all presidents do and screw the voters and support the rich. Both parties do it to the voters, but the voters never learn. ..."
    "... Hillary doesn't exist politically. It is a front for banks and foreign investments. A sham. ..."
    "... This is awesome, America is embarking on a long overdue conversation. The Republicans are now using tax returns to play the 1% card on Trump, yes they hate those richer than themselves as well as poorer. You wonder why they bother, and I'm sure some of them are. So hate it will be from the Republicans and 'love and kindness' from Hillary. It's mapping out. ..."
    The Guardian
    AnthonyFlack -> ryanpatrick9192, 2016-02-28 20:44:44
    Democratic party is not investing in voting drives this year because doing so would benefit Sanders, whereas a low voter turnout favors Clinton (who is increasingly unpopular and looks increasingly likely to lose the general).

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/dem-voter-registration-leading-turnout-article-1.2545420

    samwisehere, 2016-02-28 20:44:25
    I'm afraid this strategy will have the exact opposite effect. To Trump, an attack from Rubio or Cruz is a badge of honor.
    Nedward Marbletoe -> olman132, 2016-02-28 20:44:04
    Sanders was nearly tied with Clinton in delegates before South Carolina. So it's very close right now.

    80% of young people are for Sanders. If he gets unfairly dumped, they will never forgive the Democrapic party. Both parties are in danger of losing the duopoly.

    Robert Hoover -> Nedward Marbletoe, 2016-02-28 20:42:23
    Sorry. boys. It's a case of "too little, too late." Hopefully the Dems will not underestimate Trump like the GOP did. http://moronmajority.com/are-democrats-underestimating-trump-like-the-gop/
    JRWirth, 2016-02-28 20:39:56
    What everyone is glossing over, is that the country is too big and the politics have become too small. You have a special problem with the presidency in that the person who occupies it should embody the basic American ethos from Boston to Honolulu and from Miami to Anchorage. No one exists who can do this.

    We're a divided country, living separate cultures over four time zones (mainland alone). We're a big big country with big big problems. I don't know how it will shake out, especially when the bills come due. I only wish we had the problems of a small European country that you can drive across in four hours. That's a luxury.

    dig4victory, 2016-02-28 20:38:52
    Hillary and Trump make Nixon look like a stand up guy. There is only one authentic, principled and electable candidate in the race. Bernie Sanders, the only candidate with a positive national favorability rating.
    WyntonK, 2016-02-28 20:37:08
    Donald Trump is almost entirely a creation of the media. Most people don't realize it, but the media got addicted to him back in the early 1980, when he became one of the most flamboyant characters on the New York scene with a string of bimbos by his side, splashing around money, mostly not his, and creating the Trump brand, which he used to get into business with OPM (other people's money).

    A lot of his revenues come from licensing out the Trump name out to various development ventures into which he doesn't contribute a penny, and which generate a large income that finances his extravagant lifestyle. He is basically a con man, always has been. The corporate media refrains from mentioning his four bankruptcies, despite inheriting a quarter of a billion dollars from his father. They media wants him to stay on the campaign scene till the end, because he is the largest entertainment story that have had in years, and covering his carnival act keeps generating great revenues for them.

    daniel1948 -> IMSpardagus, 2016-02-28 20:36:46
    Sadly, this is exactly what America has become. Fox News, talk radio, lunatics and raving psychopaths, a cesspool of fear and hate. The candidates are what we have become. We're in a canoe headed for the waterfall and all we hear is "Paddle faster! Paddle faster!" What the American people will do in the end is anyone's guess.
    Teebs, 2016-02-28 20:35:48
    Headline news says in Iran ... hardliners suffer defeat as reformists make gains ... And ... in the USA ...? hardliners on the rampage? O Tempora ... O Mores ....
    turn1eft -> Rialbynot, 2016-02-28 20:35:43
    Think how many billions are tied up in an establishment win. Trump will be taxing companies that move blue collar jobs out of the US. He will be a jobs president. I am really really suspicious of papers and parties like the Guardian and Labour that don't support this agenda.
    AlabasterCodefy -> Rialbynot, 2016-02-28 20:35:23
    Destroy Trump? CNN has placed Trump on hard rotation since mid-2015, to join their rolling Clinton love-in. They haven't reported on him so much as run his campaign. That would imply that they' re getting paid down the line.
    timnorfolk, 2016-02-28 20:35:11
    Let Trump build his walls along the Mexican and Canadian borders. Only when they are completed reveal they are intended to keep Americans in.
    ryanpatrick9192 -> deddzone, 2016-02-28 20:34:53
    I agree that the republican party is a despicable joke, but a look at the turnout suggests that they will very likely control the WH, senate, and increass their majority in the House. Its unfortunate, but that is definitely the way it looks right now!
    David Galbraith, 2016-02-28 20:33:28
    "I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln." Pretty funny comment. They are all con artists. And Hillary can match them con for con.
    Robert Jenkins -> Flugler, 2016-02-28 20:33:09
    Yup it's a shitfest all-round, the Dems debate schedule was so openly biased towards Hillary that it was comical but at least they were talking about substantive issues.

    The main thing that interests me though is the money still pouring into the GOP even though it's clear that the party has become unelectable.

    africanland123, 2016-02-28 20:30:06
    " Lincoln
    Marco Rubio

    Pressed on whether he could win in this week's elections, the 12-state "Super Tuesday" contest, Rubio said: "Sure. That's not the plan, by the way, but sure."

    "He then voiced anxieties that have coursed through the Republican party for months: "I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln."

    Calling the billionaire "a clown act" who is "preying on" struggling Americans, Rubio warned that..."

    "Struggling Americans"? Since when has Rubio's ultra-corporate free market ideology recognised their struggle? What the fuck does he have to offer except rich man's You're OK I'M OK preaching?

    Fuck off, Rubio -- We are going to vote Trump.

    JordiPujol -> martinusher, 2016-02-28 20:28:45
    I seem to recall that Benito embroiled Italy in fruitless war or two....

    Trump is not Mussolini, his political, economic and social thinking has very little, if anything, in common with that man. He may be dangerous, but that doesn't mean he is a Fascist.

    Flugler -> Rialbynot, 2016-02-28 20:20:05
    Yep, MIC depends on bankster puppets like Rubio and Clinton following their orders. Oh and the power of money is so persuasive. Bill Clinton is a very bright guy and he still repealed Glass Steagall under orders......

    ...

    martinusher, 2016-02-28 20:16:18
    The problem is that Rubio and Cruz are just as bad -- or worse. They're a bit more polished politically but they have the same awful mindset and espouse the same awful policies.

    A Trumpohpile told me that the reason he likes Trump (and possibly Sanders) is that neither of them are likely to end up embroiling us in yet more fruitless wars. I understand where he was coming from -- we've been conned so many times by the political establishment that voting is really choosing the lesser of evils. People are tired of this.

    Anyway, ganging up on Trump is likely to backfire. Unlike most politicians Trump makes absolutely no attempt to hide who he is and what he stands for. People respect that even as they ignore that what he stands for is corporatism -- he's not the reincarnation of Hitler (as those two MX has-been described him), he's Mussolini.

    ArdentSocialist, 2016-02-28 20:14:23
    I think Rubio and Cruz's attempts to destroy Trump will backfire. He can just say he is the outside being ganged up on by the establishment and how he "wont be pushed around just like America wont be pushed around anymore! blah blah".

    Trump will emerge the victor. I'm almost positive.

    Tim Osman, 2016-02-28 20:02:11
    The establishment will do and say anything to get Trump out. They have total control over all the others but not Trump. Donald is the only candidate who will do what's right for the country and the people and make America great again. TRUMP 2016
    janpcb -> maggie111, 2016-02-28 20:01:54
    Clinton: When i'm POTUS we will attack Iran!
    Trump : Let's work with Russia to destroy ISIS!
    Out of the two, i'm thinking Clinton is a total psychopath.
    Svalbard, 2016-02-28 19:58:15
    Rubio seems power-mad. Another reason why he is deeply unsuitable to wield ultimate power.
    ryanpatrick9192, 2016-02-28 19:57:27
    As a democrat I am terrified and so too should all democrats be. Turnout so far has been down about 26% compared to 2008. The republicans on the other hand have seen an increase of almost the smae amount compared to their 2012 numbers! Thats a disaster waiting to happen in November. Turnout in primaries is one of the best indicators, if not the best, of what will happen in a general election.

    If this trend doesnt change (and theres no reason to believe it will) then we are not only looking at a Republican controlled WH, but democrats will have almost no chance of regaining control of the Senate and they could even increase their majority in the House (which they are going to control no matter what happens)

    Big_Boss -> SuchArticleSoComment, 2016-02-28 19:55:48
    Indeed. If I was American, a Hillary v Trump scenario would be mindscrewingly difficult to choose between. An evil woman who is a front for all the neoliberal forces out there. Or an evil man who is a complete moron and will drive America to its knees.

    I think the best option is not to play

    xavierzubercock -> SPappas, 2016-02-28 19:41:13
    "Donald Trump is a liberal Republican" In the crazy world of Republican politics 2016 you're not wrong. You then drift of into a fantasy world where Trump actually wins the presidency. More people hate him than love him, with barely anything in-between. Plus they've only just started digging for dirt.
    funnynought, 2016-02-28 19:37:20
    Guardian sub-heading: "Rubio attacks 'con artist' as Cruz links Trump to mafia" I link all of them to oligarchy, patriarchy and Christian jihadism. Admittedly, there are some conceptual overlaps there.
    quilt, 2016-02-28 19:35:15
    OMG Cruz, Rubio or Trump vs Hilary Clinton. Jeez, America. I got kids to care about - is that IT?
    Texas_Sotol -> skepticaleye, 2016-02-28 19:30:20
    "amoral salesman" Very succinct character description!

    How about:

    A moral
    S elf-indulgent
    S alesman

    tuhaybey, 2016-02-28 19:22:10
    Rubio isn't what he presents himself as. Look at his voting record- http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/Marco-Rubio-412491 Does that match up to the way he talks about his policies? I don't think so.
    skepticaleye, 2016-02-28 19:18:52
    One "good" thing about Trump in this election is that he is clearly not a consultant-packaged candidate (like Rubio) or a fake (like Cruz), but Trump is a quintessentially amoral salesman. He pitches whatever the customers want to hear. Customers need to read the fine print before buying products from him.
    ustanonlooker -> Doug Steiner, 2016-02-28 19:18:46
    Poorly educated and stupid. Sadly, that sums up the majority of Americans.
    Woops1gottasneeze, 2016-02-28 19:18:20
    Truth is both parties pander to the emotions -- the more frenzied the better it seems -- none of the candidates respect voters enough to discuss policy with anything even resembling depth. Politics is cotton candy in America, sprinkled with just enough cayenne to arouse burnt tongues. Oh what a tangled web we weave...
    chiefwiley -> PeteGr1, 2016-02-28 19:17:54
    Unless she is indicted before the election. Then it might be problematic. Look up Spiro Agnew if you think investigations are all for show.
    ajbsmurphy, 2016-02-28 19:17:43
    I can't stand Trump...but he seems to be better than Cruz & Rubio...the problem seems to be a politically bankrupt party disintegrating before our eyes...
    gunnison, 2016-02-28 19:17:40
    Full blown panic mode now by the GOP establishment, as they belatedly realize they have a problem with no agreeable solution.

    But let's notice one more time that all the discomfort about Trump as expressed by the GOP functionaries is centered around their suspicions that he may be a closet "liberal". They're worrying aloud about whether he'd support single-payer healthcare insurance, or refuse to vigorously oppose gay marriage or draconian positions on abortion.

    Not a word about his promise to be a war criminal by torturing people "because they deserve it", or unconstitutionally banning entry to the US on religious grounds or his support for the idea of rendering the press vulnerable to lawsuits under brand spanking new libel laws.

    The guy has come out brazenly in support of attitudes that the GOP has been covertly dog-whistling about for years, and now they're panicking.

    Embracing him as their candidate destroys the brand.

    Torpedoing his candidacy by deploying internal party shenanigans either in the remaining days of the campaign and/or at the convention will fracture the party.

    All the people who Trump has excited with his "he's just saying what people are really thinking" meme are sure as hell not going to just roll over and let their hero "be robbed" of the nomination. And you can bet that's how, with Donald's help, they will see it.

    SundridgePete -> John Dagne, 2016-02-28 19:16:32
    Supporting war in Iraq was spectacularly I'll judged. But I'd rather have someone who once made a mistake than a psychopath.
    ClaudeNAORobot, 2016-02-28 19:15:15
    Trump's game seems to have been to use The Republican Party's machinery to boost himself, aware that his appeal to the populace is that he is counter the old guard, awaiting that old guard's attempt to ditch him and then becoming his own man with his own party. That would split the GOP's ranks; if, having only, say, half its voters so not winning this time, he will have sown the seed in his long game to win next time.
    RealSoothsayer, 2016-02-28 19:14:54
    When Trump was still normal, he left The Reform Party because David Duke from the KKK had joined it. Now, he says doesn't know David Duke, not even the KKK!!!!
    Vintage59, 2016-02-28 19:07:42
    As Cruz desperately tries to salvage something before slithering under the exit door Rubio keeps insisting that he will keep receiving participation ribbons just for showing up and they will add up to victory.
    benbache, 2016-02-28 18:58:44
    Trump looks more and more like the mature actor in the room. From lunatic insider to the presumptive candidate for the republican party in about 6 months. Pretty impressive. The voters will flock to Trump, who in the end will do what all presidents do and screw the voters and support the rich. Both parties do it to the voters, but the voters never learn.
    bcarey -> SuchArticleSoComment, 2016-02-28 18:55:51
    Hillary doesn't exist politically. It is a front for banks and foreign investments. A sham.
    JonnyNoone, 2016-02-28 18:47:47
    This is awesome, America is embarking on a long overdue conversation. The Republicans are now using tax returns to play the 1% card on Trump, yes they hate those richer than themselves as well as poorer. You wonder why they bother, and I'm sure some of them are. So hate it will be from the Republicans and 'love and kindness' from Hillary. It's mapping out.

    [Feb 28, 2016] Hillary Clinton defeats Bernie Sanders to win South Carolina primary

    So much for lefties idealization of disadvantaged minorities. Today blacks of South Carolina spit in the face of Martin Luther King with impunity.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Well, the preacher-shepherds gave the signal and the flock brayed for Hillary. Truly a low point in the annals of African-American politics. ..."
    "... Economically disadvantaged people should be voting for Sanders. To vote for Clinton is misguided and foolish whether you are black or white. We should not apologise for saying this loudly and clearly. It is a fact. ..."
    "... Amazing what you can pull off with nonsense rhetoric. Clinton should thank her speech writers for that bit of baloney. love and kindness Ha! Yeah. Shes all warmth, that neolib. ..."
    "... The blacks dont realize Clinton doesnt and will not, give a shit about them later. ..."
    "... Im supremely depressed people voted for the corporate Wall Street puppet too, guys, but still... yeesh. ..."
    "... It is not racism, I am a black person, and use to vote democratic and I proudly use those terms...and worse to describe my homies....they are still living like slaves! ..."
    "... Another corrupt politician pulled the wool over the black race. ..."
    "... If she wins the nomination -- and it looks increasingly like she will -- she will lose the general election, should Trump be the Republican nominee ..."
    "... You are suffering from a delusion as to the nature of Clinton and the people who control her. They are not interested in making the USA more like Europe. Exactly the opposite. I cannot even fathom how you might think otherwise. ..."
    "... Clinton is owned by Wall Street and has never been a friend of the poor and working people. ..."
    "... This landslide win may be the one time the majority of black South Carolinians have something in common with Goldman Sachs execs. Strange bedfellows... ..."
    "... It is interesting that in the latest speech that I heard from Sanders he has shifted from attacking Clinton to focusing his attacks on Trump. ..."
    "... Looking at Hillary one starts to think that House of Cards main character should be a woman... ..."
    "... The blacks on south carolina..have been dupped. .to trust Clinton is like re electing another bush. Quite reckless stupid. ... 40 million youth who gave student debt loans to repay should think their pocket. ..."
    "... I will never vote for her. Youd think that my fellow black citizens would have taken a lesson from the Rahm Emmanuel debacle and refused to be herded into that dark night ..."
    "... Big Winners South Carolina Primary.....Wall St The US WAR Machine....Peace ..."
    "... Hence the ridiculous win for Hillary, who has done nothing for African American voters, In fact, she has probably led to the incarceration of many black people in America. Her husband certainly fucked them over. ..."
    "... If this disgusting liar wins Democratic nomination, I am going to vote Republican for the first time in my life. Even Trump is better that this abomination. At least he calls a spade a spade and does not pretend to be what he isnt. ..."
    "... For the nomination, its much more relevant than New Hampshire. NH: 24 delegates. SC: 53 delegates ..."
    "... South Carolina black communities are very poor, uneducated and centered around their churches, which in turn are controlled by black establishment giving them some money through various social grants. I hope it helps to understand who and how forced black voters there how they have to vote. ..."
    "... We cant have Sanders and real change. Thats clear by now. Thanks, old man, for you great brave effort and for bringing back Socialism to the USA after nearly a century in the dog house. That is an amazing feat in itself -- ..."
    "... So, its either Black special interests plus aggressive careerist neo-liberal feminism or a glorious and unpredictable populist who shoves the PC gang. ..."
    "... Have fun losing to Republicans in November should the DNC and media establishment successfully force the primary coronation of their queen. All of that legitimate excitement and momentum that Sanders lost will vanish into thin air, and some of it will go to independent and Republican voters. So yuck it up. Americans evidently need to learn a really hard lesson before reality finally penetrates their collective skulls. ..."
    "... She is just as complicit in the coup against our country. So yeah, we need to grow some spines and start speaking up and acting. No more of this well shes not AS bad crap. Were losing our democracy, our freedom, our path to a decent life. Its time to wake up. Its Bernie or bust. ..."
    "... no, HRC is a republican as in uber hawk, neoliberal, corrupt, wall street toady. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    sunshinewestmelb , 2016-02-28 05:49:10
    Why do blacks vote for Hillary rather than Bernie ? Maybe its like how Trump wins the Hispanic vote after he calls them murdering rapists ? Dont overestimate the American electorate, a lot of effort has been put into keeping people dumb .(its not racist to suggest that people of color can be dumb too). Trump says he loves 'the blacks' and some still vote for him.
    MaynardG , 2016-02-28 05:47:56
    The first time that I ever heard of the Flint water problem described in racial terms was from Hillary Clinton in a Democratic debate. She tried to link it to the Jim Crow era of segregated drinking fountains. No one should vote for her.
    Indie60 , 2016-02-28 05:46:14
    The DNC has vastly underestimated the revolution that is already percolating. If Hillary become the nominee there are millions of people who will
    1) sit out the election
    2) vote third party
    3) write in Bernie's name
    4) vote for trump

    Whichever way you look at it it will be the death knell for the "party". So they can celebrate the funeral of the presidency.

    Congrats CBC, DNC, DCCC, etc. All on your own you have buried the country.

    ndie60 -> StayingCivil , 2016-02-28 05:56:32
    I'm an elder. I've been fighting to turn this country into something livable for 46 years of voting. You want Hillary?

    I'll give it to you only in spades.

    StayingCivil -> Indie60 , 2016-02-28 05:59:12
    I am an "elder" too….Am I disappointed that Bernie didn't win ? Yes, but I am not going to trash Hillary…or do something stupid by allowing a Republican to do worse. I will continue to fight…I will not sit on the sidelines…and anyone who does is a coward.
    eastbayradical , 2016-02-28 05:45:10
    Well, the preacher-shepherds gave the signal and the flock brayed for Hillary. Truly a low point in the annals of African-American politics.
    crackersandcheese , 2016-02-28 05:41:07
    Economically disadvantaged people should be voting for Sanders. To vote for Clinton is misguided and foolish whether you are black or white. We should not apologise for saying this loudly and clearly. It is a fact.
    AtraHasis , 2016-02-28 05:35:55
    Amazing what you can pull off with nonsense rhetoric. Clinton should thank her speech writers for that bit of baloney. "love and kindness" Ha! Yeah. She's all warmth, that neolib.
    Rodbio , 2016-02-28 05:30:14
    The blacks don't realize Clinton doesn't and will not, give a shit about them later.
    Vermouth Brilliantine , 2016-02-28 05:28:08
    I see a whole lot of blame being thrown at black South Carolinians in these comments:

    The casual racism of people who claim to be 'progressive' never ceases to amaze me. I'm supremely depressed people voted for the corporate Wall Street puppet too, guys, but still... yeesh.

    WSCrips -> Vermouth Brilliantine , 2016-02-28 05:42:28
    It is not racism, I am a black person, and use to vote democratic and I proudly use those terms...and worse to describe my homies....they are still living like slaves!
    TomTalay , 2016-02-28 05:20:21
    Ouch! So much for the expected 26% gap. 1 for 4 isn't going to cut it. Tuesday will write Bernie's political obituary.
    sean severson -> TomTalay , 2016-02-28 05:23:36
    And our country's too. Another corrupt politician pulled the wool over the black race. Killer Mike, Erica Gardener,Spike Lee,and danny glover better get the word out.
    resurgence27 , 2016-02-28 05:17:27
    If she wins the nomination -- and it looks increasingly like she will -- she will lose the general election, should Trump be the Republican nominee, which is also looking increasingly likely. Sanders would have walloped Trump in the general: it would have been the 99% versus the 1%, and the 99% would have won. Clinton, on the other hand, is distrusted by such a large number of Democrats, vast numbers of us would rather steer clear of the polls altogether than give her our vote. Trump will be the next President of the United States.
    Janosik53 , 2016-02-28 05:15:00
    Hillary's had more Botox injections than John (Lurch) Kerry.
    Carly435 -> RealSoothsayer , 2016-02-28 05:45:01
    I didn't know much about his personal background three years ago. All I knew about him in the past couple of decades came from reading the Congressional Record: his morally courageous speeches always stood out from the rest. But I never dreamed that he would run for President, or that the American public would finally "catch up" with him and his call for political revolution.

    So don't blame me. Blame the media, which even today has little time for such "boring" progressive subjects as poverty in America:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W103Gs0MP1E

    19:40 mark... Bernie gets pissed off at the fact that reporters would rather ask electoral "horse race" questions one after another after another instead of showing the slightest bit of interest in the subject of his press conference: Poverty in America.

    Alan Edwards , 2016-02-28 04:59:06
    The most ill-informed, deluded, fearful, armed, dangerous and destructive country in the first world. No number of Steve Jobs and Elon Musks can make the US a net positive. By and large the craziest collection of presidential candidates in my memory ...
    Individualist -> Alan Edwards , 2016-02-28 05:09:38
    Let's see what the summer brings of informed, confident, un-militaristic politics in western Europe.

    My guess is that Trump or no Trump, the US will look like a progressive paradise compared to Europe next Fall.

    MikaelRogers -> Alan Edwards , 2016-02-28 05:47:57
    lets see - Norway, Poland and most of East Europe have voted racist parties. The UK voted for Cameron and Socialists are doing poorly in the rest of Europe. Not a great sign all over - so don't just get upset with the Americans
    AllStBob , 2016-02-28 04:58:05
    Also remember that Hillary won 57.5% to 42.5% of the white vote. It's a Southern thing, not just a black thing.
    anicecupofcoffee , 2016-02-28 04:51:20
    How come the African American community voted massively for Hillary when many of them apparently agree more with Sanders political plan AND know that Sanders was a civil rights leader in the 60s?
    JCDavis -> anicecupofcoffee , 2016-02-28 04:53:40
    They voted for Hillary because her husband put blacks into prison at an unprecedented rate. It's the Stockholm syndrome.
    cinelandia , 2016-02-28 04:50:20
    2,722,287 registered voters in SC. 977,207 voted in the Democratic and the Republican primaries. Not even half. And the real story is who "won"?
    Dragonsmoke315 , 2016-02-28 04:42:40
    Let's not panic, Bernie supporters. South Carolina is only one state, and no one expected Bernie to win it. No candidate wins every primary. He isn't out of the race yet.

    Unlike more conventional candidates who are controlled by big donors and the Party establishment, Bernie has no reason to drop out before the nomination is fully decided. He has everything to gain and nothing to lose by staying in. The worst case scenario is that he keeps putting pressure on Hillary to position herself leftward.

    There are still many other states, and most of them are not in the South. Onward.

    Koamark -> Kevin Diamond , 2016-02-28 04:44:42
    You are suffering from a delusion as to the nature of Clinton and the people who control her. They are not interested in making the USA more like Europe. Exactly the opposite. I cannot even fathom how you might think otherwise.

    Your scenario has Trump not making a deal and selling his delegates at the convention. I would have to laugh out loud if the various other Republican candidates all quit before he can make a deal. Can you imagine Trump as President? "Your fired!" "Sorry Mr. President, you cannot fire me. It is called embedding. I have a position that you cannot change because of laws passed by Congress. The Bush Administration put me here to make sure no one else can come in and change anything they set up. Until I retire or Congress makes a new law, I am going to keep this job and be a big thorn in your side. In fact, you cannot fire hardly anyone."
    Trump might be the first President to pull a Palin and just quit.

    mabcalif -> Kevin Diamond , 2016-02-28 04:58:26

    A Clinton v Trump fight, Clinton wins

    you haven't been paying attention. in no current polling does clinton win against trump. sanders is the only candidate who can face down every republican candidate.

    and even if that weren't true, wait until the republicans go to town about her emails, when she is the democratic nominee. there's no way she survives that.

    further, you clearly don't understand the core beliefs of hillary clinton if you think she will move this country towards a european style nation. lol. there's very little about hillary that's changed since she stumped for barry goldwater and she is very open about that.

    overcookedsquash -> Koamark , 2016-02-28 05:12:26
    Europe is not the panacea you believe it to be.

    Clinton is getting pushed to the left as we speak because of how much support Sanders has. She's a moderate progressive so she may not share your vision but she still believes in progressive policies. Sanders supporters make it sound like electing Clinton and electing a republican is the same thing...

    Trump loves power and the spotlight. You are out of his mind if you think he would quit.

    Carly435 , 2016-02-28 04:33:28
    For those of you who are a little fed up with centrist Democrats posing as progressives, here is an interesting factoid:

    Guess who donated to the centrist DLC, of which the Clintons were key players?

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=koch+democratic+leadership+council

    That's right. The Koch brothers.

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33869-hillary-clinton-s-ghosts-a-legacy-of-pushing-the-democratic-party-to-the-right

    Founded by Southern Democrats in 1985, the group sought to transform the party by pushing it to embrace more conservative positions and win support from big business.


    Leadership we can trust? I don't think so.

    RAJNJ , 2016-02-28 04:26:18
    Bernie thinks he can win the low turnout caucus states Colorado and Minnesota. The problem is that they are both closed caucus states. You can only vote if you are a registered Democratic. No Independents can vote in the Democratic caucusus. He'll lose and if he loses Massachussetts his only win will be in Vermont and possibly Oklahoma where Hillary has a narrow lead. Looks hopeless.
    bishoppeter4 , 2016-02-28 04:21:25
    Clinton is owned by Wall Street and has never been a friend of the poor and working people.
    JCDavis , 2016-02-28 04:15:02
    Corruption, thy name is Hillary. If she wins, I'm voting for Trump.
    HeartlandLeftie , 2016-02-28 04:13:33
    This landslide win may be the one time the majority of black South Carolinians have something in common with Goldman Sachs execs. Strange bedfellows...

    As for Super Tuesday, for Bernie supporters, the races to watch are Massachusetts, Colorado, and Minnesota. If Bernie can win all three, this race is still on.

    **Bernie 2016**

    Fabri , 2016-02-28 04:17:28
    In South Carolina...the most conservative and racist state. I'd feel flattered to lose there...
    arbmahla , 2016-02-28 04:12:13
    It is interesting that in the latest speech that I heard from Sanders he has shifted from attacking Clinton to focusing his attacks on Trump. I think he sees the writing on the wall and he knows that he is losing. This will all be over in a couple of weeks and I'd be surprised if Sanders is still in the race in April. Once Clinton wins Florida, Ohio and Michigan, Sanders has to know that it's over.

    Sanders knows the danger that is posed by the semi-fascist Trump and he will throw all his support behind Clinton once it is clear that his chance is over. He isn't one of these morons like we see on this forum that are saying that there is no difference between Trump and Clinton. They are the same idiots that told us that there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

    Vladimir Makarenko , 2016-02-28 04:05:27
    Looking at Hillary one starts to think that "House of Cards" main character should be a woman...
    Gato Pardo , 2016-02-28 04:05:21
    C'mon people..this is south Carolina...What did you expect? This is a state where a landlord can choose no to have "multicultural " tenants...

    Give me a break, this state is frozen in time... Heck, Hitler would win against Bernie in South Carolina. Have doubts? Just ask 'round. Bernie will be the next president.. Even in south Caro-the land civil rights forgot-lina.

    David Marty Thompson , 2016-02-28 03:51:47
    The blacks on south carolina..have been dupped. .to trust Clinton is like re electing another bush. Quite reckless stupid. ... 40 million youth who gave student debt loans to repay should think their pocket.

    And Vote Bernie
    So to eradicate debt and give hope a chance ..and re bell against big sleazy corporate bankers ...

    macktan894 , 2016-02-28 03:50:28
    I will never vote for her. You'd think that my fellow black citizens would have taken a lesson from the Rahm Emmanuel debacle and refused to be herded into that dark night
    bishoppeter4 -> macktan894 , 2016-02-28 04:16:00
    And I shall certainly never vote for Ms. Wall Street Liar and "Sucker Bill." My vote--come what may--is for THE HON. MR. SANDERS ONLY. He will help the country and working people.
    JackKerouac2 , 2016-02-28 03:49:59
    Big Winners South Carolina Primary.....Wall St & The US WAR Machine....Peace
    Martian_Manhunter , 2016-02-28 03:30:03
    I just calculated the percentage of South Carolina adults that voted in the South Carolina primary . I get 9.8%. Can this be right? If so - the whole thing is a sham & and only a handful of people support Clinton enough to bother going out & voting for her. I guess that also goes for Sanders too.
    raffine -> Martian_Manhunter , 2016-02-28 03:35:59
    The primary involved registered Democratic voters , not the universe of all possible voters or the entire adult citizenry.
    flatulenceodor67 , 2016-02-28 03:28:41
    You can blame this outcome on the corrupt/criminalized/liberalized/administration, of the U.S. Government. Its failure to prosecute/prison Hillary Clinton (SOS) having illegal (off Gov property) private server's, with no government email account. The government had no access or control of classified/top secret emails sent to her private email account.
    livingstonfc -> CurtBrown , 2016-02-28 03:45:15
    I guess you didn't read my post, dickwad. If the populace truly educated themselves and studied the histories of all candidates, Bernie would win by an incredible margin. There is no other candidate.SC is poorly educated:
    South Carolina...
    Percent of students scoring at or above proficient, 2012-2013

    Math - Grade 4 35%
    Math - Grade 8 31%

    Reading - Grade 4 28%
    Reading - Grade 8 29%

    Hence the ridiculous win for Hillary, who has done nothing for African American voters, In fact, she has probably led to the incarceration of many black people in America. Her husband certainly fucked them over.

    Hoa Truong , 2016-02-28 03:12:11
    Hillary Clinton, the most greedy woman in the world, but she couldn't transform a dream comes true in 2008, an unpopulated candidate Barack Obama to be chosen the Democrat's presidential candidate. During 8 years in White House, a first lady seemed quiet, even though the scandal Monica Lewinsky. Moreover, the time she was elected as Senator, she had not any bright idea...when she became the Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary left the black spot of Benghazi that measures the ability of the US president and recently the email scandal could be harmed her campaign. On the other hand, the Democrat should empty the leader, so they chose the recycled candidate for 2016 presidential race. People have not much believed on Hillary despite she launches the campaign well with plenty money supported from somewhere else...However, Hillary Clinton has the right to dream, dream and dream to be the first US female president. The dream is just the hope, but it comes true that belongs to the trust of voters. In the US and Western country's history, there is rare the leader's recycle and presidential recycled candidate, but Hillary is the exception.
    Zendjan , 2016-02-28 03:11:01
    If Hillary gets indicted, and with 150 FBI agents currently investigating the email server/Clinton Foundation scandal, that looks increasingly likely, these SC results will be a fart in a hurricane.

    President Carter's advisor and pollster, longtime Dem operative Pat Caddell, said this about the Clinton Foundation/Email scandal on 2/13/2016:

    "This is the greatest scandal in the history of the United States," Caddell said. "They all ought to be indicted. This is worse than Watergate."

    Clinton, he explained, would soon be exposed for using her connections in the State Department to enrich her family, her foundation, and her supporters.

    "They were selling out the national interests of the United States directly to adversaries and others for money," he said. "There is just nothing that satisfies them. They are the greediest white trash I have ever seen."

    Case in point: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

    Informed17 , 2016-02-28 03:08:33
    If this disgusting liar wins Democratic nomination, I am going to vote Republican for the first time in my life. Even Trump is better that this abomination. At least he calls a spade a spade and does not pretend to be what he isn't.
    africanland123 , 2016-02-28 03:01:01
    In theory there might be a chance for Clinton if she embraced the good stuff Sanders stands for. Is she declared he would be her running mate, and she was incorporating big bits of his program. Is she said that what the US needs now is a New Deal and hers is a new Franklin Roosevelt platform of radical change, control of the banks, crushing of corporate interests etc.

    If she talked like that there is in theory a chance that the Sanders people like myself would be interested. But the trouble is she never will: she belongs to the aggressive neo-liberal ideology of Bill Clinton and only adds to that a dose of vicious special interest corporate feminism and pushing Black special interests. That is not a formula most Americans hungry for change see anything in but sheer rubbish.

    Clinton is a crook and nothing she says can be believed except that she will sell out to crooks.

    onevote , 2016-02-28 02:55:30
    Remember...
    South Carolina means NOTHING in the big picture.
    Dems haven't taken the state since 1976!!
    Ain't nothing but a thang!

    Bring on Super Tuesday!!!

    justdoug -> onevote , 2016-02-28 03:14:07
    For the nomination, it's much more relevant than New Hampshire. NH: 24 delegates. SC: 53 delegates
    africanland123 , 2016-02-28 02:54:10
    The left feels betrayed by the Blacks. For decades we have sweated our guts backing the Blacks and this is how they repay us when there is a real candidate for socialist change.
    CaptCowlick -> africanland123 , 2016-02-28 03:34:06
    The left didn't sweat their guts "backing the blacks" because they were after strategic support. The left did it because it was the proper, human thing to do. That's sort of the difference between the left and the right in their attitudes towards fellow humans: intrinsic worth vs strategic usefulness.

    And the "Blacks" aren't some monolithic cult-like voting body - they're not ants..or Evangelicals...

    Xoxarle -> CaptCowlick , 2016-02-28 02:57:18
    What has the Clinton Dynasty done to make ordinary black lives better?

    The opposite side of that coin is record incarceration flowing from their crime bill, job outsourcing thru trade deals, the seeds of the 2008 crash thru repeal of Glass Steagal, and a 20-year period at the apex of executive and then legislative branch power, but a massive increase in inequality while the Clintons enrich themselves at the hands of the oligarchs.

    CaptCowlick -> Xoxarle , 2016-02-28 03:24:25
    If only that ad was steadily playing across all the TVs of South Carolinians for a month or two before this election..."Clinton: making black lives worse." Then the word "black" is crossed out by a chalk-wielding child's hand and the word "all" is written above it...
    gastinel1 -> CaptCowlick , 2016-02-28 03:38:39
    I get damned irritated when certain people keep using the words racist and misogynist to prevent free debate. If blacks are going to vote as a block then we criticize the behavior of the block. Why did they vote on mass for Clinton? its a legitimate question to be answered.

    I do not believe the female "block" vote is nearly as strong but Clinton is still going to try to use it. And using words with sexual innuendo might be in bad taste but it doesn't make the user a "woman hater" any more than a woman pointing to a man's baldness makes her a man hater.

    paulie73 , 2016-02-28 02:43:24
    Ha, Clinton got more votes than Trump in South Carolina...
    taxhaven , 2016-02-28 02:40:51
    After the disappointment of the Obama regime, you'd be forgiven for wondering why any black voter would ever support someone playing the race/black elite card and so slavishly pandering to ethnic groups...
    somebody_stopme , 2016-02-28 02:38:52
    Voter turn out 2008 - 540000+
    Voter turn out 2016- 360000+

    Clearly shows democrats are going to lose general if they are not motivated and i don't Clinton with her message of keeping same as it is going to inspire many.

    President Trump on the way!!

    icyyeti , 2016-02-28 02:35:21
    black voters are actually rather conservative, hence their support the relatively conservative Hillary
    crap_in -> icyyeti , 2016-02-28 02:41:08
    All voters want jobs, they at least know Hillary does not even care about them.
    Vladimir Makarenko -> icyyeti , 2016-02-28 02:48:09
    South Carolina black communities are very poor, uneducated and centered around their churches, which in turn are controlled by black establishment giving them some money through various social grants. I hope it helps to understand who and how forced black voters there how they have to vote.
    africanland123 , 2016-02-28 02:32:44
    If you cannot have the best you have to choose the lesser of two evils.

    We can't have Sanders and real change. That's clear by now. Thanks, old man, for you great brave effort and for bringing back Socialism to the USA after nearly a century in the dog house. That is an amazing feat in itself --

    So, it's either Black special interests plus aggressive careerist neo-liberal feminism or a glorious and unpredictable populist who shoves the PC gang.

    I am choosing Trump.

    Paul Ryan , 2016-02-28 02:29:17
    This election seems to be about the anti establishment and a change from the status quo. But heres the problem for the Democrats:

    Nationally in the polls, 1 on 1, Trump beats Clinton in a head to head. Sanders beats Trump 1 on 1 in a head to head.

    Assuming Trump wins, Sanders is the more favorable candidate to beat Trump.

    lurgee -> Paul Ryan , 2016-02-28 02:37:45
    Actually, according to Real Clear Politics summary of polls, Clinton beats Trump.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

    Interestingly, Clinton struggles against other Republican candidates.

    Sanders may seem to have a slight advantage against other candidates, but it isn't really a valid comparison. Voters know Clinton. She's been relentlessly attacked for over 20 years. Sanders has barely been mentioned.

    Once the rightwing hate machine goes to work on him, he would likely struggle.

    Carly435 , 2016-02-28 02:17:50
    We interrupt this forum frenzy for a brief PSA:

    February 24th (just 3 days ago) : Reuters poll gives Bernie Sanders lead for nomination

    A national poll shows Bernie Sanders leading Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

    The Reuters poll for "Possible Democratic presidential candidates in 2016" on Tuesday showed Sanders leading Clinton 41.7 percent to 35.5 percent, with 22.9 percent of respondents saying they wouldn't vote. The five-day tracking poll shows Clinton and Sanders swapping leads since Feb. 6, and the Vermont democratic socialist holding the advantage since Feb. 19.

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/24/reuters-poll-gives-bernie-sanders-lead-nomination/80845364/

    Bigger picture: Bernie was expected to lose by double digits in SC.

    Thank you and carry on.

    prairie , 2016-02-28 02:15:57
    After 8 years of that knucklehead George W. Bush, then 8 more years of the Flim Flam Man Obama, I thought nothing can get any worse than that.....WRONG.
    The world has a new nightmare to wake up to, the sociopath Hillary or the demagogue The Donald.
    Xoxarle -> prairie , 2016-02-28 02:20:09
    At least Trump recognizes the fiasco that was the Iraq war. Hillary isn't the least bit contrite for that vote, nor her role in destabilizing Libya not helping to grow the ISIS threat thru inaction in Iraq.
    Ja Koe , 2016-02-28 02:12:25
    More articles on issues instead of who is ahead in the polls would be much more beneficial to a democracy. I'm so tired of reading the pundits talk about everything but how we can get our government to work for it's citizens, never discussing the pros and cons of the policies each candidate is proposing or fact checking. The "Media" is lazy, corrupt, or both.
    smalltownboy , 2016-02-28 02:11:07
    Let's put this in terms the Bernie bros can understand: Hillary crushed it in South Carolina.
    Larry Stem -> smalltownboy, 2016-02-28 02:17:38
    reality check there HRC-bot: HRC has no chance in SC in the general. consequently, SC is irrelevant

    LOL.

    Adoniran -> smalltownboy, 2016-02-28 02:25:28
    Let me put this in terms you can understand:

    Have fun losing to Republicans in November should the DNC and media establishment successfully force the primary coronation of their queen. All of that legitimate excitement and momentum that Sanders lost will vanish into thin air, and some of it will go to independent and Republican voters. So yuck it up. Americans evidently need to learn a really hard lesson before reality finally penetrates their collective skulls.

    I hope you like oligarchy.

    paulie73 -> Larry Stem , 2016-02-28 02:25:45
    South Carolina sends delegates based on votes won to determine the Democratic nominee. Consequently, SC is relevant. LOL.
    Erik Frederiksen , 2016-02-28 02:11:05
    Anyone who is considering a vote for H Clinton who is also concerned about global warming should know what NASA's former lead climate scientist had to say about her global warming plan:

    ""It's just plain silly," said James Hansen, a climate change researcher who headed Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies for over 30 years. "No, you cannot solve the problem without a fundamental change, and that means you have to make the price of fossil fuels honest. Subsidizing solar panels is not going to solve the problem."

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/29/hillary-clinton-climate-change-plan

    bigsky83 -> Nat Norland , 2016-02-28 02:16:52
    She is just as complicit in the coup against our country. So yeah, we need to grow some spines and start speaking up and acting. No more of this " well she's not AS bad crap." We're losing our democracy, our freedom, our path to a decent life. It's time to wake up. It's Bernie or bust.
    Larry Stem Nat Norland , 2016-02-28 02:20:25
    no, HRC is a republican as in uber hawk, neoliberal, corrupt, wall street toady.
    why would I vote for that?

    the only difference is the repubs are complete Neanderthals, and that's an insult to Neanderthals.

    africanland123 -> Nat Norland , 2016-02-28 02:23:23
    I am sickened at the notion of the old clapped out, crooked Clinton gang back in the White House.

    This is just a crooked coalition of Black special interests and ultra-aggressive feminist careerists.

    Xoxarle , 2016-02-28 02:02:40
    Clinton will lose to Trump, she is just another corrupt establishment candidate that will wither under the same blasts of contempt that sunk Bush, Walker, Rubio and Graham, the war hawk neocon conservatives that are her ideological bedfellows.

    This is a massive tactical error by Af-Am voters whose fidelity to a dynastic family who have only delivered misery to their communities, while taking money from her Wall Street paymasters, is perverse. What has she done for them?

    tesla35 , 2016-02-28 01:58:36
    My dear blacks, you are not only ruining your future, but also many others'.You have been made a vote bank for the corrupted establishment; it is a pity that you are not realizing.
    Woops1gottasneeze , 2016-02-28 01:51:21
    People get what they deserve. So sad America. Same thing on the other side of the aisle with Trump. I guess America is bought and sold. You can stick a fork in it!
    DianaInLA , 2016-02-28 01:47:11
    The environment that supports human life is hanging by a thread. The people who vote for the 1%'er Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, Military-Industrial complex candidate will be held to account. This election is not a joke. It's between a political revolution and one in the streets.
    polisalwaysright -> DianaInLA , 2016-02-28 01:53:17

    The people who vote for the 1%'er Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, Military-Industrial complex candidate will be held to account.

    Do you think most of the people who voted for Hillary today even know about the crimes of Goldman Sachs?

    polisalwaysright , 2016-02-28 01:44:19
    Looks like the Sanders revolution is already over. One can't become president of the US now without winning a significant portion of the Black and Hispanic community vote (Bernie's liberal voters are learning this the hard way). Obama won around 98% of the black vote in 2012. That's North Korea tier numbers! Hillary Clinton will get similar percentage of votes among minorities in 2016.

    The US is heading in the direction of Brasil (this is not a good thing). Elections from now will be decided mainly by demographics rather than policies of the candidates.

    ID7004073 , 2016-02-28 01:43:55
    Everyone, especially African- American voters in the South should just remember that at 50% employment there is still 50% more unemployment if they vote to continue the Clinton Dynasty. Then it will be too late.

    Hillary has always been untrustworthy!

    Free2Fly , 2016-02-28 01:20:59
    "In a statement released by his campaign, Sanders said: " Let me be clear on one thing tonight. This campaign is just beginning ."

    Yes, it has just begun, -Media Blackout as thousands of Bernie Sanders supporters march in 45 Cities.

    http://usuncut.com/politics/media-blackout-as-thousands-of-bernie-supporters-march-in-45-cities/

    PostTrotskyite , 2016-02-28 01:15:57
    Hillary should be running her campaign from a jail cell.

    Her most recent charges of corruption have to do with infiltrating the corporate media:
    https://theintercept.com/2016/02/25/tv-pundits-praise-hillary-clinton-on-air-fail-to-disclose-financial-ties-to-her-campaign

    [Feb 27, 2016] Clinton Trump both representatives of oligarchy - Jill Stein, Green Party presidential candidate

    Notable quotes:
    "... How is your campaign going? ..."
    "... Let me assume that Donald Trump will be the Republican Party candidate and Hillary Clinton for the Democrats. Give me your thumb nails sketch of those two likely opponents. ..."
    RT Op-Edge
    George Galloway interviews the presidential candidate of the US Green Party, Jill Stein, 'a better woman than Clinton; a better democrat than Sanders!'

    George Galloway: How is your campaign going?

    Dr. Jill Stein: It is going great, it is going game busters. There is a rebellion going on in the US, as in much of the world, and for good reason - we are in crisis and people really want to see change. You cannot have a revolution inside of a counter-revolutionary party. This is a big, deep and long fight. And it can't simply be passed on to Hillary Clinton and we think that Bernie Sanders is running a very principled and powerful campaign; he is riding that wave of revolt. But unfortunately he is in a party that has a track record for basically sabotaging its rebels. It has done a good job of doing that in the past from Dennis Kucinich to Jesse Jackson to Howard Dean, whether they use a PR campaign like the 'Dean's scream' to bring down the Dean candidacy. Also Jesse Jackson was sabotaged by a PR by the DNC. The Democratic Party has its ways of reigning people in if they try to rebel. The bottom line is that we are in political system in the US, which is funded by predatory banks and fossil fueled giants and war profiteers. So, we really need to reject that system, we say to reject the lesser evil so we can stand up and really fight for the greater good.

    G.G: Let me assume that Donald Trump will be the Republican Party candidate and Hillary Clinton for the Democrats. Give me your thumb nails sketch of those two likely opponents.

    J.S: Unfortunately, they have an awful lot in common. They both support a very strong military, they support a budget in which 54 percent of our tax dollars are discretionary budget is going to the military to fight these wars which are not making us or the world a safer place. They are firing back at us madly, creating failed states and refugee crisis and worst terrorist threats actually. So, they both fail to see the picture on that account. They are both very much representatives of the oligarchy: Hillary Clinton who was on the Board of Directors for Walmart.

    There is no more oppressive corporation for workers' rights and women than Walmart, who never found a word that she didn't support. Donald Trump – it is hard to say exactly where he stands because he changes his mind all the time. One thing is very clear, he is not friendly to immigrants. For him not to understand that in our country we are all immigrants and in fact that immigrants are really the vitality and the diversity of our communities, our economy, our culture. This is a very dangerous thing - this is a slippery slope to fascism. There is nothing inspiring, enlightened about either of those campaigns.

    They are both representatives of oligarchy and at this point it is unclear whether the Republicans will allow Donald Trump to be nominated. There is talk now Paul Ryan being a brokered candidate at the Republican convention. He is sort of the establishment of the Republican Party, which is very much at war with Donald Trump.

    ... ... ...

    [Feb 26, 2016] Can a Christian Party Survive

    Notable quotes:
    "... Christian Right candidates have always had a difficult task in running for president (none has ever even gotten close to the nomination) but their even worse track record this cycle-in contrast to that of Donald Trump-is a perfect window into trends that will set the pace of American politics for decades to come: Americans are moving away from Christianity, including people most likely to vote Republican. In this changed politics, which exists right now, the GOP can only hope to succeed by greatly expanding its appeal to non-Christians. ..."
    "... While the process of secularization has been slower-moving in the U.S. compared to Europe, it is now proceeding rapidly. ..."
    "... The trend away from faith is only bound to increase with time. ..."
    "... Looked at over the longer term, the trend is even more discernible. In 1972, just 5.1 percent of Americans said they had no religious affiliation, according to the University of Chicago's General Social Survey . In 2014, that number was 20.7 percent, an increase of more than 400 percent. ..."
    The American Conservative
    In the past several years, many trees have been felled and pixels electrocuted in the service of discussion about the impact of Hispanics on the American electorate. No one knows for sure which way they'll vote in the future but everyone is interested in discussing it. Curiously, though, an even larger political shift is taking place yet receiving almost no attention whatsoever from political reporters-the emergence of post-Christian America.

    Judging solely from the rhetoric and actions of the Republican presidential candidates this cycle, you would be hard-pressed to tell much difference between 2016 and 1996, the year that the Christian Coalition was ruling the roost in GOP politics. Sure there's a lot more talk about the Middle East than before, but when it comes to public displays of religiosity, many of the would-be presidents have spent the majority of their candidacies effectively auditioning for slots on the Trinity Broadcast Network.

    Even Donald Trump, the thrice-married casino magnate turned television host, has gone about reincarnating himself as a devout Christian, despite his evident lack of familiarity with the doctrines and practices of the faith.

    Thus far, however, the public faith efforts of the candidates not married to a former nude model have all been for naught. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, both of whom won Iowa in past years, dropped out after failing dismally in the Hawkeye State's caucuses. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal quit months before even a single vote had been cast. Texas senator Ted Cruz, despite being significantly better financed and supported by more conservative leaders than previous Christian nationalist candidates, hasn't been able to do more than eke out a victory in Iowa.

    Christian Right candidates have always had a difficult task in running for president (none has ever even gotten close to the nomination) but their even worse track record this cycle-in contrast to that of Donald Trump-is a perfect window into trends that will set the pace of American politics for decades to come: Americans are moving away from Christianity, including people most likely to vote Republican. In this changed politics, which exists right now, the GOP can only hope to succeed by greatly expanding its appeal to non-Christians.

    While the process of secularization has been slower-moving in the U.S. compared to Europe, it is now proceeding rapidly. A 2014 study by Pew Research found that 23 percent of Americans say they're "unaffiliated" with any religious tradition, up from 20 percent just 3 years earlier. The Public Religion Research Institute confirmed the statistic as well with a 2014 poll based on 50,000 interviews indicating that 23 percent of respondents were unaffiliated.

    The trend away from faith is only bound to increase with time. According to Pew, about 36 percent of adults under the age of 50 have opted out of religion. At present, claiming no faith is the fastest growing "religion" in the United States. Between 2007 and 2012, the number of people claiming "nothing in particular" increased by 2.3 percent, those saying they were agnostics increased by 1.2 percent and those claiming to be atheists increased by 0.8 percent. No actual religious group has experienced anywhere near such growth during this time period.

    Looked at over the longer term, the trend is even more discernible. In 1972, just 5.1 percent of Americans said they had no religious affiliation, according to the University of Chicago's General Social Survey. In 2014, that number was 20.7 percent, an increase of more than 400 percent.

    [Feb 25, 2016] US election: Is it time to Ebb with Jeb?

    Notable quotes:
    "... American politics is all about selling a candidate to mostly ignorant, shallow, and gullible voters. There is significant truth in such a contentious assumption. Look at some of the characters of past presidents and today take a hard look at the candidates. It is a pretty scary bunch. While knowledge can be acquired, moral values and character cannot. Voters get what they deserve so be careful. ..."
    "... Its very undemocratic to elect successive members of a dynasty, and really ironic since America is built on immigrants fleeing despotic European monarchies. It seems as though people in the US need to construct a mythological back story to strengthen their confidence in the world. Maybe behind the American Dream is a feeling that unrestrained capitalism is too powerful and too unjust? ..."
    www.bbc.com
    347. Posted by Chris A on 6 Feb 2016 23:55

    343. Remember it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-0G9-_v_Yo quite the scariest politician America ever spawned! His sanctimonious psychopathy included torture and the killing of at least 100,000 in Iraq without a second of remorse.

    Ted Cruz is following in Jr's whako footsteps: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/here-am-i-lord-use-me-ted-cruzs-dad-says-holy-ghost-authorized-white-house-run/

    346. Posted by Tinkersdamn on 6 Feb 2016 20:37

    So the vampire-squid strokes its chin with one tentacle while proclaiming it's too big to jail, big enough to take the country down, and big media takes a pass ---- whole lotta ebbing with J E B going on.

    344. Posted by What no bonus on 6 Feb 2016 20:02

    Beammeup

    I disagree that USA is finished. Yes it has far too much debt, but it has a relatively small population compared to both its geographic size and natural resources.
    Big issue in next 50 years will be food production given the world population will top 10 billion by 2050 and on current growth 28 billion by 2100.
    Current immigration issues in Europe & US will be nothing by comparison

    342. Posted by beammeup on 6 Feb 2016 19:18

    Why are the candidates....liberal or conservative....spending millions to win the presidency???????? Does it matter to the puppet master who wins????????

    340. Posted by beammeup on 6 Feb 2016 18:23

    @339 Chris A
    ----
    Hello Chris.most people are aware and agree with your point of view....even the Americans. They just don't have anyone to vote for so have to pick the best of a bad lot. Why would anyone spend millions on a campaign for the presidency...when the wage for the presidency is what ...perhaps $200,000.00 per year. Maybe its the power. I think the USofA is finished...watch China.

    339. Posted by Chris A on 6 Feb 2016 17:41

    Jeb's brother (Jr), Rumsfeld & Cheney were directly responsible for this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35511425 and regrettable that Obama would prefer a cover up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/americas/8048774.stm For shame, America!

    338. Posted by Transfixed by the Lights of an Oncoming Locomotive on 6 Feb 2016 15:13

    @ 337 Chris A

    If you get a chance Chris read Big Oil ,,,, it's a hell of a read.

    So unbelievable that some of it is unbelievable if you know what I mean.

    337. Posted by Chris A on 6 Feb 2016 15:09

    334. Hard to argue: "The Bush's, some of the most dangerous characters on this Planet." The US Supreme Court (loaded by Bush Jr) has enacted some pretty extreme positions: 2nd Amendment 'Well regulated militia.. ' repeal*, Citizen's United, Voters Rights Act repeal, Hobby lobby, etc. * Two Justices' are downright scary: http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/07/scotus-refuses-to-hear-2nd-amendment-ass

    334. Posted by Transfixed by the Lights of an Oncoming Locomotive on 6 Feb 2016 14:28

    'Big Oil & Their Bankers In The Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network'

    The Bush's, some of the most dangerous characters on this Planet.
    May they never see the light of day.

    333. Posted by Chris A on 6 Feb 2016 14:26

    332. Certainly not boring (sociopaths rarely are), Bush Jr's 8 years drove America to its lowest point since the Civil War! Jr won Florida by 500 votes in 2000 as Jeb eliminated 48,000 blacks from the voter pool ('scrub lists') - criminality of the highest order: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_And of course, 'The Voting Rights Act of 1965' was repealed by the SC last year!

    332. Posted by Jim on 6 Feb 2016 14:08

    John Bush is simply boring. I didn't care for his brother but at least he didn't bore me. Too many of us remember Governor Bush canceling a recount on the advice of John Roberts so the conservative State Supreme court could appoint his brother, the second place finisher as the winner of the presidential election

    331. Posted by Chris A on 6 Feb 2016 13:06

    320. Jeb Bush can't relate to the 'anger' in America (as Bernie and Donald manage to navigate): http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35406324 as he and his brother (Jr) were instrumental in maintaining the factors that led to the decline of middle class incomes and jobs: offshoring, business consolidation (anti trust dumped by Reagan) & a fearful public as a consequence of continuous-war since 2003.

    330. Posted by What no bonus on 6 Feb 2016 12:14

    The real issue is that none of the candidates have come up with a solution to the fix the problem of the impact of globalisation on the middle classes - who previously if they got a college degree and worked hard would be rewarded with a good standard of living, that's no longer a guarantee (although it helps).....

    Trump is coming with ideas (protectionist rubbish) buts it's making an impact.

    321. Posted by Chris A on 6 Feb 2016 00:46

    What is the product Jeb can offer? His brother (Jr) set the Middle East on fire: for-profit Iraq war debacle that left that country ungovernable. Similarly Yemen, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt have deposed dictators and are ungovernable. Assad in Syria, under attack by the US, created Isil - The US is the ME bad actor! http://www.thenation.com/article/the-biggest-winners-of-the-arab-spring-dictators/

    320. Posted by margaret howard on 6 Feb 2016 00:43

    315 What

    ´The British monarch can:

    Choose the Prime Minister

    Dismiss ministers and governments

    Dissolve Parliament

    Refuse to agree to legislation passed by Parliament

    Dismiss the governments of other countries of which she is monarch

    Pardon convicted criminals


    Declare a state of emergency

    Issue proclamations

    Command the army and raise a personal militia

    317. Posted by Liberal is a Religion on 6 Feb 2016 00:38

    At least Hillary can make even Vladimir Putin laugh, with her reset button buffoonery.
    She probably tells people about having to dodge sniper fire to get it to him.
    She would probably turn to dust, if she every accidentally told the truth.

    303. Posted by margaret howard on 5 Feb 2016 23:03

    I know of no other major country in the world that has turned its elections into such never ending razzmatazz. It sounds more like the carnival in Rio than the serious business of electing a leader.

    At time it is even reminiscent of the beer hall oratory in thirties Munich.

    299. Posted by Encif on 5 Feb 2016 22:00

    A relevant question, perhaps, is whether the United States is governable? Conflicting and unrealistic expectations are the daily menu. Politicians made promises about everything and anything without care. A nation so diverse in moral values and character cannot endure for long.

    296. Posted by Encif on 5 Feb 2016 21:43

    American politics is all about selling a candidate to mostly ignorant, shallow, and gullible voters. There is significant truth in such a contentious assumption. Look at some of the characters of past presidents and today take a hard look at the candidates. It is a pretty scary bunch. While knowledge can be acquired, moral values and character cannot. Voters get what they deserve so be careful.

    292. Posted by Gus72 on 5 Feb 2016 21:05

    "Money can't buy you votes".

    Surely Jon Sopel doesn't actually believe that when it's no secret all but two candidates receive similar funding?

    Just because the money invested in Bush didn't pay off doesn't mean the same billionaires, corporations & superPACS will stop buying other politicians. They still have Cruz, Rubio & Clinton to act in their best interest.

    287. Posted by Skull-And-Crossbones on 5 Feb 2016 20:28

    Posted by claudiusrex hours ago

    All the Republicans are disgustingly shallow in character and intelligence some like Ted Cruz are positively sinister ... Son of Satan ... Cruz's unbelievable vile bigotry and religious pathology can be examined first hand... Stupidity seems a Republican requirement...
    -------------
    Why so unfair by excluding the Democrats from that?
    Touch of bias? ;-)

    274. Posted by Philip Iszatt on 5 Feb 2016 19:51

    It's very undemocratic to elect successive members of a dynasty, and really ironic since America is built on immigrants fleeing despotic European monarchies. It seems as though people in the US need to construct a mythological back story to strengthen their confidence in the world. Maybe behind the American Dream is a feeling that unrestrained capitalism is too powerful and too unjust?

    [Feb 25, 2016] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/22/marco-rubio-cant-win-nevada-caucuses-us-election-2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... From Mormonism to Catholicism, huh? From magical underwear to magical hats, that's a track record of success. ..."
    "... Zero experience but gee he looks good in a tailored suit and high heels. ..."
    "... Trump's going to win and campaign on a platform of putting Hillary in jail ..."
    "... Bear in mind that Rubio is endorsed and funded by both Adelson and Singer. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The Guardian

    Timothy Wing , 2016-02-23 02:28:56
    From Mormonism to Catholicism, huh? From magical underwear to magical hats, that's a track record of success.
    GumNutter , 2016-02-23 02:17:37
    Zero experience but gee he looks good in a tailored suit and high heels.
    RobertHickson2014 , 2016-02-23 02:14:48
    Marco Rubio is nothing more than an empty suit, being propped up by the Republican Establishment to collect all the 'anybody, but Trump or Cruz votes'

    They mean to tie up the nomination and rig a brokered convention; almost identical to what is happening to the Democratic Party.

    Barry_Seal , 2016-02-23 01:50:35
    Trump's going to win and campaign on a platform of putting Hillary in jail
    Colin Wright , 2016-02-23 01:50:19
    Bear in mind that Rubio is endorsed and funded by both Adelson and Singer.

    That means he's got deep, deep pockets. It also means he managed to outbid everyone else for their support.

    Kevin Lim Colin Wright , 2016-02-23 01:58:18
    Bush had deeper pockets ... and look where that got him

    [Feb 23, 2016] Ted Cruz fires top staffer for spreading false story about Marco Rubio and Bible

    www.theguardian.com
    jisames , 2016-02-23 02:32:56
    This Cruz guy is a fuckin sleazeball. I thought he is meant to be all righteous, but for someone so God fearing has employed some reprehensible techniques to attempt to get the vote.
    Doornail jisames , 2016-02-23 02:42:46
    But surely since by becoming President he would be doing God's will
    - than everything he does to achieve that is God's will, and thus can not be wrong
    - or at least that is most probably how he thinks ...
    .
    http://www.salon.com/2015/07/22/gods_plan_these_gop_candidates_claim_the_almighty_wants_them_to_run /
    "... For a lot of the 16 presidential candidates vying to become the next Commander-in-Chief, the decision to run for higher office was not a political calculation but rather a divine calling from above. Here are 6 Republicans who claim that God called on them to run for President ..."

    https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/44ar5d/months_later_gods_plan_these_gop_candidates_claim /

    skinow , 2016-02-23 02:23:52
    Ted Cruz is the biggest bullshit artist to run for president in modern era. He talks about Washington Cartel, he's part of it and takes all his money from his so called cartel. His slime ball ways make Trump look good. Cruz is more dishonest than Hillary, and that's hard to do.....
    gracedwheels , 2016-02-23 02:21:02
    Let's get this straight :
    Ted Cruz did NOT fire his guy for spreading a false story.
    Ted Cruz fired his guy for getting CAUGHT spreading a false story.
    J.K. Stevens , 2016-02-23 02:20:56
    If Canadian Cruz makes it to the Oval Office, that 'fired' staffer will have a leading role in his Administration.
    RogTheDodge , 2016-02-23 02:12:17
    This Cruz is a nasty piece of work. We can't afford to have a man like this running the country. If this is the level of lies and incompetence of his people, his judgement is far awry. I wouldn't mind if this were the first utterly dishonest attack, but ask Carson.
    Speedsquare , 2016-02-23 02:12:02
    So Cruz got caught red handed in another one of his desperate attempts of getting ahead in the polls and someone's head had to roll. . . No surprise there!
    Samuel Smith , 2016-02-23 02:07:06
    Purely a sacrificial lamb
    Haynonnynonny , 2016-02-23 02:05:00
    A note to evangelicals who vote for Cruz: you fucking idiots.
    kus art , 2016-02-23 01:55:58
    Shady Cruz with his fake sad eyebrows just wants everybody to believe that he's a good guy surrounded by shifty campaign managers. If that were the case he'd make a pretty poor president if he can't even control his own campaign properly...
    Icreatedthisidtocomm , 2016-02-23 01:50:25
    I've seen Cruz twice this week described as oleaginous.
    I was trying to put my finger on his personality. That's it.
    Such a good word. I think I'll use it twice this post.
    Oleaginous Cruz.
    Reminds me of Nixon.
    Vladimir Makarenko Icreatedthisidtocomm , 2016-02-23 02:24:40
    Nixon in comparison just a prankster...And if I remember it right he set up EPA. Cruz would destroy it if gave him few votes. This one is a mirror of Hillary on GOP side - a notion of decency is understood only when profit is expected...
    keepithuman , 2016-02-23 01:47:41
    This is so weird. I mean to put out a false ad in which Marco Rubio disses the Bible is infantile in its conception. Who the hell thought this up? Who authorized it? Is this the level of intelligence of the Cruz campaign? If Rubio had actually done it then that's a different story. But to CHANGE what the guy said is just so brain dead. And this guy Cruz wants to be POTUS? Sorry Ted!

    BusTED!!!

    nataliesutler keepithuman , 2016-02-23 01:54:15
    So you are against the firing of this individual then?
    Speedsquare nataliesutler , 2016-02-23 02:23:48
    Too much money invested in Cruz to fire him although that would have been the right person to let go.
    Vladimir Makarenko keepithuman , 2016-02-23 02:27:36
    And you thought what? These sick clowns are not rocket scientists, their only advantage is their absolute impudence...
    Opinions_Matter , 2016-02-23 01:44:12
    Cruz hires a porn star to work in one of his advertisements and then this. You want this man making decisions at the White House?
    Barry_Seal , 2016-02-23 01:42:02
    My guess is Trump's campaign slogan in the general election is going to be "Jail Hillary"
    creamsoda4280 , 2016-02-23 01:36:08
    Religion should not really have a role in politics , but we will see. It's mostly on values. Abortion, same sex marriage. I am pro-life, however, I am a man. I don't know if men should have a role in abortion since the role of the male is already dying in America. I am a Christian. Most Democrats and socialists do not like God. Some Republicans don't either. Cruz can't win, but we better cannot allow another president who praises Islam, a religion that is deadly as the West Nile Virus. We have leftists that disparage Christianity, but shower on Islam. That is what is likely to destroy the country.
    Toneg714 creamsoda4280 , 2016-02-23 01:47:17
    Please check your assumptions at the door. The things you think you know may in fact not be true.

    Most Democrats and Socialists do not like God? That is nonsense at every possible level. You may be correct in stating that many Democrats and Socialists resist the narrow minded right wing Christian view that cherry picks Bible verses to try to support a philosophy that is fundamentally against the philosophy espoused by Jesus.

    Jesus is a liberal. Please read the New Testament for what is says. This is an obvious fact. The radical right wing Christians have a project to rewrite the Bible because it does not say what they want it to say.

    Stop accepting what your religious authorities tell you. Read the Bible.

    Colin Wright , 2016-02-23 01:31:47
    It's nice that Cruz and Rubio are scratching each other's eyes out while Trump plows ahead.

    While Cruz would be the ideal Republican nominee -- he couldn't possibly win the general election -- Rubio has been bought and paid for by the Israel lobby, so I'll take Trump and hope whoever the Democrats nominate can manage to exploit the glaring vulnerabilities in his record.

    vaman , 2016-02-23 01:01:05
    Lying about a candidate's fealty to the bible--that shows you the issues that Republican voters and GOP candidates care about. What priorities! Boobs!
    Chub69 vaman , 2016-02-23 01:05:02
    That was one staff member and he was fired. Don't be stupid... Also the duality that is American politics is a sham designed to divide, don't be stupid...
    ConventionPrevention Chub69 , 2016-02-23 01:27:12
    Actually he is not "stupid," he is spot on. The GOP does "rule" according to their zealous, evangelical beliefs. They try to merge their poisonous religion into the legislation they sign into law. They want to stack the supreme court with an evangelical judge who would make judgements not according to law, but according to some arcane, religious belief which is wrong. If you can't see that, you must not be an American. You should take care calling people "stupid" just for forming and voicing an opinion.
    WickedwitchNOLA , 2016-02-23 00:58:37
    Cruz is the definition of sleaze. The huckster hawking the Bible-- and him throwing a staffer under the bus doesn't fool me at all. And the more he keeps with his on/off fake "Texas drawl", the more I reflexively want to give Texas back to Mexico (with some caveats, of course)...
    vaman WickedwitchNOLA , 2016-02-23 01:02:03
    Cruzy is a sleazy televangelist trying to dupe all the low IQ rubes who are conservatives/Republicans in America!
    LarryLinn , 2016-02-23 00:31:25
    Cruz cannot appoint an honest campaign spokesman, but, Ted still wants the country to wait so that he can appoint a Supreme court Justice.
    Janeee , 2016-02-23 00:26:28
    What a weird, parallel universe American politics has become.
    nataliesutler Janeee , 2016-02-23 00:34:23
    Parallel to what?
    Janeee nataliesutler , 2016-02-23 00:42:24
    It's parallel to any normal political or moral universe. Couldn't American politics stage a political scandal about something that matters: tax evasion, lying about their history, breaking promises, illegal campaign funds, even some good old-fashioned sexual shenanigans? These would be preferable to an uproar about whether Rubio believes the Bible has all / some / none of the answers. In what universe should this issue count for anything?
    Thomas B , 2016-02-23 00:21:46
    "No answers in it" "all the answers are in it". Shit. This us the 21st century? Either of these two creeps (be they true believers or huge cynics) have a shot at the white house!? I can't believe this it the real world
    Steve Haigh , 2016-02-23 00:14:08
    i expect most Islamic countries have the same shit going on, that's what the USA is becoming, the christian Taliban taking over
    Rogelio Hernandez Fitch , 2016-02-23 00:13:31
    How about sacking someone over misrepresentation of the constitution? Wasn't Cruz that called the Supreme Court a bunch of unelected lawyers?
    number7westiepiehead , 2016-02-22 23:52:32
    It's like these politicians are saying "look at me, I'm so pious, this will get me elected" - instead, they remind me of used car salesmen who tell you how good their car is, all the while knowing that they are lying through their teeth...and this is the level of deceit required to make a person the President of the United States?
    PammyLuLu , 2016-02-22 23:33:28
    Cruz knew exactly what was happening and made Tyler the scapegoat. There's a verse somewhere in the bible that opposes long sleeved shirts. Does Cruz wear only short sleeved shirts? Is he going to have a christian test Americans must pass? Why do Christians--who seem to disrespect Jews--think one must believe a Jew is our personal savior to get into heaven? Jesus was not a Christian. He was a Jew. Ted Cruz will be burning people at the stake who don't believe his version of the bible.
    RalphFilthy , 2016-02-22 23:30:39
    Intelligent people try their best to distance themselves from the Bible (even if they are in secret "believers" to some extent).

    In the US however, if you're not shrieking about how a white Jesus rode about on dinosaurs firing a semi-automatic like some crack-addled nightmare, your "morals" and "integrity" are in question.

    I can't wait for the US to GROW THE F**K UP and dispense with this fairytale nonsense.

    AbFalsoQuodLibet RalphFilthy , 2016-02-22 23:47:45

    Intelligent people try their best to distance themselves from the Bible

    A sweeping and erroneous statement if ever I saw one.

    Mohan Das , 2016-02-22 23:26:20
    Anyone who believes all the answers are in the bible should have his or her head examined. A book written by men of a certain ethnic group some 1500 years ago has all the answers!

    It is as unbelievable as the stories in the bible that Ted, the master crook, did not know of the video. Tyler was the scapegoat

    BarcaIrish , 2016-02-22 23:24:24
    And these people are serious candidates to be the most powerful person in the world..
    What a pathetic circus of bigots this has become. This is very worrying now
    talenttruth , 2016-02-22 23:23:41
    They may be sanctimonious, condescending faux- "Christian" hypocrites, but they are delusional in "thinking" the USA is a theocracy.
    PamelaKatz , 2016-02-22 23:16:00
    Cruz campaigners were also the ones who told Iowa caucus goers that Carson was withdrawing from the race and that they should give their votes to Cruz. These are not accidents. This is Cruz strategy.
    HarryPrince , 2016-02-22 23:14:16
    I would question a politician's commitment to the bible also. As in, why on earth are they committed? Shouldn't they be committed to 'reality' and governing properly in the modern age. The USA has always been a scary place to Asian and Middle Eastern countries who don't possess nuclear capability. Now, it is becoming genuinely entrenched as a scary place to even the western world.
    busylittlebee , 2016-02-22 23:10:55
    If Cruz becomes president, Will Canada accept refugees?
    busylittlebee , 2016-02-22 22:58:28
    Rubio thinks the Bible has "all the answers in it" Trump, Hilary pretend they think the Bible has "all the answers in it" Bernie knows the Bible doesn't have "all the answers in it" but still panders to the religious right, Cruz thinks the Bible has "all the answers in it" and ignores it's rules. Oh for a candidate who actually would say "not many answers in it"
    paparossi , 2016-02-22 22:55:58
    Cruz is just throwing the guy overboard because the whole Cruz enterprise keeps getting caught out with typical little GOP dirty tricks like scare emails and phony reports about other candidates dropping out. Sanctimonious hypocrite.
    AbFalsoQuodLibet , 2016-02-22 22:54:45
    The problem for Cruz here is that it feeds into the existing narrative of him as a congenital liar. I'm not saying that he is, merely that the narrative is out there.

    That's a very bad narrative to have floating around, and twice as ironic given the presence of Trump in the race.

    nataliesutler AbFalsoQuodLibet , 2016-02-22 22:56:46
    It hasn't hurt Clinton. She has the longest resume of lies.
    AbFalsoQuodLibet nataliesutler , 2016-02-22 23:02:44
    I would say that Clinton is more of a 'stretcher of truth' or 'congenital parser' than a straight-out liar.

    I see where you're coming from, and I agree that Hillary is, how should we put it, somewhat careless with facts at times. Well, rather often.

    But she doesn't do the Big Lie like Trump does, and she doesn't resort to the desperate and frankly rather amateurish dirty-tricks efforts of the Cruz campaign. Instead it's a continual slow drip-drip of superficially correct information which upon close examination starts falling apart.

    nataliesutler AbFalsoQuodLibet , 2016-02-22 23:13:51
    Careless doesn't even begin to describe Hillary Clinton. She has told so many whoppers no one could ever catch up with her.
    Hallatt , 2016-02-22 22:52:22
    These Christian clowns along with the Donald show their real colours while rolling in the mud and breeding division and hatred. Does anyone see any real difference with these religious bigots and those of ISIS or the Israeli Government.

    More of the same.

    GregPlatt , 2016-02-22 22:51:21
    It's certain that Cruz is running a low campaign, constantly looking for things his opponent have said or done that would look bad in the eyes of the devout Evangelicals he is courting. He gets his underlings to do the dirty work, though, so they can be sacked if they stuff up or go too far. Rick Tyler stuffed up by getting the quote wrong. He believed what he wanted to believe and didn't think the situation through. Even if what Tyler quoted Rubio as saying had been what he thought, why would he have said it? That should have rung alarm bells and gotten Tyler to check the quote for authenticity.

    What is disgraceful in Rubio's conduct, however, is different. He is engaged in the ostentatious display of his religiosity so as to seek the regard of others. People should recite Luke 18:9-14 at him.

    Whitt , 2016-02-22 22:40:40
    With Cruz and Rubio each now vying for the #2 spot to make himself the only alternative to Trump, expect this fight to only escalate in nastiness.
    AbFalsoQuodLibet Whitt , 2016-02-22 22:58:50
    The problem for Cruz is that he isn't aiming for the establishment lane at all. His whole career and all his moves the last few years - including shutting down the government - have been based on two premises:

    1) There is a large angry base willing to vote in decisive numbers for a hard-line, no-compromise politician, and

    2) This base actually is so large that if fully mobilized, the moderate establishment lane voters can be ignored.

    Well, Trump and Sanders have both monopolized (1) in their respective parties and with independents (and with some cross-over appeal), whereas (2) probably is a fallacy and always was.

    The delegate math doesn't look good for Cruz. He really would have to over-perform in the SEC states on March 1st, otherwise it may all be over.

    Whitt AbFalsoQuodLibet , 2016-02-22 23:21:53
    Check out the detailed response I just made to sdkeller72. Cruz is in better shape than Rubio is for Super Tuesday. Both will survive and both will keep going, with neither able to beat Trump. It's going to be a three-man race for some time to come, and the longer it goes on, the more it favors Trump. Witness the delegate count to date:

    Trump - 60
    Cruz - 11
    Rubio - 10
    Kasich - 5
    Carson - 3

    AbFalsoQuodLibet Whitt , 2016-02-22 23:46:07

    Cruz is in better shape than Rubio is for Super Tuesday.

    His ground game is excellent, I agree. Top notch. But have you seen the Channel 2 Action News poll (referred to in the Guardian live blog a few minutes ago)?

    Cruz' Georgia numbers are appalling! He comes a weak third to the surging Rubio. In Georgia! If the poll numbers anything like resemble the final outcome, and if they are replicated across other SEC states, Cruz' campaign is effectively over on March 1st. No exaggeration.

    If however, Cruz can match expectations in the South, I agree with you that it will be a three-man race. I also agree that a 3-man race favours Trump.

    But this could actually turn into a 2-man race sooner than I think anybody expected...

    Hallatt aortic , 2016-02-22 23:01:56
    A nation comprised of 27% druggies certainly fits the Darwin profile for breeding dinosaurs.

    Ancient civilizations found it useful to employ drugs to make zombie drones of the workers. Easier to control the idle mob. The Romans had the collesiums to keep the zombies happy, we today use sports, music and non reality movies and TV to drown out though and logic.

    The Donald Trumps plays a game similar to Adolf and his Brown Shirt crew. Thinking takes energy and couch potatoes like potato chips and beer.

    Etaoin Shrdlu , 2016-02-22 22:34:02
    "Got a good book there, all the answers in it," quoth Rubio. And a right useful thing that is, too. I was just wondering what the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is, so I decided to look it up:

    1 Kings 7:23 --
    " And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about ." So, pi is equal to three ( π = 3 )!

    Jolly fine thing our politicians are so astute! And, now that I have found the Oracle of Oracles, I'll be looking for the next winning PowerBall numbers. Probably to be found somewhere in Revelations....

    Davesnothereman , 2016-02-22 22:31:27
    Who hangs around in hotel lobbies clutching their bible?
    maleficent Davesnothereman , 2016-02-22 23:06:11
    Raving, religious nutters, that's who. I also thought church and state were to be kept separate in US politics, but I guess that's the part of the Constitution they choose to ignore.
    nataliesutler maleficent , 2016-02-22 23:32:43
    You show a very poor understanding of the concept of separation of church and state. It doesn't mean that a candidate cannot profess faith. It simply means that the government cannot establish a state church. Don't forget, one of the big objections to British rule was the fact that there was, and still is, a state church.
    mbidding nataliesutler , 2016-02-23 00:09:24
    Funny . . . I don't recall the Founding Fathers being particularly concerned about the church of England and they certainly didn't consider it important enough to list as one of the reasons for our declaration of Independence. For ease of reference, here's a link to the text of that document:

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

    ehdunno , 2016-02-22 22:29:06
    Cruz says his campaign would never question the faith of another candidate. My question is why is it so important that a candidate show deference to a being that they cannot prove exists? It is quite hilarious watching grown men and women falling over each other to prove that they believe more strongly than the others in an imaginary entity. What does this blind, preposterous faith have to do with how well they can run the country? Can't wait for the day when the first atheist president is elected; at least he/she won't be so much of a bullshitter.
    ID9766495 , 2016-02-22 22:27:29

    in fact, Rubio had said "all the answers in it"

    And that is better ... how?

    maleficent ID9766495 , 2016-02-22 23:10:00
    You're right, in fact now I think about it, it's actually much worse. Who would want a president who believes all answers can be found in a hodge-podge of papers written by many different people over a period of many years, more than 2,000 years ago?
    ID9766495 maleficent , 2016-02-22 23:38:03
    And this is a man who has lifted GOP debate on matters scientific from "I am not a scientist" to 'theologians disagree" ... even if the latter suggests he is finding answers from outside interpretations of the book ... not the book itself.
    quin1942 , 2016-02-22 22:17:25
    Ted Cruz seems to me to be a strange mix of Joseph McCarthy and Lyndon Johnson.

    Surprised that the Rubio camp hasn't sent out a Spanish language message about Cruz choosing to use the Anglo "Ted" instead of his first name, Rafael.

    geneob , 2016-02-22 22:15:20
    Imagine how unabashedly filthy a Clinton versus Cruz campaign would be. That would be fun to watch if only one of them didn't have to become President at the end.
    Giancarlo geneob , 2016-02-22 23:15:26
    I must admit, I thought of that is well. At first I was convinced it wasn't worth the entertainment value... but now I worry that the actual final choice might almost as terrible in any case!
    bcarey , 2016-02-22 21:55:24

    [Cruz] added of his rival's campaign: "They have a long record they've earned in South Carolina of engaging in this kind of trickery and impugning the integrity of whoever their opponent is to distract the attention. We are going to stay focused on issues and substance and record."

    Did your head just explode, too?
    I mean, Cruz saying that, you know.... the dirtiest, lying candidate running.

    curiouswes bcarey , 2016-02-22 22:56:39
    That is Cruz in a nutshell. He is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.
    rfs2014 bcarey , 2016-02-22 23:00:39
    his effortless ability to tell the most bald-faced lies is impressive.
    OrpheusLiar curiouswes , 2016-02-23 02:48:17
    Its an ill fitting sheep costume though, hes quite obviously a nasty vindictive man.
    Nathan2000 , 2016-02-22 21:54:38
    Dear Bible, why is Ted Cruz such an asshole?
    curiouswes Nathan2000 , 2016-02-22 22:40:30
    "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostle of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
    2 Cor. 11:13-14

    Not that I believe in an ontological devil, but if I did:
    1. Cruz would be it or
    2. HRC would be married to it

    I've not bitten my tongue about my disdain for HRC, but she doesn't have that ability that Cruz and Bill have to come across in a certain way. HRC is nasty and mean and she come across as being nasty. Cruz is better at hiding it and BJ Clinton is the master at hiding his true nature.

    kropotkinsf , 2016-02-22 21:52:35
    Cruz and Rubio think all the answers are in the bible. Trump thinks all the answers lie with race baiting and predatory capitalism. And Hillary thinks she'll find the answers by saber rattling and talking tough about Wall Street while taking their money on the down low. We're sunk.
    Kenneth Bell , 2016-02-22 21:48:18
    Cruz is in the pockets of the rich and don't give a hoot about the poor and middle class people. Just take a look at his tax reform.

    He couldn't care less about minorities and female reproductive rights and would rather see Obamacare crash, burn, and take the US economy down with it than to watch it succeed.

    Under Obama, who Ted Cruz HATES, we've seen:

    RECORD unemployment numbers, legalized gay marriage, 5% growth, best year for jobs since 1999, consumer confidence up, deficit down 60% in 2014, gas prices low, health insurance cheaper than ever ($85/month), car insurance cheaper than ever ($25/month from Insurance Panda), the 1% starting to be taxed more… all while republicans bleated about Benghazi took pointless votes to repeal the ACA, and did nothing for anybody except the top one percent.

    Why doesn't Cruz talk about THAT?!

    sdkeller72 Kenneth Bell , 2016-02-22 22:09:16
    Since when were the top 1% paying more in taxes?
    bucktoaster , 2016-02-22 21:45:48
    Cruz is a scuzzy dirtball neo-nazi. Even the republican party doesn't like him
    boshness bucktoaster , 2016-02-22 22:40:20
    I like Cruz. I love him, even though I'm rooting for Bernie.
    I love Cruz because he is the only one guaranteed to lose the election for the GOP, so please, people, show him some love.
    vincent19 bucktoaster , 2016-02-23 00:06:23
    He is a thoroughly unlikable person.
    Whitt sdkeller72 , 2016-02-22 23:16:44
    "Don't worry Rick you only lost 2 weeks worth of pay, Cruz' campaign will be over after Super Tuesday anyway." - sdkeller72
    *
    Seriously? In what alternate universe?

    First, look at the polls. According to the latest RCP polls for Super Tuesday states:

    (States with polls as of February)
    Arkansas - Cruz 27, Trump 23, Rubio 23
    Georgia - Trump 27, Cruz 18. Rubio 18
    Massachusetts - Trump 50, Rubio 16, Cruz 10
    Oklahoma - Trump 32, Cruz 25, Rubio 15
    Virginia - Trump 28, Rubio 22, Cruz 19

    1st place - Trump 4, Cruz 1
    2nd place - Cruz 2, Rubio 2, Trump 1
    3rd place - Rubio 3, Cruz 2, Trump 0

    (States with no February polls)
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Colorado
    Minnesota
    Tennessee
    Texas

    Texas highly favorable to Cruz, the rest anybody's guess

    Then there's also the cash-on-hand for the campaigns:

    Cruz - $13M in campaign funds, $25 in PAC funds
    Rubio - $5M in campaign funds, $5 in PAC funds
    Trump - Doesn't need any contributions

    While Trump is definitely the king of the hill, Cruz is in better shape than Rubio for getting through Super Tuesday. Rubio's not going to drop out no matter what, but neither is Cruz.

    Matt Perry , 2016-02-22 21:42:25
    but don't you love the Trump tweets? There's something so simplistic and gleeful about them - like a child sticking his tongue out at you when you're caught doing something.
    AllenPitt , 2016-02-22 21:38:14
    Not only dirty tricks, but dirty tricks about something that is utterly and Constitutionally irrelevant--a candidate's religious views. No wonder the GOP is floundering.
    i3roly AllenPitt , 2016-02-22 22:53:41
    for the Anglos across the Commonwealth, i think it's worthy mentioning Cruz's role in the 2000 recount for GWB:

    http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F01%2F26%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fbefore-rise-as-outsider-ted-cruz-played-inside-role-in-2000-recount.html

    pretty sure Teddy Bohy Cruz runs with hardcore fundie Stockwell Day and charles mcvety. they all idolise mitt romney. stockwell is breeding a fundie camp (warren jeffs FLDS style) in BC

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_poly1.htm

    our former prime minister was also a crony of stockwell day's. the 'drummer' in his band is a pedo:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/phillip-nolan-drummer-in-stephen-harper-s-band-charged-with-sexual-assault-1.2525942

    mitt & co love these FLDS fundies because they roll up/consolidate all their available credit to invest in harebrained schemes (the fundies are usually confined to the ranch, thereby creating flexibility in how their credit is used).

    they've now resorted to intimidating the non-fundie, but devout, christians into silence.

    there is massive corruption across the Realms involving these characters.

    and people wonder how credit debt is so high. OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE. teddy bohy cruz, mitt, stackwell, and whoever the fundies in the UK are, are a big part of the problem.

    deadgod AllenPitt , 2016-02-22 23:29:43
    And plenty of clean infotainment about Scoobydoobieo is available: he's lied every day of his political life about his parents' flight from a US-backed dictator to American jobs and money, his brother-in-law is a convicted drug smuggler, and his record in the Senate is mostly 'absent'. He's also got a video trail a mile long of grating robotic incompetence as a show pony.

    RUN MARCO RUN

    [Feb 22, 2016] US election 2016: Donald Trump queries Rubios eligibility

    Notable quotes:
    "... Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has said hes not sure whether his rival, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, is eligible to run for US president. ..."
    "... Mr Rubio, whose parents became US citizens four years after he was born, seemed to shrug off Mr Trumps comments, describing it as a game he plays . ..."
    "... Mr Cruz, who was born in Calgary to an American mother and a Cuban father, has dismissed any such legal challenge arguing that the constitutions definition of natural born citizens included people born to an American parent. ..."
    www.bbc.com

    Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has said he's "not sure" whether his rival, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, is eligible to run for US president.

    Mr Rubio, who came second in the South Carolina primary, was born in Miami, Florida, to Cuban parents. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, has faced similar questions from the New York billionaire. Most legal experts believe the two senators meet the requirements to become president of the United States.

    The US constitution allows only "natural born" citizens to become US president, which is widely interpreted as being born in the US or having a US citizen parent.

    Mr Rubio, whose parents became US citizens four years after he was born, seemed to shrug off Mr Trump's comments, describing it as "a game he plays".

    ... ... ...

    Questions about Marco Rubio's edibility arose after Mr Trump retweeted a post at the weekend saying that both he and Mr Cruz were ineligible.

    Asked by ABC's George Stephanopolous on Sunday about the post, Mr Trump said he was raising it to start a discussion on the matter but needed to look into it further. "I don't know. I really - I've never looked at it, George. I honestly have never looked at it. As somebody said, he's not. And I retweeted it." "I think the lawyers have to determine that," he added.

    ... ... ...

    Mr Cruz, who was born in Calgary to an American mother and a Cuban father, has dismissed any such legal challenge arguing that the constitution's definition of "natural born citizens" included people born to an American parent.

    [Feb 22, 2016] Trump will win Nevada Strategist

    finance.yahoo.com

    Boris Epshteyn, strategist at Strategy International, says Donald Trump is the safe favorite to win the Republican nomination.

    Donna

    If cruz had not lied in Iowa Trump very well could have swept the nation. Donald Trump is the only leader stepping up for the safety and security of the USA. All other candidates and most elected officials are game players that pander to their funders. We are one day closer to taking our country back from these mega-moochers.

    Marcus

    It may not be politically correct, but Trump is addressing issues that are important to the American people and not the normal political bullsh*t the rest of them are spouting.

    [Feb 21, 2016] Jeb Bush ends presidential bid after Donald Trump wins in South Carolina

    Jeb Bush was a is a neocon a member of Project for New American Century, a Wolfowitz stooge... It's good that he is gone.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Jeb Bush was certainly not a good decent man . He will be remembered for helping to thwart democracy in the USA with the sleazy moves he orchestrated to deliver Florida. ..."
    "... A simple, brainless bully cant take on someone with $150 million in supporting funds and crush them. You need to know what youre doing. And thats where people dont give Trump credit. Hes not some idiot bully who magically keeps beating his opponents. He knows what he needs to do to get votes. At this point in time during the election process, thats all that matters. Someone with savviness and a set of brass balls can take on $150 million and wipe the floor with it. Thats something. ..."
    "... Up a certain creek without a paddle, because the winner of the Republican nomination will most likely be Trump, with an outside chance of Cruz or Rubio, and almost 0 chance of anyone else. Sadly for Republicans who arent a fan of Trump, Id say its time for them to start getting to use to him, because at the end of this year its looking very likely to be either Trump vs Hillary or Trump vs Sanders. ..."
    "... American Dream (Apple pie, etc, etc....) was a chimera at best in the past but now impossible with globalization and the descent of global labor down to a world level playing field. Its a whole new ball game..... ..."
    "... Post WWII with the GI Bill and a surge in the economy equal opportunity was a reality, but since neoliberalism kicked in the 70s it has been all down hill. ..."
    "... But a fairer society is possible. Sanders analysis and policies, which may not be implemented this time around, almost certainly wont go away now. ..."
    "... This could be the beginning of the end of the Republican Party, which rose from the ashes of the Whig Party in 1854 (The Know Nothings were the xenophobic rump of the former Whigs, the more rational of whom (Lincoln et al.) formed the Republican Party). ..."
    "... absolutely delighted with the result. the reason is what some posters are saying here, that bush/kasich are relatively humane etc. they are nothing of the sort, especially bush. he is the neocons neocon, a scumball who hounded a decent man over his and his wifes end-of-life decisions, a stooge who wants to monetize education and social security for wall street, and a standard-issue plutocrat who wants to funnel everything to the top. ..."
    "... there are several advantages to trump: hes less likely to win and could take down other republicans with him; and if he does win, there is margin for hope. the moneymen and the fundies may not control his every move -as is guaranteed with all the others- so he could make some surprisingly decent moves, at the very least not embarking on the destruction of social security. ..."
    "... and happily, the worst, most brutal aspects of his platform -the wall etc- are completely unworkable. in addition, the laziest, most cowardly group of people in the country -the media- would feel more comfortable reporting objectively on him than they are with more mainstream candidates. politically, he would be a disaster and would be destroyed when running for re-election, if not before. ..."
    "... one was W., Prescott was a semi-Nazi ..."
    "... Ive seen the Oliver Stone movie, Bush senior wanted Jeb to become president first but he lost his governorship battle in 1994 but W. won his, Jeb then helps W. steal the 2000 election, Jeb then thinks he will become president after W. but little does he know W. will trash the Bush name and stop Jeb from even being able to out debate a billionaire jackass with insane policy ideas let alone become president ..."
    "... Mr. Bush goes home but the money lined up behind him stays in the game. Mr. Rubio floats higher. Mr. Cruz sinks a little and will be entirely sunk soon enough. Mr. Carson may hang around for a while, although not even he is sure why. Mr. Kasich will battle on in delusional self-belief until the money runs out. ..."
    "... That is good. Not another shameless from this family. He should have been grilled on his brothers misconduct and dumb face he will show when faced with hard decisions. ..."
    "... Jeb got his brother win illegally in 2000. The country paid the price for it. Karma is a bitch. It bit him hard in the rear end. ..."
    "... Jeb has run away with tail between his legs as the big alpha male beat him to pulp. No harem this time. But Jeb will be back sometime in a future election, sneaking in when no one is looking. He is the head of the neocon hydra. ..."
    "... A lot of things are at stake for the neocons, the military industrial complex and the Carlaisle group. Jeb will bide his time. Voters might have the clock. Jeb has time on his hand. ..."
    "... Would have been better if he had never run and said Our democracy is bigger than any one family . But then again we barely have a democracy anymore: ..."
    "... Thank goodness the Bush dynastys latest attempt to infiltrate and damage the American political system is finally at a decisive end. Now its time to eradicate that other time-worn all-American cabal, the Clintons, from the presidential race, and actually bring a fair democratic socialist agenda to the US. ..."
    "... Jeb only has himself to blame for his atrocious performance. Hes weak and ineffectual, nothing more to say really. He asked the audience to applaud one of his talking points during a speech, which says it all really... ..."
    "... Carson next to go under please, that freak is more nuts than all the rest of them put together ..."
    "... Well. Thats a 100 million dollars down the drain. http://news.yahoo.com/campaigning-style-jeb-bush-blew-warchest-112051485.html ..."
    "... From the start there was a desperation about Jebs campaign that seemed destined to end in disaster. Unlike some candidates who feel entitled to it Jeb almost seemed to never quite believe it himself as if he only did it because it was expected of him and he didnt have the heart to explain to people that his family name was poison after W. His name gave him recognition but it also made him a target, something which Trump pounded on mercilessly turning Jebs candidacy into a referrendum on the failed policies of his brother. ..."
    "... One less Bush for the White House. Good news. ..."
    "... Who said Monarchies were dead? ..."
    "... Theres an old saying in Tennessee - I know its in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you cant get fooled again. ..."
    "... I dont like his brother. I dont like his father. I dont like him. Yet the fact he is out of the running chills me to my bone. ..."
    w.theguardian.com
    crowinthesnow , 2016-02-21 05:49:36
    The terrifying reality is, that Bush was probably the most sane (save for Kasich who won't win) out of all the GOP candidates. If any of these guys get into power then we're doomed. Cruz especially, the guy is a puritanical nutter.
    Clough , 2016-02-21 05:47:50
    It's just a matter of which one of the crazies wins the Republican nomination. Trump, Cruz or Rubio. Whoever it is lets hope the Democrats have a candidate that can win. Can any one imagine what the world would look like with one of these three with his finger on the button. The world was a much "safer" place during the cold war.
    redwhine Robert Hoover , 2016-02-21 05:17:13
    George W. Bush wasn't even a good campaigner, his competition just was worse. Trump would have destroyed GW Bush in much the same way that he destroyed Jeb Bush. Remember how GW Bush's supporters created that whole 'Swift Boaters for Truth' campaign to sink John Kerry, who was actually a war hero, even though GW Bush avoided getting sent to Vietnam altogether? That's because Bush was competing against Kerry, not Trump. Believe me, GW Bush would have been pounded if he had a gorilla like Trump go after him.
    skepticaloud Robert Hoover , 2016-02-21 05:44:12
    Jeb Bush was certainly not "a good decent man". He will be remembered for helping to thwart democracy in the USA with the sleazy moves he orchestrated to deliver Florida.
    redwhine , 2016-02-21 04:37:24
    Jeb "the wimp" Bush never had a chance, even though he had so much going for him:
    $150 million in campaign contributions (!!!!!!!!!)
    Political connections
    Establishment support
    Family history, with dad and brother having been presidents
    Former governor of Florida, a very important state for winning elections
    --- But, he was a loser and a wimp, and Donald Trump brilliantly exposed this fact. Were it not for Trump, not only would Jeb still be in the running, he'd probably be far in the lead. That's where Trump deserves so much credit, as a tactician willing to take chances. For heaven's sake (literally), he even took a knock at the Pope!!! And it didn't cost hime any votes, it probably gained him votes. Nobody else would have had the stones to do that. I'm extremely impressed by Trump, though I am a democrat. I like seeing a fierce competitor get his due.
    redwhine saintabroad , 2016-02-21 05:05:11
    All of this is beside the point, I'm talking about the tactics needed to win presidential elections. Why did Jeb Bush have an unimaginable "war chest" of $150 million??? He had that so that he could finance a machine that would take him to victory.

    A simple, brainless bully can't take on someone with $150 million in supporting funds and crush them. You need to know what you're doing. And that's where people don't give Trump credit. He's not some idiot bully who magically keeps beating his opponents. He knows what he needs to do to get votes. At this point in time during the election process, that's all that matters. Someone with savviness and a set of brass balls can take on $150 million and wipe the floor with it. That's something.

    jclucas , 2016-02-21 04:27:36
    Well America doesn't want the political establishment - on the GOP side at least - but what do the people really want?

    Probably Trump, Cruz, and Rubio are all unelectable, so where does that leave the Republicans?

    The message from the voters is that something is seriously wrong with the system, but the analysis of what that is seems to be lacking except from Bernie Sanders (crony capitalism).

    Sorry, it's not political correctness or the absence of theocracy.

    America has a long way to go to recover the American Dream, but voters do seem to realize that its gone, sort of.

    The campaign of 2016 is at least educating the people, even if it's in a strange sort of way.

    mindinsomnia jclucas , 2016-02-21 04:58:47

    Probably Trump, Cruz, and Rubio are all unelectable, so where does that leave the Republicans?

    Up a certain creek without a paddle, because the winner of the Republican nomination will most likely be Trump, with an outside chance of Cruz or Rubio, and almost 0 chance of anyone else. Sadly for Republicans who aren't a fan of Trump, I'd say it's time for them to start getting to use to him, because at the end of this year it's looking very likely to be either Trump vs Hillary or Trump vs Sanders. Trump vs Sanders.

    bookie88 jclucas , 2016-02-21 04:59:40
    "American Dream" (Apple pie, etc, etc....) was a chimera at best in the past but now "impossible" with globalization and the descent of global "labor" down to a world level playing field.
    It's a whole new ball game.....
    jclucas bookie88 , 2016-02-21 05:15:29
    Post WWII with the GI Bill and a surge in the economy equal opportunity was a reality, but since neoliberalism kicked in the 70s it has been all down hill.

    But a fairer society is possible. Sanders analysis and policies, which may not be implemented this time around, almost certainly won't go away now.

    raffine , 2016-02-21 04:14:44
    This could be the beginning of the end of the Republican Party, which rose from the ashes of the Whig Party in 1854 (The "Know Nothings" were the xenophobic rump of the former Whigs, the more rational of whom (Lincoln et al.) formed the Republican Party). The Tea Party Trumpezoids would be the Know Nothings of today, especially given the inevitable defeat of Mr Trump in November 2016. The only options for his disappointed followers would be (1) emigration, (2) a humiliating crawl back into the Republican Party fold, or (3) armed insurrection (ala the Bundy bandits).
    mindinsomnia raffine , 2016-02-21 05:02:02
    I wouldn't say that Trump's defeat is inevitable. I certainly hope he doesn't win, but he certainly could win. Trump is after all a populist and will always say what he has to in order to get votes. Right now the people he has to please are Republicans so he's saying only things which please Republicans, but when it comes down to Hillary vs Trump or Sanders vs Trump, he'll start saying whatever he thinks the general public want to hear. And if Trump has shown one thing so far, he's very good at working out exactly what people want to hear and yelling it from the rooftops..
    JackGC raffine , 2016-02-21 05:20:22
    If Trump wins the nomination of the 21st century "Know Nothing" party and gets shutout in November (0-50), I'll go with door #3--an unarmed Tea Party type insurrection fracturing the party even further.

    Serves 'em right. The war mongers were repeatedly warned not to invade Iraq, now the shit has boomeranged and hit the fan BIG TIME thanks to The Donald. It'll be a bizarre ending for a despicable bunch of mass murderers.

    ochone , 2016-02-21 04:14:30
    absolutely delighted with the result. the reason is what some posters are saying here, that bush/kasich are relatively 'humane' etc. they are nothing of the sort, especially bush. he is the neocon's neocon, a scumball who hounded a decent man over his and his wife's end-of-life decisions, a stooge who wants to monetize education and social security for wall street, and a standard-issue plutocrat who wants to funnel everything to the top.

    and apparently he's the relatively 'reasonable one'... which is the reason he could actually win. and if he did, the media would be in their comfort zone and report on him as if he's mainstream, as they did with his brother.

    there are several advantages to trump: he's less likely to win and could take down other republicans with him; and if he does win, there is margin for hope. the moneymen and the fundies may not control his every move -as is guaranteed with all the others- so he could make some surprisingly decent moves, at the very least not embarking on the destruction of social security.

    and happily, the worst, most brutal aspects of his platform -the wall etc- are completely unworkable. in addition, the laziest, most cowardly group of people in the country -the media- would feel more comfortable reporting objectively on him than they are with more 'mainstream' candidates. politically, he would be a disaster and would be destroyed when running for re-election, if not before.

    bush, kasich and rubio are every single last iota as bad, but politically, they would get away with much, much more.

    reto , 2016-02-21 03:59:26
    The best thing after Bush incinerating is that that Sununu guy, who said that Obama was "lazy" for not preparing the debate against Romney is finished now, too. Racist little effer, in the employ of the Bushes whenever they needed a dirt flung (which they always do). High horse candidacy that wasn't. The Bushes aren't bad people, just God-help-us incapable (one was W., Prescott was a semi-Nazi, Neil tanked the Savings and Loan bank (biggest crash until 2008). As for his qualifications, you can really ride a conservative or socialist wave to success on a housing bubble as Bush did in Florida. Your policies don't matter much. As for the dynasty, let's see what the twins come up with in a couple of years.
    deltayankee reto , 2016-02-21 04:17:49
    So commenting that someone is lazy is now racist? Obama is lazy - he is one of the most disengaged, indolent Presidents of all time. And he was too lazy to prepare for that debate. According to some reports on the public record he admitted as such. But to his credit he improved on the next debate.
    James Barker , 2016-02-21 03:50:32
    I've seen the Oliver Stone movie, Bush senior wanted Jeb to become president first but he lost his governorship battle in 1994 but W. won his, Jeb then helps W. steal the 2000 election, Jeb then thinks he will become president after W. but little does he know W. will trash the Bush name and stop Jeb from even being able to out debate a billionaire jackass with insane policy ideas let alone become president
    Dougiedownunder , 2016-02-21 03:34:52
    Mr. Bush goes home but the money lined up behind him stays in the game. Mr. Rubio floats higher. Mr. Cruz sinks a little and will be entirely sunk soon enough. Mr. Carson may hang around for a while, although not even he is sure why. Mr. Kasich will battle on in delusional self-belief until the money runs out.

    And when it boils down to GOP make you mind up time it will choose Mr. Rubio over Mr. Trump because America is not insane.

    Mr. Trump, however, does not know how to lose even though he has experienced it already in this nomination round. His megalomaniac tendency will refuse to accept the decision of the Party he claims he wants to lead. Mr. Trump will throw a very expensive, billionaire's hissy fit and seek to stand for the Presidency anyway because Mr. Trump truly does believe that if you have enough money you ought to be able to by anything you want and can afford. Even a country.

    Towards the end of March it should all be a lot uglier than it looks now.

    Whatever the outcome of the GOP three-ring circus, please America, Vote Democrat.

    bullaa , 2016-02-21 03:15:58
    That is good. Not another shameless from this family. He should have been grilled on his brother's misconduct and dumb face he will show when faced with hard decisions.
    Mauryan , 2016-02-21 03:07:56
    Jeb got his brother win illegally in 2000. The country paid the price for it. Karma is a bitch. It bit him hard in the rear end.
    Mauryan , 2016-02-21 03:06:15
    Jeb has run away with tail between his legs as the big alpha male beat him to pulp. No harem this time. But Jeb will be back sometime in a future election, sneaking in when no one is looking. He is the head of the neocon hydra. He will be back at the next opportune time. Do not count him out. This election is over for him. But he is not over yet. A lot of things are at stake for the neocons, the military industrial complex and the Carlaisle group. Jeb will bide his time. Voters might have the clock. Jeb has time on his hand.
    Ziontrain , 2016-02-21 03:05:33

    "The presidency is bigger than any one candidate," Bush said.

    Would have been better if he had never run and said "Our democracy is bigger than any one family". But then again we barely have a democracy anymore:
    https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

    Would have been even better if the media had said it for him. But they are gutless click-chasers.

    Andrew Lee , 2016-02-21 03:03:20
    Thank goodness the Bush dynasty's latest attempt to infiltrate and damage the American political system is finally at a decisive end. Now it's time to eradicate that other time-worn all-American cabal, the Clintons, from the presidential race, and actually bring a fair democratic socialist agenda to the US.
    CommonSenseWelcomed , 2016-02-21 03:01:35
    Jeb only has himself to blame for his atrocious performance. He's weak and ineffectual, nothing more to say really. He asked the audience to applaud one of his talking points during a speech, which says it all really...

    He was tipped as the favourite for the Republican nomination before the election started by the mainstream media, why you ask? I'll tell you, they tipped him as the favourite because he managed to accumulate more legal bribes than any other Republican candidate... A truckload of money from wealthy donors doesn't mean shit...

    Greg Gray , 2016-02-21 02:52:15
    Carson next to go under please, that freak is more nuts than all the rest of them put together
    LeftRightParadigm , 2016-02-21 02:49:11
    Goodbye and farewell to another member of the cosy establishment. As long as America elects Donald Trump it will mean great things for the country.
    Geffel LeftRightParadigm , 2016-02-21 03:24:34
    Great warmongering
    Great bigotry
    Great recessions
    Great debt
    Great poverty
    Great ignorance
    Great under-investment
    Great bungles
    Great shredding of the Constitution
    CurrentHistory , 2016-02-21 02:49:37
    Well. That's a 100 million dollars down the drain. http://news.yahoo.com/campaigning-style-jeb-bush-blew-warchest-112051485.html
    Omniscience CurrentHistory , 2016-02-21 03:16:57
    Trickle down
    OrpheusLiar , 2016-02-21 02:49:01
    From the start there was a desperation about Jebs campaign that seemed destined to end in disaster. Unlike some candidates who feel entitled to it Jeb almost seemed to never quite believe it himself as if he only did it because it was expected of him and he didn't have the heart to explain to people that his family name was poison after W. His name gave him recognition but it also made him a target, something which Trump pounded on mercilessly turning Jebs candidacy into a referrendum on the failed policies of his brother. I hope its Kasich rather than Rubio who benefits from this as he is really the only sane one left running. Carson is probably next to go after Nevada.
    MoreNotLess , 2016-02-21 02:43:19
    Nothing is impossible in politics, but another Bush in the White House just eight years after his unpopular brother always looked like a rather long shot to me. The fact that some people would place $100M on his SuperPAC surprised me greatly, and just goes to confirm that the GOP is not presently a facts based organization. Any one looking at the facts would not have made this bet.
    Ism10 , 2016-02-21 02:13:06
    One less Bush for the White House. Good news.
    ajgraham Ism10 , 2016-02-21 02:33:18
    Sadly they'll be no Bush to lead on the greatest Democratic country on Earth™. Last 4 Presidents including current:
    Bush
    Clinton
    Bush
    Obama

    Who said Monarchies were dead?

    dirkthegently eminijunkie , 2016-02-21 04:44:31
    There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.
    TamaIti eminijunkie , 2016-02-21 06:13:27
    I don't like his brother. I don't like his father. I don't like him. Yet the fact he is out of the running chills me to my bone.

    [Feb 21, 2016] Clinton narrowly clinches Nevada while Trump wins big in South Carolina

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nevada should have been a slam-dunk for Clinton. The narrow win is almost as bad as defeat. She was supposed to own the minority vote. ..."
    "... This is absurdly biased. How much coverage for hillary and then Sanders comes second yet gets almost a passing mention despite having reversed a huge difference between the candidates. this is just crappy reporting. ..."
    "... Donald trump have proved that he has more faith in god than the pope, because Donald Trump dont use bodyguards and with the things he says he needs them. ..."
    The Guardian

    peacefulmilitant , 2016-02-21 05:23:08

    Nevada should have been a slam-dunk for Clinton. The narrow win is almost as bad as defeat. She was supposed to "own" the minority vote.
    Ben Schonveld , 2016-02-21 05:16:25
    This is absurdly biased. How much coverage for hillary and then Sanders comes second yet gets almost a passing mention despite having reversed a huge difference between the candidates. this is just crappy reporting.

    Marcedward , 2016-02-21 05:12:52

    BIG QUESTIONS:
    1) Who can emerge as the Anti-Trump? Robo-Rubio or Canadian Cruz?
    2) Is Kashich running for President or Vice President? Gov of Ohio could deliver crucial state, OTOH he's very 1990s, classic Newt Gingrich vintage of Republican, part of a discredited and failed movement.
    3) Where do Jeb!'s people go? Not his voters, he didn't have any, but his money people? The just blew $100MILLION+ on Jeb!, they probably have 3X more burning a hole in their collective pockets. Rubio has that robot-problem, Cruz is a loose cannon (or loose stool), Carson will never win, Kasich is too boring and funny looking, not to mention "vintage, but in the bad way."
    4) Will the election of President Trump split the Republican party?
    ga gamba , 2016-02-21 05:02:23
    An extraordinary battle between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton could be taking shape in the 2016 presidential race after the two candidates won crucial victories in the Republican and Democratic contests for the White House.

    Seems a little soon to be thinking of what could be taking shape. For Ms Clinton a near tie in Iowa, a solid thumping in New Hampshire, and finally her first bona fide win, though after dropping 25+ percentage points in the polls and Hispanics ditching her, tells me only 3 votes have happened.

    bongorocks , 2016-02-21 04:49:28
    Donald trump have proved that he has more faith in god than the pope, because Donald Trump don't use bodyguards and with the things he says he needs them.
    On the other hand the pope goes around sucking up to everyone and everywhere he goes he is surrounded by his bodyguards.

    [Feb 21, 2016] Sanders, Trump appeal to Nevada voters with fresh memories of US housing crisis

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary is proud that Bill Clinton, in being pragmatic in finding common ground with Republicans and getting things done, destroyed Glass-Steagell. ..."
    "... She is absolutely NOT influenced by getting $1.8 million from 8 speeches to bankers. ..."
    "... Yes, Hillary has such a Big Megabuck Heart for the hardworking poor, ... when she is pandering for votes. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    kdloan , 2016-02-20 20:37:37
    When it comes to Wall Street and the mortgage fiasco of 2007-08, Bernie Sanders is the only legible candidate, whereas Clinton states her intent of, "limiting Wall Street influence," however, her Under Secretary of State was Bob Hormat, who interesting enough was Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs.
    Freedom54 , 2016-02-20 20:21:30
    Bernie Versus Hillary: A Vote for Bernie is a Vote to Restore the American Democracy while a Vote for Hillary, and the Republican Candidates is a Vote for America's 1% Billionaire Oligarchy Ruling Class..!
    Bernie is coalescing and uniting the American Slave Classes. His supporters are a cross section from every socio-economic, race, age backgrounds whose core values of Honor, Integrity, Justice and Altruism which mirrors Bernie's which is a direct contrast to the 1% Billionaire Ruling Classes of Insatiable Greed, Power and Control which they use to keep the Slave Classes "Divided and Conquered". The American Government as Stated by the Constitution Belongs to the People and Should Govern to the Will of all the People, and not just to the Greedy and Narcissistic American 1% Percent Oligarchy Ruling Class who Rule through their Puppet Quid-Pro-Quo (A.K.A. THE QUID-PRO-QUO MILLIONAIRE Politician like the CLINTONS') Oligarchy Government Falsely Posing as a Democracy....!
    Unlike the Clintons' "Mr. Bill the "Sexual Abuser" of Women & Mrs. Quid-Pro-Quo" who did the Bidding of America's 1% Percent Billionaire Ruling Class who then rewarded them by allowing them to amass a fortune with an estimated Net Worth of $200 Million which excludes their Personal Slush Fund the Clinton Foundation.
    Since Hillary Clinton left her post as secretary of State in 2013 and subsequently declared her royal candidacy last year, she has given 92 speeches for fees totaling $21.7 million, primarily to the Wall Street Banks that created the Sub-Prime Mortgage Pyramid Scheme lead by Goldman Sachs and other Financial institutions around the world some of which was have also donated Millions to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Family Slush Fund -- Clinton Foundation."
    Similarly Bill Clinton opened the "Quid-Pro-Quo Flood Gates" to the American Corporate Outsourcing of Full-Time/With Benefits Middle Class Jobs to India and China which has permanently decimated and reduced America's once Thriving Middle Class with his Trade Agreements that only enriched the American 1% Percent Billionaire Ruling Class..! Late in Clinton's tenure, the White House put forth a document celebrating "Historic Economic Growth" during the administration and pointing to the policy accomplishments it deemed responsible for this growth. Among the achievements on Clinton's list were "Modernizing for the New Economy through Technology and Consensus Deregulation."By contrast, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the 1999 law Clinton signed repealing the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, benefited the economy by creating more choice and competition. There is now a chorus of voices across America who blame the demise of Glass-Steagall, which had strictly separated traditional commercial banking from investment banking, for contributing to the credit blowup from which America's Slave Classes have yet to recover.
    Whereas Bernie has focus and he is driven out of Altruism to end the suffering of the vast majority of Americans who are struggling economically while the Billionaire 1% Ruling Class continues to suck all of America's Wealth up to themselves.
    Bernie is deeply saddened and disturbed by the "Economic Injustice that Exists in America today;
    * Slave class children are being deprived of a strong foundational education due to the lack of a "Comprehensive National Voucher System" for "Primary and Secondary Schools" and that America's slave class children are being burdened by "College Student Loan Debt",
    * 65 Million Americans go Hungry each night in the Richest Country in the World whose 1% Percent Billionaire Ruling Class holds 70% of America's Wealth.
    * The Majority of Senior Citizens are living at or below the "Poverty-Line".
    * The creation of Obama Care which was created to shift the Wealth from America's Physicians to the 1% Billionaire Oligarchy Ruling Class (as their largest share-holders) "Owned Corporate Insurance Companies" which is why Bernie want to expand Medicare into a Single Payer health care system similar to what is commonplace in Europe.
    To level America's "Playing Field", Bernie wants to Repatriate the Trillions of Dollars $ of the current Un-Taxed 1% Billionaire Personal and Corporate Wealth that they are currently hiding using the IRS Loop-Holes (generated for them by their Millionaire Congressional Quid-Pro-Quo Puppets) which is being held in their Personal and Corporate Over-seas Tax Haven Accounts.
    Finally while the elitist Hillary has continually tried to reinvent herself for and her false campaign for America's Slave Classes --- Bernie Sanders is the "Real-Deal--What you See and What you Hear -- Is What You Will Get Candidate".
    Bernie is driven by the same core values of "Honor, Integrity, Altruism and Justice" which mirrors the core values of America's Salve Classes which is why he is leading Hillary across the country in "Trustworthiness" by 91%-5%.
    Restore Democracy and Morality to America – Support and Vote for Bernie Sanders for President…!
    Carly435 , 2016-02-20 19:59:18
    Hillary tells a whopper about Bernie "taking money from Wall Street."

    Now we know why she said she "tries not to lie."

    Jake Tapper fact checking:

    http://www.c

    erik_ny , 2016-02-20 19:52:33
    I go to las vegas once a year for a conference. I had to pop out to get a shirt at brooks brothers and the nice-looking girl who worked there asked where i was staying. Aria. "Oh I work there two days a week, beautiful hotel." Another girl at Kiehls said the same thing. Is it normal for people to work two days here, two days there? I guess you can get used to anything but it seems to me stringing together a series of part-time jobs would be stressful. Over the course of five days you never saw the same people on the front or bell desk, a never-ending rotation of young faces. Las Vegas is in many ways a brutal place.
    sewuzy , 2016-02-20 19:26:57
    Hillary saddened by loss of homes to bank foreclosures?

    Hillary has terrible foresight and making first call judgments.

    Hillary is proud that Bill Clinton, in being pragmatic in finding common ground with Republicans and getting things done, destroyed Glass-Steagell.

    Hillary fights against replacing Glass-Steagells which would limit wild risk taking by Big Banks. RESULT Big Banks get Bigger.

    She is absolutely NOT influenced by getting $1.8 million from 8 speeches to bankers.

    Yes, big megabucks same Wall Street investors and bankers that play a huuge role in discriminatory redlining against minorities, fraudulent predatory lending, and foreclosures; the same big banks that stole the American dream from poor hard working white, black, latino, and native American, and other homeowners.

    Yes, Hillary has such a Big Megabuck Heart for the hardworking poor, ... when she is pandering for votes.

    Dorothy2 , 2016-02-20 18:43:38
    "Clinton Made $2.9 Million From 12 Speeches To Big Banks"--The Intercept

    If you have ever passed by a dead skunk left splayed in the middle of the road, you know that that unpleasant stench often travels with you for some distance. Politicians who access skunky money disturb the peace in much the same way. Better to avoid them if you can.

    Carly435 , 2016-02-20 18:18:16
    I like the fact that Bernie took the time to speak to 25 laid off solar workers and their families. Hillary received the same invitation but declined to attend.

    http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/13/sanders-calls-puc-solar-decision-incomprehensible/80351584/

    http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/a-chat-with-bernie-sanders-on-his-new-10-million-solar-roofs-bill

    How Bernie's climate change policy differs from Hillary's:

    While Clinton's plan doesn't address the giant fossil fuel lobby fighting actions against climate change, Sanders heavily focused on this issue. "The fossil fuel industry spends billions and billions of dollars lobbying and buying candidates to block virtually all progress on climate change," it reads. He wants to stop the industry from stationing lobbyists in the White House, to end subsidies for fossil fuel companies, to create a national climate justice plan, and to fight to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political activities.

    Sanders' goal for the nation's clean energy use is ambitious. He wants to create a 100 percent clean energy system for electricity, heating, and transportation. Not only will this minimize America's dependence on foreign oil, his plan says, but it will also create 10 million "good-paying jobs." Clinton's goal is for the U.S. to generate enough clean renewable energy to power every home in America within 10 years of her taking office - which would be a vast improvement, but doesn't account for transportation along with housing.

    Clinton's current plan doesn't mention any goals for increasing America's leadership in the global fight against climate change. Sanders', on the other hand, says that he'll establish a climate summit with engineers, climate scientists, policy experts, activists, and indigenous communities within his first 100 days in office. His plan says: "The United Nations Paris climate talks in December are an important milestone toward solving climate change, but even optimistic outcomes of these talks will not put the world on the path needed to avoid the most catastrophic results of climate change. We must think beyond Paris."

    According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the transportation sector accounts for 27 percent of America's total greenhouse gas emissions. Since just calling for 100 percent clean energy for transportation wouldn't offer any real solutions, Sanders' plan advocates for building electric vehicle charging stations, as well as high-speed passenger and cargo trains, around the country. Clinton's plan would create a Clean Energy Challenge to develop partnerships between the federal government and states, cities, and communities wanting to increase their renewable energy, which she says would help "modernize our transportation system." However, the details about this Clean Energy Challenge remain vague.

    http://www.bustle.com/articles/128195-4-ways-bernie-sanders-climate-plan-differs-from-hillary-clintons

    Goldenbird , 2016-02-20 18:14:46
    Bernie's always been on the side of the people. Here's a 1960s photo of him being arrested by the Chicago police for demonstrating on behalf of people of color:

    https://twitter.com/chicagotribune/status/700856853148868609/photo/1

    macktan894 , 2016-02-20 18:01:52

    "I know how hard-hit Nevada was – I think the highest rate of foreclosures. You still have a lot of houses under water," Clinton said this week. "I take that very seriously ... I want us to move any way we can in the federal government to help relieve the burden of already existing homeowners."

    This is what--almost 10 years after this devastation! When banks whined about their so-called injuries, they were helped in 10 seconds! In fact, they were invited to the White House to draw up their own rescue plan.

    Banks get taxpayer-funded, no-interest loans in 10 seconds; citizens are left to dangle in the wind for 10 years. Takes a lot of gall.

    arlan St.Clair , 2016-02-20 17:30:18
    Bernie wants protections and enforcement. I'm unsure exactly what Clinton has proposed but this is indicative.

    Clinton has spoken in more general terms, seemingly avoiding the root causes of the crash because subprime mortgages flag up her ties to Wall Street.
    "I know how hard-hit Nevada was – I think the highest rate of foreclosures. You still have a lot of houses under water," she said this week. "I take that very seriously ... I want us to move any way we can in the federal government to help relieve the burden of already existing homeowners."


    Instead of insuring against a recurrence, like many in the establishment, they prefer to throw some platitudes and tax dollars at the consequence instead of addressing the cause.
    Bernie's not bought that's why he's willing to do what needs to be done. Ignoring the cycles that occur under deregulated capitalism is a peril I prefer to completely avoid.
    keepithuman , 2016-02-20 17:21:26

    "That guy's a fucking idiot. To be honest with you, I'd be an idiot too if I had his kind of money. I don't want him to be president of my country. If he becomes president, I'm going back to where I came from," Rodriguez said. "I'm not voting," he added. "If I did, I'd vote for Sanders. I've got faith in Sanders. He's telling it like it is. But they'll never let Sanders win. The result is already fixed."

    Victor Rodriguez

    Dear Victor - Your assessment of Trump is pretty accurate, however, I too am a naturalized American citizen, and I feel strongly that it is my duty to participate in the process of electing a President, after all, this is the most important decision that affects all the citizens of this country. So, instead of saying that you will go back to where you come from, and that the results are fixed, get off your ass, go to the polling station and vote for Bernie Sanders immediately. Otherwise, you may well get Trump as your President, and none of us want that!!

    Carly435 , 2016-02-20 17:07:39
    On today's edition of The Young Turks:

    Donors Don't Get Why Hillary Is Losing Ground To Sanders

    Hillary Clinton's donors held a meeting to figure out why there isn't more grass-roots support for her. They held that meeting in the office of a Wall Street investor.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQSZ6J7z-sg

    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/17/hillary-clinton-donors-hear-concerns-about-nevada-outcome/

    Ath3na , 2016-02-20 16:50:08
    She either agreed with Goldwater, or she is a chameleon willing to take on any facade if it gives her entry to power.
    Yes, I think even in 1964 she was scheming.
    I used to think only men thought like this, now it is clear that women are really not so much different from men in this regard.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5J29_FcMss0/VaphRMWVa5I/AAAAAAAADg4/bRKcyrOLpDI/s1600/Hillary%2BClinton%2Band%2BGoldwater.jpg

    Scott Plantier , 2016-02-20 16:30:39
    Sex workers support Hillary Clinton? Well, she has worked a smear campaign by spreading herself all over Wall St. for cash……
    Woops1gottasneeze , 2016-02-20 16:27:29
    Maybe Clinton could donate some of the millions she made off of Wall Street speeches to some of the victims who lost their homes to Wall Street greed. Ya think?
    tommydog , 2016-02-20 16:09:07
    Actually, American manufacturing output is very high. The US is the second largest manufacturing nation in the world in terms of output. But it has become ever more automated requiring fewer and fewer workers. Even if manufacturing were to increase considerably, likely it wouldn't employ as many workers as people fantasize as the new plants would be highly automated.
    Ath3na tommydog , 2016-02-20 16:58:32
    Depends how cheap people will work, if there are 0 jobs people will work for next to nothing and that can be cheaper than robots for smaller size business.

    Since China is now dumping their US treasuries, and has ceded control over their currency to "market forces" (international banking cartel interference), they are now positioned to become the new World currency, or "petro dollar". (replacing the US).

    At that point market forces determine China's economy and they can no longer manipulate their currency via US treasury purchase.
    The USA is becoming the next Greece.

    Harlan St.Clair tommydog , 2016-02-20 17:08:59
    Tell that to these workers. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/story/2016/feb/12/carrier-tells-workers-it-moving-all-their-jobs-mexico-video/349877/
    Yet less than three years ago, the company received a $5.1 million stimulus-funded tax credit from the Department of Energy - for the sole purpose of creating and maintaining green jobs in the United States. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431248/stimulus-funded-green-manufacturing-carrier-plant-indianapolis-closes-shop
    macktan894 , 2016-02-20 16:06:11
    Last week, I watched an excellent film "99 Homes," about the cold-blooded foreclosure crisis which showed the heartless schemes of bankers and their minions seizing homes left and right, often fraudulently, to bundle up for resale, making billions in the process. It really was sickening to see people whose jobs had disappeared dragged out of their houses by local police empowered to work for these banks--"get out or we'll arrest you." Those who went to court found judges opposed to them based on "documents" banks forged for the process.

    Luckily, I didn't lose my house, but with wages frozen and prices soaring, I did get behind on payments for a few months and had to withdraw funds from a much devalued pension account to stay afloat. Unemployment soared, as did foreclosures and bankruptcies. It was just awful.

    Too bad Clinton's tongue lashing Wall St had no effect at all on their behavior. The only voices I heard speak out against these banks were Elizabeth Warren's and Bernie Sander's.

    Scott Plantier macktan894 , 2016-02-20 16:36:48
    Please know that none of this was a surprise to either political party, they were paid MASSIVE sums of "protection money" by financial industry participants in this coordinated fraud designed to exploit the working people fooled into believing their houses were apt to appreciate at the rate of growth stocks by the entirely false demand created by Wall St. Obama traded on our desperate need of recompense while working explicitly for Wall St and was an even greater fraud for it-Only Warren and Bernie stand between us and an Aristocracy.
    Backbutton macktan894 , 2016-02-20 16:42:59
    Yes, Clinton is part of the Wall Street gang, and hubby Billy the C, enabled them with doing away with GS Act and the other GS pays Hillary mega bucks for speeches.
    Ath3na Backbutton , 2016-02-20 17:06:47
    If anyone was curious what Backbutton's "information free" post is about.

    It is this:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

    Pay special attention to the names Weil, Greenspan, Summers and the rest of that ilk (for they are the ones that orchestrated the theft of your childrens future), and you get a clear picture of what has been going on in this country.

    Cyclic recessions and financial crashes, all done purposely.
    Sow and harvest.

    On Oct. 22, Weill and John Reed issue a statement congratulating Congress and President Clinton, including 19 administration officials and lawmakers by name. The House and Senate approve a final version of the bill on Nov. 4, and Clinton signs it into law later that month.

    Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"

    eastbayradical Ecopolitics , 2016-02-20 16:09:21
    "Obama is a disastrous example of a one-term, hyper partisan senator...."

    No, you egregious moron.

    Obama entered politics by running against a former-Black Panther. He got slaughtered in the election, but what he didn't accomplish electorally he accomplished by establishing himself as an up-and-coming "pragmatist" black pol willing to oppose radicals and support business-as-usual--in other words, just the type of urban political aspirant the capitalist elite like to attach themselves to, and, let us say, "cultivate."

    Obama came into the presidency having surrounded himself--or having had others surround himself with--banking executives, foreign policy "realists" (ie supporters of the imperial project), and supporters of the surveillance state. As president, he has carried water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security/police-state apparatus since day one. And all the while, bozos like you have accused him of being a hyper-partisan socialist/communist set upon taking down capitalism.

    Carly435 , 2016-02-20 14:49:24
    If Hillary is so determined to "fight for us," why won't she commit to restoring Glass Steagall, the repeal of which (under Clinton) was a major cause of the financial crisis?

    We all know why.

    http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/

    So why are all the "yes-butters" still stuck on questions of how Bernie will pay for this or that?

    Under the Reagan administration, deficits soared. But deficits didn't cause the S&L crisis; deregulation did. And who ended up paying for the greed of bankers and speculators like Neil Bush? The taxpayers, to the tune of $130 billion. And what did they get in return for that bailout? The creation of moral hazard which emboldened speculators in the ensuing, far more devastating, 2007 subprime mortage crisis.

    I guess the "Yes-butters" conceive of the presidency as a technocratic position to be headed by an accountant. In that case, FDR should never have been elected.

    The majority of Americans feel differently. They want a transformative leader whose choices at every step of his long and productive life of public service attest to his desire to put the interests of the disadvantaged 99% first and to spearhead SYSTEMIC changes where they are needed most.

    hockeydog , 2016-02-20 14:30:40
    One of my all-time favorite memories was when that guy from Goldman Sachs pocketed Five Billion of the U.S. taxpayer dollars, and then that other famous Goldman Sach alum nit, the Secty of our Treasury made a windfall after he purchased Lehman Bros. shares for 7 cents on the dollar, and then "miracle of miracles" redeemed his investment when the U.S. Bankruptcy Court awarded him 100 cents on the dollar.

    Oh, the memories...,

    jdanforth , 2016-02-20 14:29:25

    Private property based on the labor of the small proprietor, free competition, democracy– all the catchwords with which the Capitalists and their press deceive the workers and the peasants– are things of the distant past.

    Lenin wrote these words 100 years ago in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism , but they seem quite applicable to the people interviewed for this Guardian article.

    Perhaps the workers and peasants of Las Vegas aren't being properly deceived anymore. Some say they are still going to vote for the Democratic Party of Racism and War or the Republican Party of Racism and War, so they are not yet fully awake, but they definitely appear to be making progress.

    Goldenbird , 2016-02-20 14:22:22

    Tanna said the root of the US's problems was not Wall Street but the loss of industry.

    What people don't seem to understand is that "Wall Street" and "the loss of industry" flow from the same root cause: Big Money shanghaeing our politics and economy. Big Money runs Wall Street, AND Big Money shipped our jobs overseas (so they can pay foreign workers peanuts versus paying American workers a decent wage).

    Only Bernie Sanders is courageous enough to say this out loud. All other candidates are bought and paid for by the same Big Money selling America down the river.

    ID9793630 , 2016-02-20 13:27:36
    Sanders has a great track record on affordable housing that is immune to boom and bust and allows for rent or own options - as the initiator of the community land trust model in Burlington, Vermont.

    He will be able to easily formulate policies to refine and reproduce the CLT model. A Sanders presidency would be a unique opportunity to see a transformation of the housing market throughout the US in favour of affordable options, whether to rent or buy, for the majority of people living there - and not by throwing people into dependency on public housing run by local authorities but rather imaginative and constructive partnerships between communities, responsible finance, house builders and other business interests.

    BillTuckerUS , 2016-02-20 13:21:44
    The heart of the problem is free trade. There are no good jobs in America because we don't make anything anymore. The economists told us that imported things would be so much cheaper that it would more than offset our loss of income. However, that didn't happen; prices keep going up. Salaries stagnate, and the corporations move to China and make big profits, and their rich stockholders just get richer.

    Tomorrow's Democratic caucus in Nevada will be very interesting. If Sanders wins, in what was supposed to be a shoo-in for Clinton, that will be a big boost for him.

    By the way, Guardian, did Mr Johnson, the hotel worker, really say "punters"?

    OurNigel , 2016-02-20 13:02:27
    The the US housing collapse came about in part because the American government caved in to the Wall Street lobbyists when they said we (the financial industry) are best placed to police ourselves and allowed for the self-regulation of investment banks and other financial institutions.

    The Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999 was a major contributing factor to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis, when it repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing safeguards in the sector among banking, securities and insurance companies. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

    If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable, the Glass Steagall Act was designed to regulate and protect the financial sector, President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate, the financial institutions got their way and et viola just eight years later we had a financial Tsunami of biblical proportions caused by Wall Street greed.

    Both the democratic party and the Republican party are equally to blame for the lack of regulations, and to think allowing these guys (the financial institutions) to police themselves is a sane idea is ludicrous. Its akin to politely asking foxes not to eat the chickens and taking their word that they wont. Look at it another way, if this were the election of a chief of police with one of the main tasks being the fight against organised crime, I think you would be seriously concerned if you discovered that one of the main applicants for the role regularly got paid millions of dollars for speaking to the bad guys. You might even want to the transcripts of what that person said to the bad guys.

    This is why we need a person who hasn't been paid off by Wall Street and is no friend of Wall street.

    Serv_On OurNigel , 2016-02-20 13:52:59
    2000+
    USA is guilty of illegal wars and Global financial crises
    Stupidity is not an excuse even for America
    OurNigel GreatLizard , 2016-02-20 13:56:17
    The housing boom was a con and everyone fell in on the act, either through fear of being left behind or they were blinded by greed thinking housing prices would just keep rising and rising. At best people were stupid.

    The banks caused the housing bubble by lending people money they couldn't afford to borrow, they turned a blind eye to background checks by using a self certified mortgages, as more of these insane policies were awarded more people purchased and house prices sky rocketed, then as always the bubble burst.

    Its not the job of your average Joe to enact policy to regulate financial lending, it is the job of governments to regulate and police lending. People will always be gullible, 'it is the governments role to ensure economic stability" and as such governments should be responsible for policing rather than financial institutions. Failure to do so is not admitting that greed exists or could be motivating factor.

    Financial institutions are not as stupid as one would think, they knew the bubble would burst and so they sold on the toxic assets around the world thus causing a global economic and financial meltdown. In short your average Joe needs to be protected and Wall street needs to be regulated by the government.

    The way it stands now this could easily happen again hence the need for regulation and in my own personal opinion the entire banking industry needs to be reformed.

    Thats why I want Bernie to win.

    GreatLizard OurNigel , 2016-02-20 14:18:41

    At best people were stupid.

    And at worst?

    The banks caused the housing bubble .

    Largely - but not exclusively.

    Its not the job of your average Joe to enact policy to regulate financial lending

    ,

    No, but it is the job of the average Joe to know how much he can borrow and repay.

    it is the job of governments to regulate

    Agree 100%

    and police lending.

    Disagree. No President can know the intricacies of the financial instruments in that detail, nor should s/he. If it were the job of the President to understand it, then you should be asking some very tough questions of your own preferred candidate - Saunders, so you can be sure he actually has such a grasp of the detail that he personally would be capable of policing it. OK - you see where I'm going with this?

    Obviously the government of the day has to delegate policing to people who know, or ought to know precisely how these instruments work, what the risk factors are, and how the risk ought to be managed, in order that the regulator can compel the financial institutions to manage their own risk responsibly.

    But who can know how to do this regulation? You require a "poacher-turned-gamekeeper". That means someone who has worked in that industry - for a long time.

    'it is the governments role to ensure economic stability"

    And that is a nirvana that no government has ever managed to achieve. You must ask yourself why. I think that the answer is that no-one knows how to achieve stability.

    Financial institutions are not as stupid as one would think,

    I think they are both very clever, and entirely lacking in wisdom. I don't know what the situation was in the USA, but in the UK there has a been a trend for the boards of big banks to comprise non-bankers. People who have been successful in other fields - but no professional bankers. Therefore the boards had no proper understanding of the risks their banks were taking.

    they knew the bubble would burst

    I think they most certainly did NOT know. I think once you are inside the bubble, as in any community, most people follow the groupthink. Most people follow the herd. And that is why so many fianancial institutions either went to the wall or nearly did. Because they did NOT believe the bubble would burst. THey did not know or understand the extent of their own exposure.

    and so they sold on the toxic assets around the world thus causing a global economic and financial meltdown.

    And bought them back too.

    In short your average Joe needs to be protected and Wall street needs to be regulated by the government.

    Yes, and yes, and yes it is, but the problem is that the regulators do not always know what they are regulating. No politician ever can know, that's for sure.

    The way it stands now this could easily happen again hence the need for regulation and in my own personal opinion the entire banking industry needs to be reformed.

    Easier said than done.

    Thats why I want Bernie to win.

    And Bernie, who has never worked in finance- he knows how to regulate?

    hockeydog GreatLizard , 2016-02-20 14:34:25
    Sorry to have to bring you the news, but the real elephant in the room is Goldman Sachs.

    I am with OurNigel, Bernie is our guy!

    SavvasKara GreatLizard , 2016-02-20 15:02:20
    No it does not work like that I am afraid. Do not look at it from a microscopic perspective of "Don't borrow if you cannot pay back". Most people borrow and CAN pay back so long as they keep their jobs and their salaries remain more or less unchanged. BUT a recession has the effect that a lot of people lose their jobs due to a fall in demand (the foundational rule of supply and demand in modern economics) or have a decrease in their salaries so that the company where they are working at remains open or retains its profit margin. The fact that people lose their jobs makes them unable to repay their previously fully affordable loans. This has a domino effect as in turn it further reduces demand etc. In a stable and slightly improving economy this scenario of course does not occur (that's why we are able to function), so it is the instigator that is to blame and that was the financial system in the US. The housing bauble was created and burst by banks (and I am not making a distinction between investment and commercial banks since there was none after the repeal of certain regulatory legislation) through creating and trading in bad faith products they knew were toxic (derivatives), betting on their failure (creating a negative psychological effect) and issuing even more loans for ridiculous terms on bad creditors to make money (individual gains since they work on percentages on the volume of incoming and FUTURE business ;) ) . Add to that the vulnerability of US and International banks due to over-leveraging (that is, hold stocks on assets worth billions and trillions while only holding 5% of the actually money that you would need to own the so called stocks, money that were their deposits that were also supposed to satisfy banking needs such as a customer coming over to withdraw money), a panic and a banking run and this creates the perfect storm. Over-leveraging is another effect of removing regulations that control how much a corporation can be leveraged. To sum it up, greed ... Greed can take you a long way until you crush and burn but you DO crush and burn ... and when on your plane rest the lives and livelihoods of 7 billion people (since that is indeed a world economy) the world crushes and burns with you.

    I am in favour of changing the economy completely at some point since this classical economics paradigm is wildly obsolete (no longer do we have a LACK of resources which needs a system to appropriately ration them to the best entities. Everyone can have food, clothing and the basic commodities of life nowadays). Perhaps an energy-based economy is what is preferable but lacking that, proper regulation to avoid lives being destroyed is a certainly welcome addition in my mind :) .

    Carly435 GreatLizard , 2016-02-20 15:03:04

    he knows how to regulate?

    You betcha. He's been a lawmaker since 1990. In 1998 he voted against every effort to roll back Glass-Steagall. If there had been more honest and informed lawmakers like him, the 2008 crisis could have been averted.

    We had banking regulation and it worked great. Ask any expert and they will tell you that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a major cause of the 2008 financial crisis. So why is Bernie Sanders the only candidate in this race willing to commit to re-enacting it into law?

    http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/

    I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone who got a massive kick in the ass would want to bend over again for these people -- masochism?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAElF3cMZVk

    3 minute mark:

    Tell us how low to go, Your Majesty;
    Make some more decrees, Your Majesty,
    Don't let us up off out knees, Your Majesty.
    Give us a kick, if you please Your Majesty
    Give us a kick, if you would, Your Majesty
    Oh, That was good, Your Majesty!

    Serv_On Carly435 , 2016-02-20 15:14:19
    "Ask any expert and they will tell you that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a major cause of the 2008 financial crisis."
    =
    I'll ask you
    why do you believe repealing Glass Steagall in 1999 was cause of 2007 and 2008 crises
    would it have prevented cheap credit MBS securities housing boom commission trading leading to 2008 crises

    shouldn't the 2007 housing market issues have warned any bright spark that there was a housing bubble
    ==
    Please note the correct answer to above financial analysis is not mindless Bernie or Bill answer

    [Feb 21, 2016] A Win for Hillary Clinton, With Signs of Challenges Ahead - The New York Times

    blogs.nytimes.com

  • [Feb 20, 2016] South Carolina primary: Trump wins big while Jeb Bush drops out – live

    www.theguardian.com
    Informed17 , 2016-02-21 03:26:56
    At least Bush is out of the game. We already had twice as many Bushes as is good for the country. The dad was so-so, the son was a total disaster.
    bks3bks , 2016-02-21 03:25:51
    Jeb! -> !Jeb
    (For programmers, only)
    Ememem , 2016-02-21 03:19:22
    The rest of the world watches on in utter disbelief, once again, at the extreme ignorance of too many in America's heartland. Chest-pounding, God-fearing, huntin, shootin, we've got the biggest genitals and military hardware and thickest heads. Sure, a lot of Trump's bombast is pure bait to reel in those knuckleheads and politicians the world over will recognise this BUT the world has experienced this before with George W. He lost all respect outside of the American heartland. He never regained it. That he won twice was lampooned across Europe. Donald Trump is insulting people across the world ten times more than GW Bush. Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, anyone he thinks the ignorant at home want to blame for America's ills. Surely there has to be a limit to the insults, when governments everywhere else start to look away from the USA for trade, mutual respect and alignment. Where people might share a greater respect for others.
    RichardTheModerate , 2016-02-21 03:16:52
    Cruz on Bush: "A man who ran a campaign based on ideas, based on policy, based on substance, a man who didn't go to the gutter and engage in insults and attacks. Governor Bush brought honor and dignity to this campaign."

    Yup, so maybe Cruz could learn something?

    Juillette , 2016-02-21 03:14:12
    Congrats to Trump! The same to Bernie for closing the gap. Those are the only 2 candidates I would vote for in the general election.
    profitendieu , 2016-02-21 03:12:16
    What a wormy little pipsqueek of a man that Marco Rubio is!
    eoincarnes , 2016-02-21 03:10:59
    Moving Memorial Service Held For Presidential Aspirations Of Jeb Bush
    kai7081 , 2016-02-21 02:32:41
    Dear Marco, So, you've managed to perhaps come in second in the SC primary. Congratulations on pulling the wool over so many eyes I. That state. My question to you is if (and that's a stretch of the imagination) if you win the presidency will you show up for the swearing in? Your record in the senate says no. Your record in the Florida legislature says no. You are the great pretender, the small man in Cuban heels, the man who is social climbing through politics. Never interested enough in state politics to actually show up for the job. The same goes for the senate...too boring for you. You don't have the chops for the presidency. No morals, no sense of responsibility, no intellectual curiosity, nothing. You are an empty suit memorizing lines. How pathetic.
    Nevis7 , 2016-02-21 02:32:29
    The reality is that if the Democrats had as many candidates as the GOP has/had running, Hillary would have dropped out by this point, just like Jeb. America is tired of family dynasties when this country is supposed to be a democracy. This country is looking for a fundamental shift one way or the other rather than rehashing of the same old policies over and over again.
    Dmanny , 2016-02-21 02:28:50
    Marco Rubio will be the next president of the United States.
    Philip J Sparrow Dmanny , 2016-02-21 02:31:38
    An historic breakthrough for robot rights.
    nnedjo , 2016-02-21 02:23:26
    Hillary Clinton believes that she has to deal with "one issue candidate" Bernie Sanders. Well, it will not be long when Hillary will realize that she has to deal with the millions of Americans who are also interested in only one issue, and that is:
    Where to find the money to pay off their debts, to raise their children and send them to school and to pay for doctors and medicine when one of their loved ones or they themselves get sick.
    Therefore, all this really would not be an important issue, if all of them would be able to earn half a million dollars by holding only a few speeches at Goldman Sachs.
    robertthebruce2014 , 2016-02-21 02:21:51
    Watch Trump go after Bankers after he is done with the Saudis and then finally go after the Fed itself for setting up a false credit system which gave America 19,000,000,000,000 $ and ticking in debt. Yes folks those are all derivatives and other capital shit without anyone ever having to have to work for it. It's called the credit system in the hands of PRIVATE bankers, so go on Trump, as they say in Britain, go on, and expose all the lies we have been seeing for over longer than people can remember, bring back the Greenback and the Silver Dollar cerftificates so that real production AND NOT CREDIT and real jobs come back to the country without financier market leeches and other assorted scum top off and sell the house. Only a real estate developer would see through this trash so you are well positioned and do not let sicko Bloomberg stop you who made his money by selling financial info to capital mongers. Go on Trump, knock 'm dead.
    SamSmeagol robertthebruce2014 , 2016-02-21 02:28:14
    You're assuming that Trump's messages are honest and consistent - far from it. There's absolutely no telling what he might do if he were POTUS - a real leap into the dark. On the other hand, there's only Sander's that will make a difference, since Hillary will maintain the status quo.
    Philip J Sparrow robertthebruce2014 , 2016-02-21 02:30:41
    Trump - the guy who literally owns a building on Wall Street and who owns shares in Citigroup and Morgan Stanley - to go after the bankers?

    You might as well ask Chris Christie to get tough on pie.

    skippy07 Satans_Ballsack , 2016-02-21 02:32:53
    Clinton will fail against Trump. Bernie is the only one that can stop him.

    It took One verbal kill shot from Trump about Bill's sexual harrassment of women and Hillary fled in terror.

    Her nomination will surpress the whole white blue collar vote for the democrats, just as the nomination of Romney did the same for the republicans.

    Trump appeals to minorities much more than other Republicans as he is not a nutter budget cutter like the test of them. Trump will be the most left wing Republican nominee since Lincoln.

    Welcome President Trump.

    DomesticExtremist , 2016-02-21 02:17:06
    Jeb! - the man who single-handedly made the exclamation mark signify dreary disappointment.

    He will be missed like a hole in the head.

    James Donaghy , 2016-02-21 02:02:01
    How can people vote for Hillary and not Sanders???? This is madness voting out of pure fear even though polls have suggested SANDERS is more ELECTABLE then HILLARY.
    This better go the way of the 2008 Democratic Primary and kick Hillary Outta here
    Steve Haigh James Donaghy , 2016-02-21 02:07:23
    i'm an undecided dem voter (California). i like Bernie and think Hillary has too much baggage, but she does have a lot of experience, and Bill by her side.
    mutanthummingbird Steve Haigh , 2016-02-21 02:11:07
    What experience? being involved in war, colluded with corporations, pro tpp... that's the candidate people want?
    robertthebruce2014 , 2016-02-21 01:54:17
    Now let's go some more after the Saudis and 9/11 Donald - and after Hillary 'Goldman' Rodman - Clinton of course. Keep up the good work! Bravo.
    hillbillyzombie , 2016-02-21 01:49:37
    Rule 1 in politics is to ignore the polls and follow the bookies (as I mentioned on another thread, they drive much nicer cars than do pollsters). After tonight (from Paddypower):

    Hillary 10/11 it's still her's to lose.

    Trump 4/1 no change

    Rubio 4/1 big mover of the night. He's now the sole candidate in the 'establishment' lane. The rest of the Republican field are toast.

    Bernie 15/2 still has to show that he can win beyond his white, liberal base. Next couple weeks are going to be rocky, as the race moves to the South.

    lebronneJanes hillbillyzombie , 2016-02-21 01:53:00
    Rubio will get a spike from Jeb! Quitting.
    AbFalsoQuodLibet hillbillyzombie , 2016-02-21 01:54:44

    Rubio 4/1 big mover of the night. He's now the sole candidate in the 'establishment' lane. The rest of the Republican field are toast.

    Yes, this is the big takeaway from the night. You're not giving Paddypower's odds on Cruz, but they have got to be down. If he can't win heavily Evangelical South Carolina - and even the most Evangelical precincts there - where can he win? Cruz and Rubio going to Feel the Toupee

    cvneuves , 2016-02-21 01:47:22
    In a duel Trump vs. Clinton she will be political mincemeat after five minutes. He will just casually mention the excellent service he got for every donation he made to the Clinton gang.
    Philip J Sparrow cvneuves , 2016-02-21 01:49:25
    And she'll respond by asking for an invitation to his next wedding.
    Phoenix9061210 cvneuves , 2016-02-21 01:51:34
    Trump is more aggressive than Sanders. He will make more of a case that Hillary should be in jail, that she is unsafe with national security and people should trust Trump.

    Trump could make the same case about someone whom wasn't a verifiable loose cannon.

    moria50 cvneuves , 2016-02-21 02:00:25
    The Trumps and the Clintons are good friends.......I feel a deal had been made.
    He will step back later and let Hillary Clinton win.
    cKiding , 2016-02-21 01:47:22
    Hillary voters were caught on tape walking in without registering- Caucus process was a complete mess. People were told to leave without the count was over. Which is against DNC's policies. Is this for real. I am watching the clips on you tube and on some other news networks. Can someone research this please.
    Carly435 , 2016-02-21 01:36:41
    At this point, only one candidate can stop Donald Trump:

    Bernie Sanders.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/18/bernie-sanders-better-liked-runs-better-against-re/

    elliot2511 Carly435 , 2016-02-21 01:43:51
    Sanders is "better liked" because voters don't really know him, so his disapproval ratings are low...its the same reason John Kasich destroys Hillary in any head to head.


    Its likely that November will see the two candidates with the highest disapproval ratings -Trump and Clinton - go head to head....which should be interesting.

    Philter , 2016-02-21 01:35:55
    Clearly, the vote for Trump is a protest against the Republican Party selling out to corporate interests and turning the US's democracy into a corpocracy.

    And you can include Sanders in that.

    Power to the people.

    Steve Haigh , 2016-02-21 01:30:04
    Trump is the best outcome for the dems, see this
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
    DD11111 Steve Haigh , 2016-02-21 01:32:40
    Well many polls initially said Trump would not get 5% and would be out of the race in a week.
    Vermouth Brilliantine DD11111 , 2016-02-21 01:36:52
    A WSJ poll this week had him coming a distant 2nd. People keep underestimating him- and I'm confident people would turn out in droves to vote for him (or ANYONE) against Clinton. With Trump's many liberal stances, even some Democrats who hate Clinton would vote Trump.
    Funchal , 2016-02-21 01:24:51
    The Republican Party need to accept that the people want Trump. The establishment need to put their egos aside and realise that he is the best chance they've got.
    PropJoe99 Janeee , 2016-02-21 01:24:16
    Hillary would be more hawkish than Obama, who is one of the most violent presidents ever. Id rather have Trump. Really.
    gunnison , 2016-02-21 01:10:55
    I've been saying all along that I didn't think Trump could be the GOP nominee.

    After this massive win in South Carolina, where he said all the Things You're Not Supposed To Say-about Dubya, about war, about him lying us into a war, about Planned Parenthood not being demonic, about healthcare, about all those things which are supposedly politically suicidal-I honestly don't see who the GOP has who can beat him.

    The GOP is being turned inside out and upside down, and they have no fucking clue what, if anything, can be done about it.

    Another thing.
    If Trump is the nominee, he can beat HRC.
    The Democrat party establishment is in serious denial of her negatives, which are huge.
    Dangerously so.

    Philip J Sparrow , 2016-02-21 01:08:51
    "Trump would start at a disadvantage: Most Americans just really don't like the guy."

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters /

    Funchal Philip J Sparrow , 2016-02-21 01:14:12
    The media will print this stuff because he is a threat. All the elite which includes the media, lobbyists, special interests are used to their corrupt cosy bubble.
    Peter Flagler , 2016-02-21 01:07:44
    I live in North Carolina. The results of the primary are disturbing to say the least. Most of the people I work with are for Trump. I think Trump will have a majority of delegates after March primaries. I never thought Trump had a chance. I still don't think he will be the GOP nominee. I am quite pleased the GOP has self-destructed (the extremists will never accept an "establishment" candidate). You can be happy about the death of the GOP, but if Trump or Cruz are acceptable to a sizable electorate, that is shameful. Frightening.
    ConventionPrevention , 2016-02-21 01:07:12
    I will agree with Trump on this one point. George Bush did lie about the WMDs. He lied through his teeth. Dick Cheny lied through his teeth. Colin Powell lied through his teeth and many others in the Bush cabinet lied through their teeth. Condoleezza Rice was also complicit.
    The current congress for the most part is a traitorous congress.
    GorCro ConventionPrevention , 2016-02-21 01:15:20
    Not treason. Sedition.
    Philip J Sparrow , 2016-02-21 01:04:53
    Latest polling has Sanders beating Trump by up to 15 points:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

    The Chump can barely muster a third of his own party's vote, he has no chance come November. It will be so much fun watching the bilious halfwit crash and burn.

    poolfreezer , 2016-02-21 00:56:44
    As an Australian existing under the thumb of a hard rightwing religious plutocracy , I regard Bernie Sanders as an inspiration . Good luck America --
    Clackers , 2016-02-21 00:54:22
    Fast forward to May 2017. A relieved US Congress accepts Her Majesty's Government's request for the former American colonies to rejoin the Commonwealth under the premiership of Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn. Former president Sir B Obama (knighted for services to the Commonwealth) and the first Governor for two centuries, said "Thank goodness for Britain, for without her, we would have trumped by China. Long Live the King."
    kaltnadel , 2016-02-21 00:36:19
    Why do so few people vote in the Nevada caucus? 8000? and we all pay so much attention?
    AbFalsoQuodLibet kaltnadel , 2016-02-21 00:43:21
    80,000. Not a lot, no.
    SocalAlex kaltnadel , 2016-02-21 02:22:37
    Because it's a caucus. A ridiculous 18th century relic, where you have to show up in person at a specific time (a time when loads of people are working or looking after their children or otherwise committed/engaged), stay there however long is necessary, and publicly announce your vote to all and sundry while being forced to defend it to your opponents trying to change your mind.

    In other words, it has very little to do with "voting" as is commonly understood...

    Whatsup12 , 2016-02-21 00:35:10
    Vote Goldman! Vote Hillary!
    Haigin88 , 2016-02-21 00:24:43
    Bill Clinton shamelessly likening Bernie Sanders and his supporters to the Tea Party wackos last Monday:

    "....."It's not altogether mysterious that there are a lot of people that say, well, the Republican party rewarded the Tea Party. They just tell people what they want to hear, move them to the right and we'll be rewarded, except they didn't get anything done," Clinton said. "That's going on in our party now."........".

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/bill-clinton-tells-florida-jews-hillary-will-prioritize-israel-ties /

    Shanajackson , 2016-02-21 00:22:59
    Isn't Hillary expected to win Nevada and South Carolina ? Is this not her southern "FireWall" Hmm I winder if she had her firewall turned on when she was sending her emails from her private server. Anyway, the fact that Nevada was close is a bad sign for Clinton and Super Tuesday IMO.
    nnedjo , 2016-02-21 00:19:58

    Richard Wolffe: Bernie Sanders may, like Steve Jobs, be living in a reality distortion field...
    All of which may be true – but it just isn't enough because, well, he lost in Nevada.

    Yes, and then what? Obama also lost to Clinton in Nevada in 2008, but he finally won.
    Listen, Wolffe, why don't you stop to distort the reality field?
    TaiChiMinh casclc , 2016-02-21 00:18:30
    If Clinton keeps running a scorched earth, divisive campaign, she will make sure that no such powerful combination occurs. For progressives to support her will take a lot - and I meant a lot. She is almost the epitome of their dissatisfaction with the Democratic party - why her campaign continues smears and dishonest attacks ON THE PEOPLE THEY WILL NEED bears thinking about.
    joey88 , 2016-02-21 00:12:31
    Nat Silver :While Clinton has won the first two caucuses in the Democratic race - while losing New Hampshire, the only primary - it's possible that Bernie Sanders will win every state caucus from here on out.

    Here's why I say that. The remaining Democratic states to hold caucuses are: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Washington and Wyoming. Other than Hawaii - where I'm not going to pretend we have any earthly idea what's going to happen - those are a bunch of really white states that otherwise look favorable for Sanders and which he could win even if he slightly trails Clinton nationally.

    Clinton is probably favored in the territorial caucuses in American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands, however, as territorial caucuses tend to heavily favor "establishment" candidates.

    Very interesting point which widespread media is choosing to overlook but this could be a game changer

    TaiChiMinh joey88 , 2016-02-21 00:23:02
    Why is winning caucuses - and in states with small to medium delegate counts - a game changer? To win the nomination you have to 1) assemble a strong coalition and 2) win the big-delegate primaries showing you have popular vote strength. In doing this you need 3) to pull the party together so that it can win the general - kind of the opposite of what Trump is doing in the GOP.

    I worry, and have since before Sanders was a factor, that should Hillary do 1) and 2) (as I expect she can), she has no idea how to do 3) and won't. A significant segment of the party doesn't support Clinton - some never will - she needs to grasp this and deal with it.

    Vermouth Brilliantine craighm , 2016-02-21 00:23:38
    Trump is opposed to the TPP, wants to tear up NAFTA, supports protectionism (punitive import tariffs on US companies which outsource), supports tax-hikes on highest income-earners, supports lower taxes on lowest income-earners, wants to introduce nation-wide Medicare for people on the lowest economic rungs of society, speaks out against corporate/political cronyism and lobbyist influence over government contracts, and bases his opposition to illegal immigration on the way it hurts blue-collar US citizens vocationally. Meanwhile, Cruz takes his marching orders from groups like the evangelical-racist Palmetto Family Council and wants to abolish the IRS, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, and Dept. of Housing.

    So, how exactly is Trump a global elitist, again...?

    jockeylad , 2016-02-21 00:11:10
    It would appear that the message from Nevada democrats is "more of the same old tired shit please" - the Clintons have been on the scene long enough to have been totally captured by big business & know all the bottom feeding lobbyist snakes by their first names - if this is what they mean by " the most prepared and experienced human being America has ever seen for this office " Good luck if Hilary gets in America. Just another Big Business sock puppet.

    Sleep well in the (My fellow Americans - & by that I mean the ones that are the same colour as me & have money - your future is safe on my watch) fire.

    Mark Forrester , 2016-02-21 00:07:05
    Poor old Hilary.

    All the money, all the connections, all the spin, the family, the party machine working overtime for her. And yet, and yet...

    She should be annihilating Sanders - the socialist curmudgeon. But as this result shows, people just don't buy what she's selling, they don't believe her, they don't trust her, they think there's something rotten about her, they feel it, they smell it.

    And there's the choice. Clinton, no ideals, slippery, inconsistent, pragmatic, a reflection of an innately corrupt system yet equipped with the Francis Underwood skillset to work that system, or Sanders, an principled, naive, brave, inflexible - who is happy to tear that whole system down.

    Sanders might struggle to get things done with the media, political system, big business and many in his own party want him to crash and burn. Clinton may be in the pocket of Wall Street and simply maintain the status quo with some of the harshest edges sanded off. Perils down both routes.

    Personally, I'd like to see battle for America's soul. Sanders v Trump. Good vs Evil. I'd buy a ticket for that rather than the dull Clinton v Rubio yawnathon that seems the likeliest outcome. A contest I'd want them, somehow, to both lose.

    AlexTarbet , 2016-02-20 23:56:08
    What's up with The Guardian fanfare for Clinton? I just peeked at the L.A. Times and they were very clear that she just eked out a narrow win. Our supposed progressive Guardian is already tuning up the Hillary band for "Hail to the Chief". This election is getting curiouser and curiouser.
    joey88 AlexTarbet , 2016-02-21 00:01:44
    If you watched the CNN live broadcast the hacks are actually describing it as a decisive victory and a turning point. I am at a loss for words at how bias the establishment media are becoming as they continue to eek out this false narrative. If I were an American I would feel insulted that these networks hold the general public in such little regard as to deem them morons.

    [Feb 20, 2016] Larry Ellison gives another $1 million to boost Marco Rubio

    www.politico.com

    The tech billionaire has given $4 million overall to pro-Rubio super PAC

    [Feb 20, 2016] 28Pages.org

    28pages.org
    Defending his attention-grabbing assertions that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was an enormous mistake facilitated by the George W. Bush administration's misleading of the American people, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump this week indirectly referred to 28 classified pages said to link the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the 9/11 attacks.

    "It wasn't the Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center. We went after Iraq, we decimated the country, Iran's taking over…but it wasn't the Iraqis, you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center, because they have papers in there that are very secret, you may find it's the Saudis, okay? But you will find out," Trump said at a Wednesday campaign event in Bluffton, South Carolina.

    Trump's implied promise to declassify the 28 pages sets him apart from the remaining Republican and Democratic presidential aspirants, filling a gap created when Rand Paul suspended his campaign. Last summer, Paul introduced Senate Bill 1471, which, if passed, would direct the president to release the 28 pages, and he pledged to release them himself if elected to the White House. Green Party candidate Jill Stein has also called for their release. (Then-Senator Hillary Clinton co-signed a 2003 letter to President Bush demanding the release of the 28 pages, but has been silent on the topic since.)

    [Feb 19, 2016] Obama appointee gave $100,000 to Jeb Bush's super PAC

    Notable quotes:
    "... the $100,000 gift still makes Palmisano a megadonor operating inside a system many critics feel is corrupting democracy. ..."
    "... "To someone outside of Washington, this might seem odd," says Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, which monitors campaign-finance issues. "But here in Washington, it's really not surprising at all." ..."
    "... The $100,000 donation to Right to Rise was Palmisano's first dalliance with a super PAC, a newer type of funding mechanism that may be the most significant innovation in American politics in decades. Unlike traditional political-action groups or campaign committees, super PACs can accept unlimited donations to spend as they wish either supporting favored candidates or opposing rivals. The 2010 Citizens United ..."
    "... Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. ..."
    "... Follow him on Twitter: ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    Sam Palmisano is undoubtedly a technology expert. As CEO of IBM (IBM) from 2003 to 2011, he presided over a tech giant during the formative years of the digital revolution. That makes him a logical choice to be vice chairman of a new White House panel on cybersecurity, an appointment President Obama announced this week.

    Palmisano is also a Republican who gave $100,000 last March to Jeb Bush's super PAC, Right to Rise. That puts him in the rarified stratum of people making six-, seven- or eight-figure donations to help a chosen candidate win. Palmisano is hardly the biggest spender in the 2016 race. At least 110 people have made larger donations to the Bush super PAC, the biggest being a $10 million offering from former AIG chairman Hank Greenberg. But the $100,000 gift still makes Palmisano a megadonor operating inside a system many critics feel is corrupting democracy.

    "To someone outside of Washington, this might seem odd," says Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, which monitors campaign-finance issues. "But here in Washington, it's really not surprising at all."

    Nor is it unusual for a president to establish a bipartisan commission or study group, which tends to have more credibility than a single-party panel more likely to push an ideological agenda. The chairman of the cybersecurity panel will be Tom Donilon, a longtime Obama aide and former National Security Adviser. Donilon and Palmisano will help recruit another 10 panel members of both parties, whose job will be to produce a report by Dec. 1 on ways to improve Internet security and lure more talented people into the field.

    The White House maintains that choosing Palmisano shows Obama is putting substance over politics. "Cybersecurity is a non-partisan issue," Deputy White House Press Secretary Jen Friedman told Yahoo Finance. "Maintaining public safety, and our economic and national security, transcends politics."

    Before donating to Bush's super PAC, Palmisano was an occasional political contributor who gave a total of $26,600 to a handful of politicians, of both parties, beginning in 1998, according to Federal Election Commission data. Last year, he gave $2,700 to Jeb Bush's campaign committee (which is seperate from the super PAC) and $5,400 to Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio. On the Democratic side, Palmisano gave $3,000 to Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York in 2002 and 2003, and $1,000 to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2004. Palmisano didn't respond to a request for comment, but his giving pattern prior to the Right to Rise donation suggests the pragmatic concerns of a businessman putting a few bucks in the pots of key legislators as a token of support.

    The $100,000 donation to Right to Rise was Palmisano's first dalliance with a super PAC, a newer type of funding mechanism that may be the most significant innovation in American politics in decades. Unlike traditional political-action groups or campaign committees, super PACs can accept unlimited donations to spend as they wish either supporting favored candidates or opposing rivals. The 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision basically eliminated caps on political donations, and super PACs have proliferated ever since.

    Rick Newman's latest book is Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.

    [Feb 18, 2016] Lynn Nottage: Nostalgia is a disease many white Americans have

    Notable quotes:
    "... Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago. ..."
    "... You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity. Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages they have stuck to for the last generation? ..."
    "... median household incomes in America peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity. ..."
    "... Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them. ..."
    "... The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional, creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than is the select group of playwrights listed in the article. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    AmyInNH seastar

    6m ago 0 1 Well thank you for clearing that up. All this time I thought Washington was getting intensely corrupt and now I know it's all in my head.
    Nostalgia is for stability, not "white culture".
    As for immigrant labor, I'm sure this chart, one of the many means of robber baron tactics, flooding the labor market, is mere coincidence.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_of_foreign_born_in_the_US_labor_force_1900_to_2007.png Reply | Report Maritz , 2016-02-18 01:18:17
    It took how many years to come up with the appalling misconception that blue collar steel workers benefited from any type of "supremacy" unless you believe that having a job that pays enough to put a roof over your family's heads and food on the table should be beyond the reach of all but a selected few....Blue collar workers have only ever aspired to keeping their kids in school as long as possible and neither they nor their kids ever had any designs on a college education. Word hard, pay the bills, retire, and die within five years. I don't know in what world that translates to white privelege or advantage, especially when they worked with African Americans and Latinos.

    Now politicians promise every child a college education. If you can't understand the difference between this generation that has been told the world is their oyster and the ones who worked in the Steel mills for generations and knew what their kids could look forward, knew that college was beyond the modest aspirations of their kids and their grandkids you didn't ask the right questions or the right people and the result is an ideologically driven mess of race baiting, sexist claptrap. Get used to being called on your bullsh*t. We all need to check our privilege when we write about race. Talk about entitlement.

    EpaminondasUSA , 2016-02-18 01:16:26
    Lynn Nottage never saw Spike Lee's "Crooklyn." One would call that nostalgic.
    elcantwell , 2016-02-18 00:20:29
    The tough part for me is constantly hearing about what the President did or didn't do. The US government is structured specifically to limit the actions of the executive branch. The conditions of the economic disaster were exacerbated by the unparalleled obstructionism of the opposition party and the lack of support from the president's own party. If Democrats had been willing to oppose a sitting president back in '03 we might have avoided a bankrupting war that still has not ended.
    Thatingles GoatyGoY , 2016-02-18 00:12:40
    Not really. Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago. For sure it was better to be white then black but since you can never really measure the extent of white privilege on your own life, how can you have nostalgia for it?
    The writer claims that current political events are being shaped by a chimaera she can provide no evidence for and ignoring the very real changes that could be driving the political shifts toward more radical candidates.
    Thatingles seastar , 2016-02-18 00:06:27
    You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity. Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages they have stuck to for the last generation?

    Trump is insane, of course, but voting for Hillary or Cruz is equally insane for most of middle America. They would effectively be voting to see their incomes go down and to fall further behind the wealthiest. Why is that a good decision?

    Thatingles , 2016-02-18 00:01:27
    For sure there is nostalgia: nostalgia for the time when middle class incomes were enough to provide a decent lifestyle, were expected to rise and provide enough to pay for your kids to get a decent education. The writer then frames this as nostalgia for white privilege, but I have to question that. Surely the expectation was that as discrimination was rolled back, ethnic minorities would start to come up and equalise their incomes with the white population. After all, that is what every mainstream politician promised would happen. But median household incomes in America peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity.

    And *every* US president and political party has dissembled on this point. Every time, the promise is the same - we can get back to the rising incomes and increasing equality of the last century. And every time, nothing of the sort is delivered.

    So if there is nostalgia, it not only has a very real basis in fact, but is a nostalgia for a time when economic gains were distributed more equally, not a nostalgia for a time when white privilege (whatever that means) was a greater force.

    Sanders and Trump both represent a break from politicians and messages that have palpably failed to deliver. The voters put up with being lied to for some time but their patience has run out.

    Of course Trump can be portrayed as an out and out racist, so its easy to say - well his support is based on race politics. I have no doubt that many do support him for that reason. But the wider picture is this:

    The American voters feel they have been lied to by established politicians and are now looking for alternatives. If they have nostalgia for times past, that is founded not on a dream of white supremacy, but founded on a recollection of times when the economy did work better for the majority.

    Marc Smith , 2016-02-17 22:37:43
    Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them.
    GeoffP ThaddeusTheBold , 2016-02-17 21:37:18

    They now realize their automatic entitlement to being consequential is gone

    What the hell are you talking about? My father didn't have any damn " entitlement to being consequential". He worked his heart out for it, day in and out, and I was proud to do it alongside him.

    Maybe instead of just applying a racist take on perspective, why not think about what you write first? And why is it that every time - every. single. time - this topic comes up that someone widens the gap of guilt to the entirety of white people generally? Where's the border for you? Canada? The UK? Latvia? What is enough of a geographic guilt complex for your needs? Let us know.

    pintoks , 2016-02-17 21:25:37
    The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional, creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than is the select group of playwrights listed in the article.
    strobi Cannylad1919 , 2016-02-17 21:22:47
    the fact that the more academically qualified white female has less chance of getting a place in harvard than a wealthy African-American, is hardly the fault of African Americans or any form of reverse racism, it s the fault of first Harvard being a private university that caters to economic elites, the lack of funding in education and that education is handled at the local level, so funding and quality depend greatly on the education level of the local community and how wealthy they are. This perpetuates inequalities. Still, if you put this hypothetical white female from Harlan County in nice clothes and send her to a fancy mall, together with an equally well dressed young black woman, who do you think security will follow?

    There are also studies where equal CV were sent to potential employers, with the only difference being white, latino, asian or African American sounding names, and the white sounding names were picked more often, everything else being equal.

    It is time that you realize that racism is a real thing and no, working class whites 't doing poorly because of minorities, they are doing poorly (together with minorities) because of the economic system. Unless of course, you think that whites should do better, because, well, they are whites. The later is what I think the nostalgia is all about, 50 years ago white would have had an edge over minorities that today no longer have in most places.

    Surf Murf , 2016-02-17 21:15:27
    This woman is so so wise and enlightened that that her extreme intellect has crossed the line on insanity. Liberals like her will do their best to herd the rest of us into believing that only white working class men are attracted to people like trump and it's only because they are racists. No no lady bone head.

    First of all, you and your elitists, pompous and supposed educated comrades need to stop using the race card overtime you find someone you disagree with. Secondly, Trump has attracted the attention on a multitude of people across all facets of our society and it's not because we are racists, it't because he at least vocalizes, inspire of all of your absurd PC proclamations, facts that the majority of us Americans know and see each day.

    By the way, I am an American with brown skin who's ancestry is African and I appreciate most of what Trump espouses. So please stop trying to make the rest of us fear and hate white working class men just because you've fantasized about their hatred toward you. You and your kind (elitists liberals) will no longer lead me down the path of destruction.

    Individualist RollTide16 , 2016-02-17 20:38:25
    Exactly, all the places that hit rock bottom during the crack epidemic are on their way up now just in time to start attracting people back from the suburban and peri-urban sprawl with its body and soul weakening car dependent isolation.

    Cities like New York and DC are way ahead of surrounding areas in providing public services and creating sustainable buildings plus car-less ways of getting around.

    [Feb 17, 2016] Hillary is used to beating, kicking and abusing her own husband – former Nixon adviser

    Notable quotes:
    "... Do you think they'll sue you or they're too busy running the campaign? ..."
    "... my problem with Hillary Clinton is her physical abuse of people, and that is the case I make in the book. ..."
    "... Clintons and the Bushes are the same. They actually work together. They raised $138 mn dollars through a non-profit for Haitian earthquake relief. They spent $10 million ,the pocketed a $128 million. It's in this book. ..."
    "... They believe this system is broken, they don't like either party, they distrust political institutions, they distrust the Congress, they distrust the big media, they distrust the system, which they believe, is rigged against the average person - and that's why Trump, and, to a certain extent, Ben Carson, for example, and maybe even Bernie Sanders, they are resonating, because voters see them as outsiders and different from the other career politicians. Bernie Sanders isn't taking special interest money, he's not taking PAC money. God bless him! ..."
    RT - SophieCo

    The American presidential contest is heating up, but the new book about Democratic co-frontrunner Hillary Clinton may have some wide consequences. It alleges that the Clinton family has been involved in abuse, rape and fraud, not having any qualms with using the privileged position and money to shut the mouths of victims. What's the basis of these claims? Can it change the flow of the election campaign? We speak to the author of the book, a former advisor to Nixon and Reagan. Roger Stone is on Sophie&Co today.

    Sophie Shevardnadze: Roger Stone, political strategist, former advisor to presidents Nixon, Reagan, to candidate Donald Trump.. Now, you've just pen a book, called "Clinton's war on women", where you alleged that a lot of, frankly, sensational things about the personal lives of Bill and HIllary Clinton. For instance, you claim that Clintons systematically abused women, sexually and physically. Do you mean to say they rape and beat them? I mean, is that what you're saying?

    Roger Stone:

    ".... many of these women were very reticent to talk because they are poor women. They are not women who can afford lawyers. They are not women who can afford to fight back. By the way, Michael Isikoff from NBC, he has reported this, Roger Morris, Pulitzer prize-winning author of Washington Post, he has reported this. So, it's not just Roger Stone who has made these allegations.

    ... No, I think I put forward the evidence, hard evidence, documented evidence, that Hillary Clinton has beaten, kicked, punched, scratched and thrown hard objects at her husband. At the same time, she says in her gun control proposal: "Those involved in domestic abuse should not have a gun", it's hypocrisy, that's what this is about.

    SS: Now, you say, Hillary "psychologically raped" her or Bill's victims. Why do you refer to it like that? Aren't you just being inflammatory?

    RS: No, not at all. Well, you're a woman, how would you feel if your pet was killed, if you cat was killed and left at the front door? If a man called your home late at night and said: "We know where your kids go to school"? If your home was broken into? In my book, I establish the actual names and, in many cases, the reports by other journalists that Jack Palladino, private detective, Anthony Pellicano, private detective, now in prison for illegal wiretapping, Ivan Duda, private detective - these men all said the same thing, they were retained by Hillary Clinton to keep tabs on and conduct a terror campaign to silence Bill's sexual assault victims. No, I'm not being inflammatory, I deal in facts, not rumors, not conspiracy, facts. By the way, I'm open to lawsuits, here in the U.S., the Clinton's won't sue me, because they know that I can then depose them, under oath, about anything in this book.

    SS: Do you think they'll sue you or they're too busy running the campaign?

    RS: No, they're too busy being afraid that this is the issue that can bring them down. Now, I should also say, my book also includes the two billion dollar financial frauds at the Clinton Foundation, includes Bill Clinton's involvement with trafficking cocaine during the time when he was the governor, his association with Dan Lasater and others. This book is a complete and total expose of Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

    SS: But is their marriage really much fairer than many other people's intense relationships, seriously?

    RS: Their marriage is dysfunctional. It is a marriage of convenience, and the instance of a lust for power. Even if I'm wrong, even if Bill's sexual conquests are all consensual, how many times Hillary has to be humiliated by her husband before she does something about it?

    ... ... ...

    Robert Moreau is a supreme researcher, and there's no question: what he has learned about the Clinton's abuse of people, men, women and children, has made him very, very angry. He should be angry. Anybody who reads this book will be angry, because it is the unvarnished, ugly truth about the privileged elite in this country. There are certain people, like the Clintons, like the Bushes, for whom the laws do not matter, they can traffic drugs, they can assault and abuse other people - again, I ask people: read the book, make your own judgement. Don't let the media decide for you, don't let the twisted freaks in Media Matters for America who are being paid to peddle this information, don't let them decide for you. Read the book, make your own decisions.

    ... ... ...

    SS: Now, you blame Hillary Clinton for having a temper, for behaving abusively. Yet, you support Donald Trump who has offended just about everyone along the way, and has been especially derogatory to women. I mean, he seriously speaks about women like, about domestic appliances, pretty much. Don't you see a contradiction here? Aren't you being a little two-faced?

    RS: Why would you acquaint words with physicality? They are not the same. You know, free speech is a big item here in the U.S., we have something called The First Amendment. If Trump has offended so many people, why is he doing so well in the polls? No, my problem with Hillary Clinton is her physical abuse of people, and that is the case I make in the book. I don't think you can acquaint one with the other.

    ... ... ...

    Look, the Clintons and the Bushes are the same. They actually work together. They raised $138 mn dollars through a non-profit for Haitian earthquake relief. They spent $10 million ,the pocketed a $128 million. It's in this book. It will also be in my book, written from a different point of view, on the Bushes. I just give that as one example of these two families working together to line their own pockets.

    ... ... ...

    They believe this system is broken, they don't like either party, they distrust political institutions, they distrust the Congress, they distrust the big media, they distrust the system, which they believe, is rigged against the average person - and that's why Trump, and, to a certain extent, Ben Carson, for example, and maybe even Bernie Sanders, they are resonating, because voters see them as outsiders and different from the other career politicians. Bernie Sanders isn't taking special interest money, he's not taking PAC money. God bless him! I don't agree with him, he says he's a Democratic Socialist, that's like a "meat-eating vegetarian"; but, nonetheless, at least he has a courage in his convictions and he isn't bought and paid for.

    SS: Mr. Stone, thank you so much for this interview, for your wonderful insight. We were talking to Roger Stone, political strategist, former advisor to Presidents Nixon and Reagan, as well as candidate Donald Trump, author of "Clinton's War on Women", talking about the newest sensational allegations of abusive behaviour of Clinton family, and what can that mean for the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election. That's it for this edition of Sophie&Co, I will see you next time.

    [Feb 16, 2016] HRC is a moderate republican in democrat skin

    Notable quotes:
    "... For reasons sake, I was not saying that HRC was LITERALLY a Republican…but her window of political discourse certainly represents what used to be considered expected of a moderate republican. Hell's fire, people, Bill Clinton's governance was typical of what used to be expected of a moderate Republican. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Analemma recensere , 02/14/2016 at 2:30 pm
    Oh give me a break…

    I imagine you both are familiar with this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

    For reasons sake, I was not saying that HRC was LITERALLY a Republican…but her window of political discourse certainly represents what used to be considered expected of a moderate republican. Hell's fire, people, Bill Clinton's governance was typical of what used to be expected of a moderate Republican.

    I voted for Bill (2x), and for Obama (2x), and I will vote for HRC over any of the brain-dead idiots in the current Republican lineup.

    Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, most political experts acknowledge that Saint Ronald Reagan would be marginalized in today's Republican Party.

    Stop taking everything so literally and shooting from the lip.

    Go Read OFM's rather insightful post on this thread regarding the current political climate wrt establishment vs. non-establishment politicians and consider taking his word on the matter.

    [Feb 14, 2016] The "Bernie Bros" Narrative a Cheap Campaign Tactic Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism by Glenn Greenwald

    Notable quotes:
    "... The concoction of the "Bernie Bro" narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic - and a journalistic disgrace. It's intended to imply two equally false claims: (1) a refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing Hillary Clinton is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively by sexism: demonstrated by the fact that men, not women, support Sanders (his supporters are "bros"); and (2) Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive and misogynistic in their online behavior. Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate). ..."
    "... consummate, actual "bros" ..."
    "... But truth doesn't matter here - at all. Instead, the goal is to inherently delegitimize all critics of Hillary Clinton by accusing them of, or at least associating them with, sexism, thus distracting attention away from Clinton's policy views, funding, and political history and directing it toward the online behavior of anonymous, random, isolated people on the internet claiming to be Sanders supporters. It's an effective weapon when wielded by Clinton operatives. But, given its blatant falsity, it has zero place in anything purporting to be "journalism." ..."
    theintercept.com

    The concoction of the "Bernie Bro" narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic - and a journalistic disgrace. It's intended to imply two equally false claims: (1) a refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing Hillary Clinton is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively by sexism: demonstrated by the fact that men, not women, support Sanders (his supporters are "bros"); and (2) Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive and misogynistic in their online behavior. Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate).

    It's become such an all-purpose, handy pro-Clinton smear that even consummate, actual "bros" for whom the term was originally coined - straight guys who act with entitlement and aggression, such as Paul Krugman - are now reflexively (and unironically) applying it to anyone who speaks ill of Hillary Clinton, even when they know nothing else about the people they're smearing, including their gender, age, or sexual orientation. Thus, a male policy analyst who criticized Sanders' health care plan "is getting the Bernie Bro treatment," sneered Krugman. Unfortunately for the New York Times Bro, that analyst, Charles Gaba, said in response that he's "really not comfortable with [Krugman's] referring to die-hard Bernie Sanders supporters as 'Bernie Bros'" because it "implies that only college-age men support Sen. Sanders, which obviously isn't the case."

    It is indeed "obviously not the case." There are literally millions of women who support Sanders over Clinton. A new Iowa poll yesterday shows Sanders with a 15-point lead over Clinton among women under 45, while one-third of Iowa women over 45 support him. A USA Today/Rock the Vote poll from two weeks ago found Sanders nationally "with a 19-point lead over front-runner Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 31 percent, among Democratic and independent women ages 18 to 34." One has to be willing to belittle the views and erase the existence of a huge number of American women to wield this "Bernie Bro" smear.

    But truth doesn't matter here - at all. Instead, the goal is to inherently delegitimize all critics of Hillary Clinton by accusing them of, or at least associating them with, sexism, thus distracting attention away from Clinton's policy views, funding, and political history and directing it toward the online behavior of anonymous, random, isolated people on the internet claiming to be Sanders supporters. It's an effective weapon when wielded by Clinton operatives. But, given its blatant falsity, it has zero place in anything purporting to be "journalism."

    [Feb 14, 2016] Sanders To Hillary I'm Proud To Say Henry Kissinger Is Not My Friend Zero Hedge

    www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    He's a thug, and a crook, and a liar, and a pseudo-intellectual and a murderer. Ok? Those things are factually verifiable.

    Kissinger deserves vigorous prosecution for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture.

    A good liar must have a good memory: Kissinger is a stupendous liar with a remarkable memory.

    – Quotes by Christopher Hitchens

    One of the more bizarre memes that continues to be parroted by the establishment media is this idea that Hillary Clinton is so much stronger than Bernie Sanders when it comes to foreign policy. Sure, if your definition of "strength" consists of cheerleading for the cataclysmic Iraq War and propagating a series of war crimes and international fiascos as Secretary of State, then I suppose that's true.

    For some of Henry Kissinger's greatest genocidal hits, I turn to a fantastic article published in the Nation last week titled, Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clinton's Tutor in War and Peace :

    I n the New Hampshire debate, Clinton thought to close her argument that she is the true progressive with this: "I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time."

    Let's consider some of Kissinger's achievements during his tenure as Richard Nixon's top foreign policy–maker. He (1) prolonged the Vietnam War for five pointless years; (2) illegally bombed Cambodia and Laos; (3) goaded Nixon to wiretap staffers and journalists; (4) bore responsibility for three genocides in Cambodia, East Timor, and Bangladesh; (5) urged Nixon to go after Daniel Ellsberg for having released the Pentagon Papers, which set off a chain of events that brought down the Nixon White House; (6) pumped up Pakistan's ISI, and encouraged it to use political Islam to destabilize Afghanistan; (7) began the US's arms-for-petrodollars dependency with Saudi Arabia and pre-revolutionary Iran; (8) accelerated needless civil wars in southern Africa that, in the name of supporting white supremacy, left millions dead; (9) supported coups and death squads throughout Latin America; and (10) ingratiated himself with the first-generation neocons, such as Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who would take American militarism to its next calamitous level. Read all about it in Kissinger's Shadow --

    A full tally hasn't been done, but a back-of-the-envelope count would attribute 3, maybe 4 million deaths to Kissinger's actions, but that number probably undercounts his victims in southern Africa. Pull but one string from the current tangle of today's multiple foreign policy crises, and odds are it will lead back to something Kissinger did between 1968 and 1977. Over-reliance on Saudi oil? That's Kissinger. Blowback from the instrumental use of radical Islam to destabilize Soviet allies? Again, Kissinger. An unstable arms race in the Middle East? Check, Kissinger. Sunni-Shia rivalry? Yup, Kissinger. The impasse in Israel-Palestine? Kissinger.

    Radicalization of Iran? "An act of folly" was how veteran diplomat George Ball described Kissinger's relationship to the Shah. Militarization of the Persian Gulf? Kissinger, Kissinger, Kissinger.

    And yet Clinton continues to call his name, hoping his light bathes her in wisdom

    Seizing upon her willingness to associate and brag about a cordial working relationship with a notorious war criminal, Bernie Sanders had the following to say in this week's debate.

    No surprise there. Sociopathic, violent war criminals tend to stick together.

    Of course, let's never forget what Google search told us about the two candidates…

    JRobby

    Kissinger is just one of the more visible NWO tools. There are so many.

    I recall him "strolling" from his apartment to the UN in the early 80's: A wedge of 6 or 7 well built 220+ lb. men in suits walking quickly down the sidewalk "moving" people out of the way with their size and intimidation with short little Henry safely "strolling" at his preferred pace inside the wedge. What an asshole! Are they NFL fans?

    If there were "smart phones" back then, there would have been a lot of people shoved to the ground. Back then, a few were "blocked out" of the way....

    HedgeAccordingly

    All irrelevant now that Barry gets to appoint a clone of his ideaology. Henry No different from Hilary. http://hedgeaccordingly.com/2015/05/state-department-wont-release-hillar...

    LetThemEatRand

    It's refreshing to see a national candidate actually make this point about Kissinger, one of the architects of the NWO.

    Sat, 02/13/2016 - 18:15 | 7182566 The9thDoctor
    williambanzai7

    Sat, 02/13/2016 - 20:45 | 7183253 rsesha

    Fantastic photo.

    Kissinger is a diabolical criminal. He was clever enough to kill 3-5 million people' in Cambodia and put the blame on Pol Pot for resisting his murder!

    If you want to know the Final Truth about Cambodia, read the article below.

    http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2015/11/pol-pot-of-khmer-rouge-great-c...

    After this, if you still want to not arrest Kissinger or Hillary, I'd be surprised.

    opaopaopa

    Putin likes him, why not.

    https://www.rt.com/news/331194-putin-meets-friend-kissinger/

    Sat, 02/13/2016 - 18:28 | 7182648 THE SOLUTION IS...

    Putin likes talking to people that actually matter? Kissinger is an arch psychopath...why not talk to the puppet master rather than the puppets?

    NoWayJose

    Bernie called it - Hillary's experience is nice, but Bernie's judgement is better!

    Miss Expectations

    Here's what I get with BING when I type in "Hillary Clinton is"

    A serial liar

    A true psychopath 2016

    very ill

    in deep trouble

    like your abuela

    a mass murderer

    Miss Expectations
    Here's What Hillary Clinton's War Criminal Friend Did https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi0Iy1hqhcA
    dvfco

    Wouldn't you prefer someone in fiscal la-la land to someone with a stone-cold grip on how hard she's going to fuck over everyone at the expense of 99.999% of Americans?

    Hillary is a hardened criminal deserving of hard time. If the next president pardons her, that pardon should be considered more devious than the pardoning of Marc Rich.

    The Clintons are a Mafia-like crime family without an Italian last-name. Cross them and die - and that's no joke.

    http://www.akdart.com/body-c.html

    They are scary fuckers. Imagine this alone: When their daughter came of age, she was hired by NBC News for $600,000 per year. Do you remember all that reporting she did? Do you realize the typical reporter gets paid $30K/year and there are 1,000 people for each job available? That's the tip of the iceberg of crime and sleaze, and this family knows no bounds.

    Yes, when the Clintons left the White House they were broke. LeBron James was broker the minute before he signed with the NBA. They're both worth over $100m. But, they both do different things for different people. The Clintons are whoring fucks destroying our nation.


    WTFUD

    There's a correlation between sociopaths and assassinations. Sociopaths, like Clinton, Kissinger,Netanyahu, and Erdogan NEVER seem to be on the Receiving End.

    steveo77
    I reviewed several thousand Hillary Clinton emails that were released after court order, with an emphasis on Fukushima:

    1) She was immediately informed of the dangers of Fukushima, and the actions that people should take to mitigate radiation damage, Mar 12th USA time.

    2) She was participating daily in the discussion of Fukushima, until.....

    3) They were mostly concerned with economic effects to countries, and to protect the US nuclear industry.

    4) Clinton advisers pushed her hard to go to Japan as PR move.

    5) At that point one of two things happened a) she stopped sending AND receiving any emails related to Fukushima, or b) she intentionally did not hand over those emails and they were systematically eliminated from her files.

    In light of 5a above, what are the chances they everyone in the government stopped sending her updates on Fukushima? Exactly. - See more at: http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/02/clintons-emails-released-cl...

    [Feb 14, 2016] Why Brother Bernie Is Better for Black People Than Sister Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... But in fact, when it comes to advancing Dr. King's legacy, a vote for Clinton not only falls far short of the mark; it prevents us from giving new life to King's legacy. Instead, it is Sanders who has championed that legacy in word and in deed for 50 years. This election is not a mere campaign; it is a crusade to resurrect democracy-King-style-in our time. In 2016, Sanders is the one leading that crusade. ..."
    www.politico.com

    The future of American democracy depends on our response to the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. And that legacy is not just about defending civil rights; it's also about fighting to fix our rigged economy, which yields grotesque wealth inequality; our narcissistic culture, which unleashes obscene greed; our market-driven media, which thrives on xenophobic entertainment; and our militaristic prowess, which promotes hawkish policies around the world. The fundamental aim of black voters-and any voters with a deep moral concern for our public interest and common good-should be to put a smile on Martin's face from the grave.

    The conventional wisdom holds that, in the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton is the candidate who will win over African-American voters-that her rival, Bernie Sanders, performed well in Iowa and won New Hampshire on account of those states' disproportionate whiteness, and that Clinton's odds are better in the upcoming contests in South Carolina and Nevada, two highly diverse states.

    But in fact, when it comes to advancing Dr. King's legacy, a vote for Clinton not only falls far short of the mark; it prevents us from giving new life to King's legacy. Instead, it is Sanders who has championed that legacy in word and in deed for 50 years. This election is not a mere campaign; it is a crusade to resurrect democracy-King-style-in our time. In 2016, Sanders is the one leading that crusade.

    Clinton has touted the fact that, in 1962, she met King after seeing him speak, an experience she says allowed her to appreciate King's "moral clarity." Yet two years later, as a high schooler, Clinton campaigned vigorously for Barry Goldwater-a figure King called "morally indefensible" owing to his staunch opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And she attended the Republican convention in 1968! Meanwhile, at this same moment in history, Sanders was getting arrested for protesting segregation in Chicago and marching in Washington with none other than King itself. That's real moral clarity.

    Needless to say, some moral clarity set in as Clinton's politics moved to the left in her college years. After graduating from law school, she joined the Children's Defense Fund as a staff attorney, working under the great King disciple, Marian Wright Edelman, with whom she struck up a friendship. Yet that relationship soured. This came after Hillary Clinton-in defending her husband's punitive crime bill and its drastic escalation of the mass incarceration of poor people, especially black and brown people-referred callously to gang-related youth as "superpredators." And it was Bill Clinton who signed a welfare reform bill that all but eliminated the safety net for poor women and children-a Machiavellian attempt to promote right-wing policies in order to "neutralize" the Republican Party. In protest, Peter Edelman, Marian's courageous husband, resigned from his assistant secretary post at the Department of Health and Human Services.

    The Clintons' neoliberal economic policies-principally, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall banking legislation, apparently under the influence of Wall Street's money-have also hurt King's cause. The Clinton Machine-celebrated by the centrist wing of the Democratic Party, white and black-did produce economic growth. But it came at the expense of poor people (more hopeless and prison-bound) and working people (also decimated by the Clinton-sponsored North American Free Trade Agreement).

    Bill apologized for the effects of his crime bill, after devastating thousands of black and poor lives. Will Hillary apologize for supporting the same measures?

    It's no accident that Goldman Sachs paid Hillary Clinton $675,000 for a mere three speeches in 2013, or that the firm has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to her campaigns or that, in total, it has paid her and her husband more than $150 million in speaking fees since 2001. This is the same Goldman Sachs that engaged in predatory lending of sub-prime mortgages that collapsed in 2008, disproportionately hurting black Americans.

    These ties are far from being "old news" or an "artful smear," as Hillary Clinton recently put it. Rather, they perfectly underscore how it is Sanders, not Clinton, who is building on King's legacy. Sanders' specific policies-in support of a $15 minimum wage, a massive federal jobs program with a living wage, free tuition for public college and universities, and Medicare for all-would undeniably lessen black social misery. In addition, he has specifically made the promise, at a Black Lives Matter meeting in Chicago, to significantly shrink mass incarceration and to prioritize fixing the broken criminal justice system, including eliminating all for-profit prisons.

    Clinton has made similar promises. But how can we take them seriously when the Ready for Hillary PAC received more than $133,000 from lobbying firms that do work for the GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America-two major private prison groups whose aim is to expand mass incarceration for profit? It was only after this fact was reported that Clinton pledged to stop accepting campaign donations from such groups. Similarly, without Sanders in the race to challenge her, there's no question Clinton would otherwise be relatively silent about Wall Street.

    The battle now raging in Black America over the Clinton-Sanders election is principally a battle between a declining neoliberal black political and chattering class still on the decaying Clinton bandwagon (and gravy train!) and an emerging populism among black poor, working and middle class people fed up with the Clinton establishment in the Democratic Party. It is easy to use one's gender identity, as Clinton has, or racial identity, as the Congressional Black Caucus recently did in endorsing her, to hide one's allegiance to the multi-cultural and multi-gendered Establishment. But a vote for Clinton forecloses the new day for all of us and keeps us captive to the trap of wealth inequality, greed ("everybody else is doing it"), corporate media propaganda and militarism abroad-all of which are detrimental to black America.

    In the age of Barack Obama, this battle remained latent, with dissenting voices vilified. As a black president, Obama has tended to talk progressive but walk neoliberal in the face of outrageous right-wing opposition. Black child poverty has increased since 2008, with more than 45 percent of black children under age 6 living in poverty today. Sanders talks and walks populist, and he is committed to targeting child poverty. As president, he would be a more progressive than not just Clinton but also Obama-and that means better for black America.

    Now, with Obama's departure from the White House, we shall see clearly where black America stands in relation to King's legacy. Will voters put a smile on Martin's face? It's clear how we can do it. King smiles at Sanders' deep integrity and genuine conviction, while he weeps at the Clinton machine's crass opportunism and the inequality and injustice it breeds.

    [Feb 13, 2016] US intelligence chief: we might use the internet of things to spy on you

    Notable quotes:
    "... The American public has been living under collective Stockholm syndrome. The have secretly been deceived and betrayed while our freedoms, rights and national security has been compromised. The surveillance state was never for our protection. ..."
    "... Various rogue agencies have intentionally and illegally subverted our constitution, rights and freedoms while secretly targeting Americans committing various crimes, including murder. ..."
    "... When Clapper says "they might" then they are already doing so. ..."
    "... Tea party never was. It always was promoted by the media and big business. Financed by the same. Look at the coverage: Occupy was ridiculed by big Media into no existence. Not the same at all. ..."
    "... USSR has won! Now we treat our people the same way they did. Soon we can blackmail everyone into compliance. And we can easily plant evidence should we not find any - if they're in they can do anything they want. ..."
    "... She is an opportunist, not a feminist. ..."
    "... Ban Ki Moon and the Pope saying capitalism is destroying the life AND economy of the entire fricken globe, may be an opportunity for a popular movement, and this Bernie thing has the potential to be part of a wake up moment. ..."
    "... I said I wouldn't ever do that again after O'bummer, but as Woodie Guthrie said, Hope is what makes us human and is the driver of evolution. Or something like that. ..."
    "... You lost me on "equality is women having all the same opportunities as men". Actually many of us want entirely different "opportunities" and these women who play the patriarch, like Thatcher and Rice, and Shillary, do not represent the diverse and rich culture of "feminism" that is enmeshed in people's real lives. ..."
    "... I'm an aussie and I can tell you America Bernie Sanders is what you need to keep you guys from becoming a laughing stock. Hillary, trump is on the same brush as the elitist of your country. Bernie may or not be able to do what he wants to as he will get stonewalled but if everyone is united and keeps fighting with him they will have no choice to implement some of them. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    Fgt 4URIGHTS, 2016-02-09 22:59:16
    The American public has been living under collective Stockholm syndrome. The have secretly been deceived and betrayed while our freedoms, rights and national security has been compromised. The surveillance state was never for our protection.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg1-vao5Ta8

    Various rogue agencies have intentionally and illegally subverted our constitution, rights and freedoms while secretly targeting Americans committing various crimes, including murder.

    YeeofLittleFaith -> Individualist , 2016-02-09 22:37:44
    I'll say this, if this inevitable surveillance can prevent actual criminals from committing actual crimes, it might be useful.

    And I'll say this: if that is the intention of these devices - and if your bog-standard criminal is ever caught using them - I'll eat your smart fridge.

    neiman1 -> JinTexas , 2016-02-09 22:29:54
    When Clapper says "they might" then they are already doing so.
    Hillary Assad , 2016-02-09 22:26:15
    Surveillance video of San Bernardino released on 01/05/16 Enjoy!!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHH7gvHXLzQ
    mirandawest -> Dan B , 2016-02-09 22:20:40
    Tea party never was. It always was promoted by the media and big business. Financed by the same. Look at the coverage: Occupy was ridiculed by big Media into no existence. Not the same at all.
    mirandawest -> John Leehane , 2016-02-09 22:15:38
    USSR has won! Now we treat our people the same way they did. Soon we can blackmail everyone into compliance. And we can easily plant evidence should we not find any - if they're in they can do anything they want.
    bcarey -> harrywarren , 2016-02-09 20:53:30

    She is an opportunist, not a feminist.

    Absolutely correct.
    (And a panderer.)

    Lisa Wood -> kirili, 2016-02-10 07:17:32
    Hear ya, I plan to hold him to the fire. I'm a realist, and married to an uber realist, so not gonna argue with ya here, but, as this article actually says really well, is that the holistic embrace of all inequity opens the landscape to the big conversations we do Need to have right now.

    I know i know, the UN is at one hand a weak tool and on the other a NWO franchise, but Ban Ki Moon and the Pope saying capitalism is destroying the life AND economy of the entire fricken globe, may be an opportunity for a popular movement, and this Bernie thing has the potential to be part of a wake up moment.

    I have let my Hope thing vibrate a bit, and I said I wouldn't ever do that again after O'bummer, but as Woodie Guthrie said, Hope is what makes us human and is the driver of evolution. Or something like that.

    Lisa Wood -> MajorMalaise , 2016-02-10 07:08:42
    You lost me on "equality is women having all the same opportunities as men". Actually many of us want entirely different "opportunities" and these women who play the patriarch, like Thatcher and Rice, and Shillary, do not represent the diverse and rich culture of "feminism" that is enmeshed in people's real lives.
    keepinitreal2000, 2016-02-10 06:12:18
    I'm an aussie and I can tell you America Bernie Sanders is what you need to keep you guys from becoming a laughing stock. Hillary, trump is on the same brush as the elitist of your country. Bernie may or not be able to do what he wants to as he will get stonewalled but if everyone is united and keeps fighting with him they will have no choice to implement some of them.

    As an Aussie it is important that his message is heard and implemented as America can then show the world there is good in the world and that we all can live in a fair, just and equal world. Something America has stopped showing for a very longtime. This hopefully will filter down to other countries as America rightly or wrongly leads the world and many countries do follow suit.

    [Feb 13, 2016] Democratic debate: the five biggest moments

    Notable quotes:
    "... Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS Frontline . It specifically states that during the 2007 Surge to stabilize an Iraq that had been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor of ISIS, the Sunni Sons of Iraq . ..."
    "... The unintended consequences of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those consequences ; Clinton, the old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them. ..."
    "... Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger? Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either ..."
    "... I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running, for people to know what she said. ..."
    "... Sanders catches Clinton on her advice from Henry Kissinger , Hillary doubles down on her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get advice from Josef Mengele about Health care shed do that too? ..."
    "... Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a majority of women on stage . Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you said majority of straight people on stage . You come across like some gender supremacist. ..."
    "... Im sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton one of the most accomplished women in the world ? ..."
    "... She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions and persona to become the political wife so the man she married could have the career he wanted, then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal) U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens) in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she distinguished herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for the rest of her life, and no, I dont mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)... ..."
    "... Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow a good thing. ..."
    "... Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones. ..."
    "... Faux-identity politics has run its course. ..."
    "... Really believe Republicans havent changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is help the rich . ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades. ..."
    "... And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obamas Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal - all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.) ..."
    "... The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves. ..."
    "... Ill take Sanders proven judgment over Clintons shoot first; ask questions later approach. ..."
    "... Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldmans workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis. ..."
    "... For some reason I have a feeling that the big banks wouldnt be asking Mr . Sanders to speak at their events. ..."
    "... So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders or to Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... she voted for gw bushs disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, thats just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam. ..."
    "... This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words Commander in Chief, it made me feel she couldnt wait to get her fingers on the button. ..."
    "... Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    smkngman, 2016-02-13 00:55:28
    Please!

    The biggest moment was when Bernie responded to,
    "Journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is."

    Aside from the "Journalists have asked" bull, his reply was most certainly the biggest moment of the entire debate!

    "Well it ain't Henry Kissinger,"

    According to Google, this moment created the BIGGEST spike of internet searches during the debate.

    RobertHickson2014, 2016-02-12 22:57:04
    Hypothetically, if Hillary is 500 delegates short of winning the nomination, while Bernie is only short 200, and 600 of the 700 Supers break her way....

    A scenario like that could very well happen; the DNC needs to abolish the Super Delegates once and for all to remove the prospect of a rigged nomination process.

    EDVDGN -> imipak, 2016-02-12 18:45:58
    Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS' "Frontline". It specifically states that during the 2007 "Surge" to stabilize an Iraq that had been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor of ISIS, the Sunni "Sons of Iraq".

    The "unintended consequences" of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those "consequences"; Clinton, the old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them.

    Of course, daughter Chelsea, didn't have to get all dirty and bloody herself by going to fight her mother's war, but your sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers did. Vote for more of that with Clinton.

    "Losing Iraq", PBS, "Frontline", 7/29/14, 1 ˝ hours
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/losing-iraq /

    uples, 2016-02-12 18:20:20
    Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger? Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either
    kattw -> dochi1958, 2016-02-12 17:00:19
    I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running, for people to know what she said.

    ... ... ...

    Marcedward, 2016-02-12 16:18:17
    Big Moments:

    1) Hillary tries to mention a local African American killed by police, forgets the name mid sentence and struggles to get it out of her mouth. Came across as very rehearsed, especially when it turns out the victims mom was in the audience, being used by the Clinton Campaign for an obvious photo opportunity. Clinton wins the HAM HANDED Award.

    2) Hillary tries to go after Sanders for disagreeing with Obama and comes across like an inside the beltway clueless blithering idiot. She claims progressive creds, but she's totally unaware of how disappointing Obama has been to the Left. Hillary exposed as another Washington Insider, again.

    3) Sanders command of the agenda while all Clinton could do is follow his lead quipping "me too!" Clearly Sanders is in control of this race, Clinton is not, one is a leader, one is not. Hillary should just step down for the good of the country and the party

    4) Sanders catches Clinton on her "advice from Henry Kissinger", Hillary doubles down on her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get advice from Josef Mengele about Health care she'd do that too?

    5) Hillary wearing what looked to be a Star Trek (the original series) Admiral's uniform - was that a nod to trekkies? I couldn't tell if it was a Star Fleet or a Romulan top. Anyway, cred for Hillary for shouting out to Trekkies.

    6) Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a "majority of women on stage". Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you said "majority of straight people on stage". You come across like some gender supremacist.

    SocalAlex -> kattw, 2016-02-12 15:13:11

    of one of the most accomplished women in the world

    I'm sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton "one of the most accomplished women in the world"?

    She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions and persona to become the "political wife" so the man she married could have the career he wanted, then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal) U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens) in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she "distinguished" herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for the rest of her life, and no, I don't mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)...

    Sorry, Clinton may well be an intelligent and competent woman, but by what stretch of the imagination is she "one of the most accomplished women in the world"? The U.S. perhaps - through arguably not even - but the world? Seriously? And then you have the gall to claim Sanders supporters are delusional?

    Women like Angela Merkel or Christine Lagarde (like them or loathe them) could and would eat the likes of Clinton for breakfast, and they accomplished what they have without any husband's help!

    om Voloshen, 2016-02-12 15:12:45
    1. Killary plays the sex card.
    2. Killaty says little about her famaly's policy toward jailing nearly a third of all black men and foreclosing on so many of their homes due to Bill's passing GlassSteagall.
    3. Killary conveniently leaves out the fact that all key Latino and minority interest groups supported Bernie's no vote.
    4. Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow a good thing.
    5. Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones.
    ocalAlex -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 14:55:18
    Both Cruz and Rubio are as white as Clinton and Sanders. And having parents who were part of the upper-class who fled Cuba after the Revolution doesn't remotely reflect the personal histories of the vast majority of Hispanic-Americans. (Nor, for that matter, does being the son of a wealthy Kenyan student and middle-class white mother reflect the reality of 99% of African-Americans.)

    Faux-identity politics has run its course. It was never as instrumental in Obama's election(s) as was made out in the first place, and many of the minority for whom it was have learned their lesson.

    As the Republicans are painfully aware and Clinton is learning, blacks and Latinos and women and young people aren't stupid - they will ultimately rather vote for the "old white man" who represents their interests than the person they have slightly more of a genetic or cultural link to who doesn't!

    RobertHickson2014, 2016-02-12 14:33:36
    Hillary learned her lessons well from that douche bag, Henry Kissinger. Here are some of his 'foreign policy' quotes.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/here-are-the-top-10-most-callous-and-inhumane-henry-kissinger-quotes /

    SocalAlex -> Adrian, 2016-02-12 14:30:17
    Well, Sanders was the first Senator to announce he was boycotting Netanyahu's speech to Congress last year, and while he's certainly adopted a more mainstream line towards Israel in recent years, he's still never spoken at or accepted support from AIPAC and makes it quite clear in his policy brief that he believes Israel needs to end the siege of Gaza and withdraw from the West Bank .

    Clinton, on the other hand, is an AIPAC darling who doesn't even "believe" Gaza is under siege and merely has some mealy-mouthed platitudes to offer about how settlement expansion in the West Bank is not "helpful". (And one of her largest individual campaign donors is an Israeli-American billionaire who she has assured she will, if elected, do everything in her power to crack down on the BDS movement!)

    At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly how they deserved.

    You mean even more $100s of billions in U.S. "aid" than they were already getting and complete diplomatic cover for their assault on Gaza and other assorted war crimes? If you think that's tough love, I'd hate to see how your children turn out!

    *For more background see thisAl-Jazeera English piece or the Electronic Intifada's exhaustive coverage.

    Sanders is far from perfect on this issue, but he's about as "progressive" as it is possible for any high-profile U.S. politician to be. (And I really hope you weren't implying the fact that he is Jewish makes him more likely to be pro-Israel - that is precisely the kind of crap which helps those opposed to Palestinian rights paint all of us campaigning for them in a bad light...)

    nnedjo -> kattw, 2016-02-12 14:26:01

    Of course, Clinton distances herself from her supporters by running a tight campaign

    Of course, that's the way how it works, Clinton left to her supporters to do the dirty work, and then she distances herself from them, and continue to play an angel.
    newellalan -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 14:21:17
    Really believe Republicans haven't changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is "help the rich".
    mouchefisher -> kattw, 2016-02-12 14:12:57
    You either misunderstood my comment, or you're being disingenuous.

    What I find strange is The Guardian's evident pro-Clinton bias, even though it pretends to be a progressive paper. Sanders is obviously the true progressive, not Clinton. So yes, it does make me (and many, many other readers of The Guardian) wonder.

    ajreddish, 2016-02-12 14:12:07
    Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades.

    At least when Bernie Sanders opens his mouth on any issue, there's no puppet strings moving furiously up and down in the background.

    SocalAlex -> DennisLaw , 2016-02-12 14:10:16
    What foreign policy credentials/experience did Obama have? (Or W. Bush or Bill Clinton for that matter?)

    And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obama's Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal - all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.)

    Agi Tater -> imipak , 2016-02-12 14:03:26
    The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves.

    Sanders' one weakness is he does not articulate a clear foreign policy. On the other hand, these are complex issues that can't be reduced to talking points. Further, Sanders' voting record on these issues is solid. Unlike Clinton he did vote against the war in Iraq. And he predicted the unintended consequence of instability and thus ISIS. Clinton has far more experience but she pretends her vote for a disastrous war in Iraq has no connection to ISIS. That's a serious lack of judgment and/or honesty on her part.

    I'll take Sanders' proven judgment over Clinton's "shoot first; ask questions later" approach.

    Agi Tater, 2016-02-12 13:38:25
    This article is not balanced and thus disappointing. Same with Graves' opinion piece stating that Sanders "squandered" his lead. Absurd.

    Everything that comes out of Clinton's mouth is a strategic ploy for votes. She will say whatever she and her advisors think she must say to get elected. If she is elected, she will maintain the status quo, at least when it comes to the economy and campaign financing. Those are the two areas that must be reformed before we can see any real progress.

    Anyone who believes that Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street criminals are funding Clinton's campaign because she's going to follow through with the real economic reforms that she's now promising (copying Sanders) and that will eliminate their fraudulent business models is a fucking idiot. What Wall Street type is going to donate to a candidate who's going to level the playing field and thus destroy their business model? Are people really that stupid? (rhetorical question) Let's see those transcripts from her speeches that she clearly does not want voters to see.

    The truth is, Clinton's talking points have shifted and evolved to match Sanders' positions that voters find attractive. This is a matter of record. She's an Establishment politician and will be to the end. Sander is the real deal.

    Murphy1983, 2016-02-12 13:36:57
    From Politico Feb. 9, 2016:

    NEW YORK - "When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.

    "Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman's workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

    "'It was pretty glowing about us," one person who watched the event said. "It's so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.' "

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969#ixzz3ztCCKaHe

    sharethewealth -> kattw, 2016-02-12 13:34:37
    It's a tough question to ask, given the American track record on foreign policy. Who would you listen to? American interests overseas have never been, shall we say, altruistic; more self serving and clandestine. It's no wonder Bernie is focusing his attention on the national socio/political climate. It seems ironic to think that any government can influence foreign policy in a positive way while issues such a racism and a living wage are so rampantly out of balance in their own nation.
    Elfeesh, 2016-02-12 13:29:10
    So your "5 things we learned" is actually "A positive spin on 4 things about Clinton and one thing Sanders said", whilst totally failing to mention the fact that Clinton outright lied about things that Bernie had said in an attempt to make it seem like he actively opposes Obama, or that she said, verbatim, that she wouldn't allow child refugees to settle in the US and to send them back AS A MESSAGE.

    This paper's coverage is getting more and more biased by the minute as its journalists realise that "kooky old Sanders" is actually getting some traction with the American people. That article by Lucia Gravesis a disgrace and cherry picks the one liners Sanders came back to Hillary's attacks with, as though its somehow terrible for someone to defend themselves with witty and quick comebacks.

    Just FYI Guardian, your readership is actually half intelligent and can see through your biased BS, just as the general electorate can see through the crappy CNN and PBS coverage given to Sanders. You say that Clinton "won" the debate, yet it seems that most people disagree(Note the person saying this is an Associated Press journalist) and there is more than one source to suggest that, in Nevada a focus group say Sanders' won by a 25-9 margin and even Chris Matthews, who for the longest time has been struggling to say "Bernie Sanders" without the "Democratic Socialist" prefix, says that Bernie beat Hillary at her own game. Finally, and I'm afraid I don't have a link for this one, CNN and PBS' own coverage of the debate cut to a room in South Carolina filled with a focus group of women of mixed age and race. (Please note SC is supposed to be Clinton's version of New Hampshire where she'll stomp all over Sanders) Almost all people in the group said Bernie had done the best in the debate, and the one black woman they interviewed (again, black women is supposedly Clinton's demographic) said that Sanders was the most convincing out of the two, though she remained undecided.

    People would start taking this paper seriously again if you guys actually paid attention to whats going on, instead of just closing your eyes to all the evidence and continuing to hammer out ridiculous articles bigging up your chosen candidate. There's a reason people aren't even bothering to read your coverage anymore, and instead go straight to the comments to see what people are actually thinking.

    DrKropotkin -> Serv_On , 2016-02-12 13:19:41
    "Bernie should give a pledge that he will never take a red cent for a speech ever ever ever"

    It's not about cents - it's hundreds of thousands per hour and behind closed doors, which is an unsubtle way to bribe a future president. Sanders did give a speech recently to a University that paid him $1,800. Transcripts are available and he donated all of the money to charity.

    Anatoliy Asanov -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 13:13:08
    For some reason I have a feeling that the big banks wouldn't be asking Mr . Sanders to speak at their events.
    Zendjan -> elterrifico, 2016-02-12 13:12:17
    She makes Lucrezia Borgia look like Mother Teresa.
    DrKropotkin -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 13:08:57
    In both primaries Sanders beat the polls by 5-8%. Nationally he is now just 2 points off Clinton according to the latest poll.

    The MSMBS has created a reality bubble around Clinton, but nobody takes print media or TV news seriously anymore, everybody knows they have to use multiple sources online to get a real balanced picture. So everyday more and more people are learning about Sanders and liking what they see - a consistent advocate for progressive policies even when it was neither profitable nor popular to be one.

    In particular voters are learning about his anti segregation campaigning in the 1960's and his pro gay rights positions in the 1980's. When they look at Clinton's past they see a calculating fair weather supporter on these issues, possibly based on the latest polling.

    Also, her pockets full of Wall Street money is really damaging her and when she tries to defend it she comes across as disingenuous (at best).

    ouKnightedStates -> EbenezerSeattle, 2016-02-12 13:04:38
    It's amazing. Three articles in the Guardian praising her "vote in 2002 not a plan for ISIS 2016" line as a winner. Vote in 2002 caused ISIS in 2016!
    Stetson Meyers, 2016-02-12 12:58:36
    She is hiding behind Obama. Defending him while bringing up the fact that he took Wall Street money does nothing to endear me to you. It makes me angry at Obama.
    elterrifico, 2016-02-12 12:55:25
    If Hillary wants low blow then let's talk about

    The rose law firm and the missing subpoenaed files that a cleaning crew found in the living quarters while slick Willie Clinton was president.

    Cattlegate and how Hillary claims she made millions on cattle futures from a wall street article that the wall street journal said didn't exist.

    Lets talk about all the people how suspiciously died who were connected to the Clinton's and who had information to Clinton wrong doings.

    I bet that would shut Hillary's sleazy mouth

    DrKropotkin, 2016-02-12 12:49:52
    From ATL:

    "Clinton dropped this critique on the senator from Vermont: "Journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is." "

    Let me finish the Guardian's reporting for them:

    Sanders quickly responds "Well it ain't Henry Kissinger" - the audience applauds and laughs.

    Janosik53 -> UNOINO, 2016-02-12 12:27:30
    Exactly. ISIS is part of the unintended consequences that were created by the West's Middle East adventure. "Blowback" as the security services have it. The same thing could be said about the U.S. backing of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the better to scupper the Soviets. Elements of the mujahadeen morphed into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden was a CIA asset at one time.

    Bernie remembers what happened, Hillary dismisses it with the "2002 vote" quip. Hillary is a tactician, Bernie is a strategist. I think a moral strategist makes a better C-in-C than a bought and paid for tactician.

    pretzelattack -> Yunnaan, 2016-02-12 12:08:39
    the point is electing a republican lite to deal with republican intransigence makes no sense whatever. she will work with them to advance the neoliberal austerity agenda, which hurts the middle class, and everybody else but the kind of people who pay her so much money to give a canned speech.
    nnedjo, 2016-02-12 12:03:37
    Let me get this straight. You have politicians who all his life was not afraid to swim against the mainstream, neither he worried that it could jeopardize his political career.

    And on the other hand, you have a careerist politician, which the whole of her life was "turning with the wind", climbed the ladder of political power, both in its Democratic Party and in the state too, and finally ended up with hundreds of millions of dollars on her private account, gained thanks to its political influence.

    So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders or to Hillary Clinton.

    Anatoliy Asanov -> SenseCir, 2016-02-12 12:01:54
    The same plan she and the establiment was shoving down our throats and digging in in our pockets... And Putin wouldn't be Putin if US weren't prowling around the world. Why is Saudi Arabia is our ally?
    mouchefisher, 2016-02-12 11:45:30
    I think I'll soon just start skipping The Guardian's articles completely, and head straight to the comments.
    The articles read like pro-Clinton adverts, which seems strange coming from a self-proclaimed progressive news source...
    Fortunately, we do have The Nation, The Atlantic, Salon, Alternet, etc.
    Adrian, 2016-02-12 10:29:34
    Am I the only one who's wondering why Bernie Sanders is not being asked a single question about his position on the Palestinian problem, on the recent events involving Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby in the USA trying to derails the Iran nuclear deal and so on?

    I don't think we need now at the White House someone willing to follow Netanyahu's lead in the Middle East... At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly how they deserved.

    devin42 -> Marcedward, 2016-02-12 09:50:47
    Hey, Guardian writers. I don't know if you ever come into the comments - but realise this. We aren't morons. This isn't the Mail. We can see through it. A great many of us watched the debates, follow the campaigns, know the facts from other sources. The internet is great like that, as corporate media no longer has an exclusive stranglehold on framing and spin.

    The constituents of your 'paper' are not easily hoodwinked and most, as you can see, find the spin disgusting. You're going to keep haemorrhaging readers unless you either refocus on integrity in journalism (unlikely, considering who's on the board), or fully commit to being a pseudo-intellectual Buzzfeed. Best of luck.

    pretzelattack -> Philman, 2016-02-12 09:43:42
    she voted for gw bush's disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, that's just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam.
    EDVDGN, 2016-02-12 09:23:32
    The American Public Broadcasting System's (PBS) "NewsHour" reports:*

    In other news, some of Clinton's speaker fees from Wall Street, 2013-15**:

    TOTAL: $2,935,000

    Thus, our health care system is expensive and sub-par, but a resounding and understandable "No, we can't" from Clinton on universal health care, and many other issues.
    _____________________________________
    *"Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries", PBS
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries /
    **"Hillary Clinton Got Paid More for 12 Speeches to Wall Street Banks than Most Americans Make in a Lifetime",
    http://humansarefree.com/2016/01/hillary-clinton-got-paid-more-for-12.html

    FeatherWood, 2016-02-12 09:19:32
    This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words "Commander in Chief," it made me feel she couldn't wait to get her fingers on the button.

    When Hillary praised President Obama and criticized Bernie for some mild critiques he'd made of the president, it was an utterly transparent ploy for the votes of African-Americans in South Carolina. So obvious that I was a bit disgusted. Hillary and President Obama have a rocky history. Any comments Bernie has made are tame compared to the stuff Hillary said about him during the 2008 campaign. I really wonder if people will buy Hillary trying to wrap herself so closely with Obama.

    Sandra Bowen -> CDKBM180715, 2016-02-12 09:03:56
    Hillary wears a new outfit every campaign day. Sanders' has 2 suits, 1 blazer. Looks say a lot about a person
    SirWillis -> CDKBM180715, 2016-02-12 08:30:10
    At least try to understand what he is saying. He's saying her smile is false, he's not commenting on her looks. Her smile is false, it's not natural, and I have no doubt she was coached to smile in the way focus groups decided was the most electable. Trouble is a genuine smile is hard to fake.

    Please try to understand these things, context is everything.

    CanadianAtheist, 2016-02-12 08:19:57

    Clinton drops a well-tuned response to Sanders' criticism of her vote in support of the Iraq war: "I don't believe that a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat Isis in 2016."


    But it is a reflection of her judgement. We condemn Republicans, journalists, academics, etc. who supported the Iraq War, but we are supposed to give Clinton a pass? Let's also not forget that she supported the troop increase in Afghanistan and pushed for military action in Libya.
    CanadianAtheist -> crap_in, 2016-02-12 08:14:00
    According to congress.gov Sanders has sponsored 780 pieces of legislation and cosponsored 5428.
    noraak15 -> noraak15, 2016-02-12 06:50:20
    To be clear this is in relation to this being Obama's fault.

    As for the Dems doing their best to lose a winnable election you may be right but Sanders really has hit the nail on the head. It doesn't matter who wins no change will occur until the big money and special interests are reined in and that won't happen unless and until there is a president backed by a movement of ordinary people demanding change that is so large and undeniable that politicians in Washington realize that unless they accede to the people's demands (as presented by the President) and get behind the President in respect of such change they will actually lose their seats... only incumbents fearful of losing their seats will vote for anything other than what the lobbyists tell them to. Only then will change happen. I'd bet there is more certainty that won't happen then Villa making a surprising comeback and not being relegated.

    noraak15 -> EssoBlue, 2016-02-12 06:38:54
    For the same reason they voted for Blair and Bush Dubya and Clinton and Bush Sr... Poor people, the same people I honestly want to help as a responsible socialist democrat, are essentially stupid and generally vote against their own interests hence the number of blue collar workers in the US flocking to Donald Trump rallies. It defies belief but there it is, that and the fact that smart people who aren't only out for themselves have better things to do like discover gravitational waves, perform your surgery, teach and other less snazzy things then simply make money.
    Peter Kinnaird -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 06:35:45
    On the contrary. The economy crashed because the unfettered free markets failed. You don't need someone who "understands" or in other words supports the free market status quo, you need someone who understands the flaws of the markets and the need for regulation.
    noraak15 -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 06:31:26
    Uh? You do realize it was the deregulation of Wall Street that led to the collapse right? You do realize Wall Street aready leads the government by the nose don't you (the very reason Sanders quite rightly states that any reform will be impossible no matter who is elected President unless they have a groundswell of popular support beneath them)? You are aware that laws and trade agreements are written by Wall Street lawyers and that Wall Street is regulated by Wall Street lawyers due to the continuous rotating door between government agencies and Wall Street? You do understand that QE and bailouts were at the behest of and in the interest of Wall Street bound to create asset bubbles they can make a lot of money insider trading on then exit and leave pension funds on the hook and not designed to save the economy don't you?

    Oh why do I bother you believe in "continuous growth" generated by perfect rationale markets and of course unicorns and leprechauns waiting with your pot of gold.

    EssoBlue, 2016-02-12 05:30:29
    Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton.

    Lest we forget, in 2008 Hillary Clinton ran as a gun-loving churchgoer against Barack Obama.

    PlayaGiron, 2016-02-12 05:20:01
    Only the graun can make the exposure of Clinton's ties to the butcher Kissinger into a win for Team Hillary.

    Watch the video and you will the crowd totally backs Sanders during the exchange

    Nice to see the Guardian still has war criminal Kissinger's back.

    Too bad we are seeing through your corporatist propaganda.

    joeblow9999, 2016-02-12 05:09:13
    Hillary appeared desperate and her attacks came off as unimaginative and sleazy. More and more she is appearing to be a liability to the nomination.

    [Feb 13, 2016] Sanders and Trump in Very Late Capitalism by Scott McConnell

    Actually Sanders performed above my expectations in the most recent debate exposing this criminal Kissinger for what he is. So despite my pessimism there might be slight hope. Although the level of degradation of both parties (which is reality are two wings of a single party -- the party of top 1% -- with Dems a little bit more sophisticated in avoiding open scorn of lower 99%) looks irreversible. This is really bizarre "back in the USSR" situation, if you wish. If Eisenhower has been alive to see the monster the Republican Party turned into, he would die the second time on the spot. This is simply disgusting. Same for the Dems -- in the current form this is clearly yet another party of financial oligarchy and Hillary candidacy reflect the depth of degradation of the Dem party establishment like nobody else.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I dont think this has a precedent in American history, the leading candidates of both parties running essentially class-based campaigns against a financial elite. Something to contemplate. ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com

    Trump basically says he is independent of the donors because he's rich, while Sanders says he is independent of them because he raised tens of millions of dollars in small donations. But both campaigns are criticizing the same thing, in divergent but essentially parallel ways.

    I don't think this has a precedent in American history, the leading candidates of both parties running essentially class-based campaigns against a financial elite. Something to contemplate.

    Kurt Gayle, February 9, 2016 at 9:55 am
    A gem of a column!

    Scott McConnell: "The wealth of the one tenth of one percent is now concentrated in the financial industry. The money of the middle class has been redistributed upwards to Wall Street. No one calls it the 'productive sector,' even ironically. Wall Street pays for the political campaigns, and pays for the politicians."

    In other words, the one tenth of one percent pays for the political campaigns, and pays for the politicians.

    Except for Trump and Sanders.

    Scott: "Trump basically says he is independent of the donors because he's rich, while Sanders says he is independent of them because he raised tens of millions of dollars in small donations."

    Scott: "I don't think this has a precedent in American history, the leading candidates of both parties running essentially class-based campaigns against a financial elite."

    Johann, February 9, 2016 at 10:24 am
    Free trade gets the blame for almost everything, but deserves none of the blame. The usual suspects like to confuse free trade with crony capitalism. Its not out of ignorance. Its nefarious.
    Schuman, February 9, 2016 at 10:48 am
    One of the best developments of this campaign so far has been the number of conservative, right-wing people who have awaken to the grim reality of crony/globalist capitalism. You know something is happening when NRO blasts them as "economically and socially frustrated white men who wish to be economically supported by the federal government without enduring the stigma of welfare dependency"

    (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430769/donald-trump-pat-buchanan)

    It is also worth noting that Trump is a businessman in an old-fashioned way people can relate to. He is a real estate mogul who employs actual workers to develop actual buildings, instead of just being a bankster shuffling fictional money around.

    [Feb 13, 2016] A Debate Christopher Hitchens Would Surely Have Appreciated

    Notable quotes:
    "... In it, Hitchens argued that the former national security adviser and secretary of state for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford should be prosecuted "for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture." ..."
    "... It was well reviewed, with the San Francisco Chronicle hailing Hitchens for presenting "damning documentary evidence against Kissinger in case after case," and London's Sunday Times describing the book as "a disturbing glimpse into the dark side of American power, whose consequences in remote corners of the globe are all too often ignored. Its countless victims have found an impassioned and skillful advocate in Christopher Hitchens." ..."
    "... "I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend," continued Sanders. "I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger. And in fact, Kissinger's actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million innocent people, one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger." ..."
    www.thenation.com

    The late Christopher Hitchens penned an exceptionally important book in 2001 titled The Trial of Henry Kissinger.

    In it, Hitchens argued that the former national security adviser and secretary of state for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford should be prosecuted "for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture."

    Hitchens was a brilliant polemicist who loved to stir controversy (and who fell out with The Nation during post-9/11 debates about George W. Bush's "war on terror" and defending civil liberties). But The Trials of Henry Kissinger was more than an argument; it was a detailed indictment ("using only what would hold up in international courts of law") of an official who Hitchens accused of authorizing atrocities against Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus, East Timor, Indochina, and the Kurds of Iraq. It was well reviewed, with the San Francisco Chronicle hailing Hitchens for presenting "damning documentary evidence against Kissinger in case after case," and London's Sunday Times describing the book as "a disturbing glimpse into the dark side of American power, whose consequences in remote corners of the globe are all too often ignored. Its countless victims have found an impassioned and skillful advocate in Christopher Hitchens."

    Despite the attention it received, the book did not lead to the prosecution of Kissinger. Nor did it spark all of the formal and official debates that Hitchens invited.

    "I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend." - Bernie Sanders

    On Thursday night, however, Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders did debate Kissinger's legacy in one of the most remarkable exchanges of modern presidential politics. It was an exchange Hitchens would have relished.

    In the foreign-policy section of the debate, after the candidates had clashed over a number of issues, Sanders asked if he might add a brief final word of to explain "where the secretary and I have a very profound difference."

    "[In] the last debate and I believe in her book-very good book, by the way…she talked about getting the approval or the support or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger. Now, I find it rather amazing, because I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country," said the senator, to loud applause.

    "I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend," continued Sanders. "I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger. And in fact, Kissinger's actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million innocent people, one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger."

    Clinton countered with a dig at Sanders. "Well," she said, "I know journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is."

    "Well, it ain't Henry Kissinger. That's for sure," replied Sanders.

    "That's fine. That's fine," said Clinton. "You know, I listen to a wide variety of voices that have expertise in various areas. I think it is fair to say, whatever the complaints that you want to make about him are, that with respect to China, one of the most challenging relationships we have, his opening up China and his ongoing relationships with the leaders of China is an incredibly useful relationship for the United States of America. So if we want to pick and choose-and I certainly do-people I listen to, people I don't listen to, people I listen to for certain areas, then I think we have to be fair and look at the entire world, because it's a big, complicated world out there."

    "It is," injected Sanders.

    Clinton was now scrambling to put Kissinger in perspective. "And, yes," she said, "people we may disagree with on a number of things may have some insight, may have some relationships that are important for the president to understand in order to best protect the United States."

    Sanders rips trade agreements that result in American workers losing their jobs as corporations moved to China. Sanders was having none of that explanation, suggesting that his historical perspective was "very different."

    "Kissinger was one of those people during the Vietnam era who talked about the domino theory. Not everybody remembers that. You do. I do. The domino theory, you know, if Vietnam goes, China, da, da, da, da, da, da, da. That's what he talked about, the great threat of China," said Sanders. "And then, after the war, this is the guy who, in fact, yes, you're right, he opened up relations with China, and now pushed various type of trade agreements, resulting in American workers losing their jobs as corporations moved to China. The terrible, authoritarian, Communist dictatorship he warned us about, now he's urging companies to shut down and move to China. Not my kind of guy."

    And rightly so, for reasons that Christopher Hitchens well documented

    [Feb 13, 2016] Why the Working Class Is Choosing Trump and Sanders

    Notable quotes:
    "... The conclusion: the winds of change are blowing away from establishment politicians and the wealthy donors who support them, and as far as Im concerned any change that helps the working class feel more secure and confident about the future – change that is based upon reality rather than the myths that have been sold to the public in support of wealthy interests – cant come fast enough. ..."
    "... We should not embrace the defeatists crowd of Hillary supporters thats willing to settle for half a chicken in every pot. ..."
    "... Water is wet. The sun rises in the east. The middle/working class has been screwed for the status quo for the last 35 years. ..."
    "... Wall Street got what it wanted (tax cuts), the Necons got what they wanted (wars), and the last two got -- promises. Unsurprisinly they have lost patience with the GOP establishment. The Bible Belt wants its 19th century (okay 15th century) back, and white working class populats wants to be sure that, even if they are sleeping under a bridge, no black or brown person is sleeping under a *better* bridge. ..."
    "... On the Democratic side, with the exception of the late 1990s, the Establishment has failed to deliver better times. Obamacare *is* a boon, but it has taken seemingly forever to roll out seemingly since the Dinosaurs roamed the earth, and it has only directly benefitted about 10% of the population. Meanwhile nominal wages grow 2% a year, worker protections are non-existnet, and even actions which could be taken by the Executive alon - like raising the pay at which employers no longer have to pay overtime - are not taken (the rumor that Obamas signature hand suffered from paralyisi fell apart the other day when he signed the TPP).. ..."
    "... We are in the midst of a politial realignment. My guess is that outside of Dixie, the white working class returns to the Democrats, who move towards Sanders ideology, while the corporatist Dems move over to the GOP. And the Bible Belt continues to get the 15th Century delivered to them. ..."
    "... Also the centrist dems have been playing defense for 30 years, simply trying to prevent the rollback of past programs, and apparently willing to compromise even on core New Deal and Great Society accomplishments (SS and Medicare). ..."
    "... Actually, Trump immediately gained the support of less-educated blue collar white males who had IDd as Dem, and I havent seen a poll yet on whether Bernie is winning them back ..."
    "... You raise an interesting question. If corporate donor fueled Democrats lose national party control decisively. Not just for one convention ala McGovern. Where will they go ? ..."
    "... Soooo. The donors will have to retake or hold one party. My guess theyll hold on to Democrat party easily if Hillary wins. Maybe the soul of the Democrat party is at stake here. As during the Bryan era ..."
    "... Trump says that, but his proposed policies are not compatible with what he says, and he part of the party which absolutely wants to gut those programs. Working class people who know whats good for them are for Sanders, the ones for Trump are politico-economic illiterates (either that or they are just sucked in by his racism.) ..."
    "... Its quite possible that Sanders would win against Trump. Personality reasons. Its a stage debate I would love to see. ..."
    "... The Donald is doing what the GOP has done for 40 years, use racist rhetoric (without the dogwhistles this time) to convince the rubes to vote against their own interests. ..."
    "... Trump may surprise us. With a tax cut for the little guy okee dokee package ..."
    "... Right wing populists are not about little government, prudent government. They cut taxes and increase spending on the armada ..."
    "... The WSJ is angry that a Republican told the truth: Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we cant do that. And its not fair to the people that have been paying in for years and now all of the sudden they want to be cut. ..."
    "... Thats nice Donald. But you want a larger military and big tax cuts for the rich. Arithmetic please?! ..."
    "... Some partners in hedge funds, private-equity firms and other businesses organized as so-called passthroughs would pay a 3.8 percent income tax under President Barack Obamas 2017 budget request. The move is intended to address what the administrations budget documents call a gap in legal definitions of investment income and self-employment earnings. As a result, certain members of partnerships, limited liability companies and S corporations may have been able to avoid the tax, according to budget documents. ..."
    "... The proposal would extend a net investment tax for Medicare thats been in place since 2013 to taxpayers who have been able to avoid it, according to Obama administration officials. The measure, which is projected to raise $271.7 billion over the next decade, would apply to limited partners who materially participate in the ventures. ..."
    "... Not to worry hedgies - Karl Rove has your back.... ..."
    "... This seems like a good thing. Though Id much prefer to simply see all types of income unified under the tax code. Half of the complexity of accounting and more than half of the avoidance behavior comes from confusion and games related to income classification. ..."
    "... The strange thing is, even populist candidates like Bernie seem to advocate for higher taxes on regular earned income (upwards of 60% net including payroll taxes but excluding state taxes), while cap gains stays at a much lower rate, while cap gains is how the 0.1% get their money. ..."
    "... Yes the establishment faces a possible quandary: both conventions might nominate an outsider. Hence the fantasy Bloomberg third way down the old dead center where the donor class sleeps ..."
    "... All the rhetoric on all sides is about restoring a golden age that never was. (1) the past is not going to be restored. (2) that wasnt even the past. ..."
    "... Yes. The past that never was is not he future that can ever be ..."
    "... Would prefer that you didnt lump Sanders supporters with Trump supporters because, as you point out, they ...see different causes and different solutions... (to say the least). Not that I think it was your intent but it can have the result of disparaging Sanders supporters. ..."
    "... As the democratic party has shown with its ham-handed support of HRC, the establishment politicians have a significant advantage and will do everything in their power to divert or quash change. ..."
    "... I love it. Exactly -- They hate us for our freedom. The final affluent liberal reaction ..."
    "... I agree with Mark Thoma about this. There is actually similarity between these two candidates. The labels progressive and conservative really dont apply. ..."
    "... Americans are just tired of being controlled by a tiny minority of powerful rich people. Electing either Trump or Sanders probably wont change that, but at least it sends a message. We are, whether liberal or conservative or neither, sick of how things have been going. ..."
    "... It is not about restoring a golden age so easily dismissed by cheap cynicism. It is about preserving freedom and restoring justice. That these causes are never done, and the struggle to preserve them is never ending, does not make them a dead issue except to the worst of the cynics. ..."
    "... Indeed, such resolution to reform and the pursuit of justice is the core of the very spirit of that phenomenon that is America. And while its history is replete with its abuses therein, its history also shows a remarkable resilience amongst the people to resist all forms of tyranny, including the tyranny of the privileged, in all their complacency for the status quo. ..."
    "... This is what Sanders and Trump get that the jades of the comfortable class do not. ..."
    "... You may enjoy this piece in the Voice yesterday, insightful, hilarious, spreading like wildfire: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/feeling-the-yern-why-one-millennial-woman-would-rather-go-to-hell-than-vote-for-hillary-8253224 ..."
    "... Realpc: Socialism does not work. Social Security does not work? Public education does not work? ..."
    "... Actually, North Korea is not socialist by any sane definition, any more than Saudi Arabia does. They are both feudal monarchies. ..."
    "... Totalitarianism is a failed social category that never existed anywhere outside of Orwell ..."
    "... A large chunk of Trump supporters come from uneducated white males - people who have been hit hard by our trade agreements and deindustrialization. Throw in a little bigotry against Mexicans and immigrants, and you have Trump supporters. ..."
    "... Bernie supporters tend to be younger. These are people who have only lived in a world of unequal growth, growth built off of bubbles, declining union membership and worker bargaining power, less job security, an eroding minimum wage, stagnant wages, debt, unending war, exploding education costs, etc. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    New column:
    Why the Working Class Is Choosing Trump and Sanders, by Mark Thoma : Donald Trump recently defended Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid:

    "Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we can't do that. And it's not fair to the people that have been paying in for years and now all of the sudden they want to be cut."

    An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal reflects the negative reaction to Trump's remarks from many Republicans:

    "Mr. Trump is a political harbinger here of a new strand of populist Republicanism, largely empowered by Obamacare, in which the 'conservative' position is to defend the existing entitlement programs from a perceived threat posed by a new-style Obama coalition of handout seekers that includes the chronically unemployed, students, immigrants, minorities and women … who typically vote Democrat."

    But is it true that our economic system redistributes substantial sums away from the middle class to "handout seekers"? ...

    JohnH :
    The conclusion: "the winds of change are blowing away from establishment politicians and the wealthy donors who support them, and as far as I'm concerned any change that helps the working class feel more secure and confident about the future – change that is based upon reality rather than the myths that have been sold to the public in support of wealthy interests – can't come fast enough."

    Yes, we must try, "which is why you shouldn't listen to the "we-must-not-try" brigade. They've lost faith in the rest of us."
    http://robertreich.org/post/138894376115

    We should not embrace the defeatists crowd of Hillary supporters that's willing to settle for half a chicken in every pot.

    New Deal democrat :

    Water is wet. The sun rises in the east. The middle/working class has been screwed for the status quo for the last 35 years.

    And the news is ?????

    The GOP electoral coalition since 1968 and especially 1980 has been Wall Street, Neocons, the Bible Belt, and white working class populitsts.

    Wall Street got what it wanted (tax cuts), the Necons got what they wanted (wars), and the last two got -- promises. Unsurprisinly they have lost patience with the GOP establishment. The Bible Belt wants its 19th century (okay 15th century) back, and white working class populats wants to be sure that, even if they are sleeping under a bridge, no black or brown person is sleeping under a *better* bridge.

    On the Democratic side, with the exception of the late 1990s, the Establishment has failed to deliver better times. Obamacare *is* a boon, but it has taken seemingly forever to roll out seemingly since the Dinosaurs roamed the earth, and it has only directly benefitted about 10% of the population. Meanwhile nominal wages grow 2% a year, worker protections are non-existnet, and even actions which could be taken by the Executive alon - like raising the pay at which employers no longer have to pay overtime - are not taken (the rumor that Obama's signature hand suffered from paralyisi fell apart the other day when he signed the TPP)..

    We are in the midst of a politial realignment. My guess is that outside of Dixie, the white working class returns to the Democrats, who move towards Sanders' ideology, while the corporatist Dems move over to the GOP. And the Bible Belt continues to get the 15th Century delivered to them.

    New Deal democrat -> New Deal democrat...
    Oops .Sorry for the typos. On my iPad I can only preview the first paragraph, so I've stopped bothering. That last line should read "continues to fail to get the 15th Century...."

    Also the centrist dems have been playing defense for 30 years, simply trying to prevent the rollback of past programs, and apparently willing to compromise even on core New Deal and Great Society accomplishments (SS and Medicare).

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> New Deal democrat...
    Yep. I had figured you more for the establishment "liberal" type but here you show me a healthy if cynical (how can you not be by now) progressive attitude. THANKS!
    Lee A. Arnold -> New Deal democrat...
    Actually, Trump immediately gained the support of less-educated blue collar white males who had ID'd as Dem, and I haven't seen a poll yet on whether Bernie is winning them back
    PPaine -> New Deal democrat...
    You raise an interesting question. If corporate donor fueled Democrats lose national party control decisively. Not just for one convention ala McGovern. Where will they go ?

    Well what if the GOP is in yahoo hands ?

    Bloomberg party is. Fantasy

    Soooo. The donors will have to retake or hold one party. My guess they'll hold on to Democrat party easily if Hillary wins. Maybe the soul of the Democrat party is at stake here. As during the Bryan era

    tom :
    Trump says that, but his proposed policies are not compatible with what he says, and he part of the party which absolutely wants to gut those programs. Working class people who know what's good for them are for Sanders, the ones for Trump are politico-economic illiterates (either that or they are just sucked in by his racism.)
    Lee A. Arnold -> tom...
    It's quite possible that Sanders would win against Trump. Personality reasons. It's a stage debate I would love to see.

    It's also possible (now) that Clinton would lose to Trump. He can paint her up and down as being part of the corrupt Establishment. I don't understand her rhetorical strategy here. She should have agreed with Bernie every step of the way, subsumed his message into a bigger picture.

    It may be too late. Bernie is ticking upwards in South Carolina:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-4167.html

    PPaine -> Lee A. Arnold ...
    Lee this is indeed a fascinating development. I had thought Hillary would simply throw her arms around Bernie
    And attack her donors

    Look her donors don't want trump or Cruz. And "they " alas can trust her to " to the right thing" in the clutches

    DrDick -> tom...
    The Donald is doing what the GOP has done for 40 years, use racist rhetoric (without the dogwhistles this time) to convince the rubes to vote against their own interests.
    PPaine -> DrDick...
    Look

    Trump may surprise us. With a tax cut for the little guy okee dokee package

    PPaine -> PPaine ...
    Trump will not worry about the deficits he will promise to close as part of his grand plan while pulling a Reagan: Ignore the deficits and go for the goal line

    Right wing populists are not about little government, prudent government. They cut taxes and increase spending on the armada

    Lee A. Arnold -> PPaine ...
    PPaine: "Trump may surprise us with a tax cut for the little guy okee dokee package"

    He won't surprise me. I think that's his game plan. He wants to get elected. I wouldn't be surprised if he promised everybody a free buffet ticket in Atlantic City too.

    pgl :
    The WSJ is angry that a Republican told the truth: "Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we can't do that. And it's not fair to the people that have been paying in for years and now all of the sudden they want to be cut."

    That's nice Donald. But you want a larger military and big tax cuts for the rich. Arithmetic please?!

    pgl :
    The Hedge Fund people are going to really hate Obama for this one: "Obama's Budget Seeks to Ensure Hedge Fund Managers Pay 3.8% Tax
    Posted February 09, 2016, 11:22 A.M. ET

    By Lynnley Browning

    Some partners in hedge funds, private-equity firms and other businesses organized as so-called passthroughs would pay a 3.8 percent income tax under President Barack Obama's 2017 budget request. The move is intended to address what the administration's budget documents call "a gap" in legal definitions of investment income and self-employment earnings. As a result, certain members of partnerships, limited liability companies and S corporations may have been able to avoid the tax, according to budget documents.

    The proposal would extend a "net investment tax" for Medicare that's been in place since 2013 to taxpayers who have been able to avoid it, according to Obama administration officials. The measure, which is projected to raise $271.7 billion over the next decade, would apply to limited partners who "materially participate" in the ventures.

    The change is part of a package of revenue proposals that collectively would raise $2.6 trillion from 2017 through 2026, according to the president's budget request. The revenue it seeks is 67 percent higher than Obama's 2016 proposal, driven by international tax-reform proposals, changes in the way high-income individuals are taxed and a previously announced fee on oil of $10.25 per barrel.

    ©2016 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission"

    Not to worry hedgies - Karl Rove has your back....

    sanjait -> pgl...
    This seems like a good thing. Though I'd much prefer to simply see all types of income unified under the tax code. Half of the complexity of accounting and more than half of the avoidance behavior comes from confusion and games related to income classification.

    Why should it really matter? Let all income just be income. Cap gains, unearned, earned, whatevs.

    The strange thing is, even populist candidates like Bernie seem to advocate for higher taxes on regular earned income (upwards of 60% net including payroll taxes but excluding state taxes), while cap gains stays at a much lower rate, while cap gains is how the 0.1% get their money.

    Jess :
    Well done and insightful. Perhaps we should send a copy of this to the media, of both the conservative and liberal 'establishments.'

    Chris Matthews and Paul Krugman come to mind on the liberal Democrat side. Just about every pundit and then some on the Right needs a clue, although I doubt they would see it as their livelihoods depend on their not.

    PPaine -> Jess...
    Yes the establishment faces a possible quandary: both conventions might nominate an outsider. Hence the fantasy Bloomberg third way down the old dead center where the donor class sleeps
    Sandwichman :
    All the rhetoric on all sides is about restoring a golden age that never was. (1) the past is not going to be restored. (2) that wasn't even the past.

    Meanwhile, back in New Hampshire, in an effort to revive his floundering campaign, Marco the Rubot has named his prospective running mate -- Chatty Cathy!: "Pull the string and she says eleven different things."

    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2016/02/breaking-marco-rubio-announces-running.html

    Julio -> Sandwichman ...
    Wait wait, I got this one. "Tax breaks for the rich!" and... wait... what were the other ten again?
    Sandwichman -> Julio ...

    "Can we at least dispel the myth that Barack Obama doesn't know what he is doing?"

    "He knows exactly what he is doing."

    PPaine -> Sandwichman ...
    Yes. The past that never was is not he future that can ever be
    cawley :
    Thank you, Mark. Good piece.

    It's nice to see an essay that makes a serious attempt to identify the root concern. (I sometimes half expect some of the Clinton supporters to start accusing Sanders supporters of hating them for their freedom.) But you are correct:

    "They want an economy that works for them and a political system that responds to their needs."

    Would prefer that you didn't lump Sanders supporters with Trump supporters because, as you point out, they "...see different causes and different solutions..." (to say the least). Not that I think it was your intent but it can have the result of disparaging Sanders supporters.

    Of course some Sanders supporters would be disappointed. That is always be the case for supporters of any candidate. But most of us recognize that, "change will be slow and incremental if there is change at all."

    The point is that, if you don't advocate - and vote - and work - for the change you want, it definitely won't happen at all. The difference is that, while you appear to take comfort in the belief that "the winds of change are blowing away from establishment politicians and the wealthy donors who support them." We are not so sure.

    As the democratic party has shown with its ham-handed support of HRC, the establishment politicians have a significant advantage and will do everything in their power to divert or quash change.

    PPaine -> cawley...
    I love it. Exactly -- They hate us for our freedom. The final affluent liberal reaction
    realpc :
    I agree with Mark Thoma about this. There is actually similarity between these two candidates. The labels "progressive" and "conservative" really don't apply.

    Americans are just tired of being controlled by a tiny minority of powerful rich people. Electing either Trump or Sanders probably won't change that, but at least it sends a message. We are, whether liberal or conservative or neither, sick of how things have been going.

    pgl :
    "Electing either Trump or Sanders probably won't change that, but at least it sends a message."

    The message would be a positive one if Sanders is elected. Trump - not so much as the real message of his campaign is that only white people have rights here.

    Jess :

    It is not about restoring 'a golden age' so easily dismissed by cheap cynicism. It is about preserving freedom and restoring justice. That these causes are never done, and the struggle to preserve them is never ending, does not make them a dead issue except to the worst of the cynics.

    Indeed, such resolution to reform and the pursuit of justice is the core of the very spirit of that phenomenon that is America. And while its history is replete with its abuses therein, its history also shows a remarkable resilience amongst the people to resist all forms of tyranny, including the tyranny of the privileged, in all their complacency for the status quo.

    This is what Sanders and Trump 'get' that the jades of the comfortable class do not.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

    Sandwichman -> Jess...
    "It is not about restoring 'a golden age' so easily dismissed by cheap cynicism." I'll have you know that my cynicism has been bought at a very respectable price.
    Lee A. Arnold -> Sandwichman ...
    You may enjoy this piece in the Voice yesterday, insightful, hilarious, & spreading like wildfire: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/feeling-the-yern-why-one-millennial-woman-would-rather-go-to-hell-than-vote-for-hillary-8253224
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Lee A. Arnold ...
    Awesome, Dude! THANKS!
    PPaine -> Lee A. Arnold ...
    Disestablishmentarianism
    PPaine -> PPaine ...
    But

    My cynicism lives by day at a job site
    But by night --

    When the full blog shines .....
    I become the mao ist of old

    No one every expects
    The cultural revolution --

    PPaine -> PPaine ...
    Tripped on my last jazz box eh?

    No one ever expects


    The
    CULTURAL REVOLUTION

    realpc :
    We don't need progressive ideology or conservative ideology. We need common sense and a genuine desire to help the middle class.

    Ideologies don't work and they are unrelated to common sense. Socialism does not work. However, I would vote for Sanders over any establishment politician, just because he doesn't seem to be one of them.

    Lee A. Arnold -> realpc...

    Realpc: "Socialism does not work." Social Security does not work? Public education does not work?
    realpc -> Lee A. Arnold ...
    Public education is mostly under local control. Social Security is ok, but there are better ways to provide for your retirement. A good definition of "socialism" is needed before trying to have a conversation about it.

    The Marxist definition involves a whole lot more than public education and social programs.

    Lee A. Arnold -> realpc...
    1. Social Security is not a "way to provide for your retirement". It is the safety-net.

    Everybody pays in from the beginning of work life, and everybody gets a payout, rich or poor, when they retire. No free riding, no moral hazard. No need for bureaucratic means-testing; extremely low overhead. It is slightly regressive on the pay-in, and slightly progressive on the pay-out; everybody accepts this going in, because you really don't know how your life will play out. The tax cap (which should be raised back to the original 90% of all income) prevents the wealthiest from objecting to it; it is chump change to them: thus, no real political problem. Social Security covers a myriad of deprivations and evils which we no longer have to think about because they don't occur with the same frequency or intensity.

    In fact it would be very difficult to make a better design. Genius, really.

    2. The fact that public education is under local control is immaterial to the general case, because public education benefits from local control. Other public goods, e.g retirement security, universal healthcare, national defense, don't need local differentiation and benefit from having the largest pay-in, the largest risk pool.

    3. Bernie Sanders is not talking about the marxist definition, and he has been quite clear on that. This is "democratic socialism" on the scale of some European countries, which retain plenty of market elements, have the same GDP growth rates as the US., and have happier populations.

    realpc -> Lee A. Arnold ...
    Those countries are and have long been capitalist. They are relatively wealthy, and very small.

    The US is very different. We could do the same things as Sweden, etc., are doing, at the state level. That would make much more sense, and should make conservatives and progressives happy. But no one suggests it.

    Lee A. Arnold -> realpc...
    They call themselves social democracies, and their size is immaterial to the argument.

    However, the relative sizes of the European countries and the US suggests that the US should have much, much HIGHER rates of growth than they do, according to Adam Smith, Chap. 3: "The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market." This could well be due to the US's lack of better social democracy, hobbling its citizens in debt and despair.

    DrDick -> pgl...
    Actually, North Korea is not socialist by any sane definition, any more than Saudi Arabia does. They are both feudal monarchies.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> realpc...
    Admittedly, we are confusing democratic socialism with social democracy a lot in our discussions here. You are confusing totalitarian dictatorship with socialism. There has never actually been a socialist government so there is no way to know whether it could work or not. An actual socialist government would need to be done within the confines of democracy in order for social will to be enacted by social power. Most of the world's governments are social democracies exercised within the constraints of capitalism under control of electoral republican states. The necessity for economic power to elevate candidates to the political elite ensures that ultimate power lies in the hands of the capitalist so long as they do not inspire insurrection among their subjects.

    The reason that there has never been a socialist government is because there has never been a democracy. Electoral republics allow elites to maintain power and control of property and the economic system while providing just enough democratic façade to keep the pitchforks down on the farm instead of storming the gates of power.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    All oligarchies are created equal regardless of whether the majority of property and wealth is held in the private hands of a small elite or whether the majority of property and wealth is held by the state that is controlled by a small elite. It is the transitive property of oligarchy equality.
    realpc -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    "The reason that there has never been a socialist government is because there has never been a democracy."

    That is what you prefer to THINK is the reason. You have no evidence for that belief.

    realpc -> realpc...
    Socialism means no one can own a business. So the essential premise of socialism is not just impractical, it is impossible.

    And that is why it has never existed. All the communist revolutionaries were striving for the socialist ideal. It didn't happen because it can't happen, it is just a fantasy dreamed up by philosophers.

    DrDick -> realpc...
    You are a very confused individual throwing around words you do not understand. The seventh largest corporation in Spain, a multibillion dollar multinational enterprise, is a socialist collective.

    http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/eng/

    PPaine -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    Democratic socialism As opposed to one party state socialism

    Aka the way of Stalin and me

    PPaine -> PPaine ...
    Totalitarianism is a failed social category that never existed anywhere outside of Orwell
    Salade Déjeuner :
    " 91 cents of every dollar spent on entitlement programs goes to " the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working
    "
    ~~MT~

    Would you guess that large chunks of $$$$ to elderly goes straight to the grandchildren? Straight back into the economy to raise aggregate demand? Hell! Grandparents love their hapless offspring more than they love themselves, but :

    But that which elderly save for themselves goes straight into the estate, the estate that goes to grandchildren. Such is a true Keynesian redistribution to the higher propensity jokers. If it still works, don't fix it!

    The defect that needs fixing is where $$$$ is removed from the economy to fund the transfer. $$$$ should be removed as taxation on signalling but never on taxation of production. Sure! We do need certain Pigouvian taxes, otherwise our planet will burn up. Will the changes to the tax code be "politically acceptable"?

    No! As global warming closes in on us it will suddenly become acceptable, a year late

    eudaimonia :
    A large chunk of Trump supporters come from uneducated white males - people who have been hit hard by our trade agreements and deindustrialization. Throw in a little bigotry against Mexicans and immigrants, and you have Trump supporters.

    Bernie supporters tend to be younger. These are people who have only lived in a world of unequal growth, growth built off of bubbles, declining union membership and worker bargaining power, less job security, an eroding minimum wage, stagnant wages, debt, unending war, exploding education costs, etc.

    They are not particularly happy with the status quo and feel that we need to change paths rather than continue on this trajectory.

    Both supporters are not happy with the economic and political system, and seek change. They feel that the economic and political class are not on their side, and there is some truth that that.

    [Feb 12, 2016] Theres A Special Place at The Hague for Madeleine Albright

    Notable quotes:
    "... Too bad she is a neocon monster. ..."
    "... Albright doesn't have a whole lot of empathy for those who find themselves on the disadvantageous side of American foreign policy. She neither came down wholly for or wholly against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But that might just have been silly partisan politics and not due to any actual concern for the lives of Iraqi civilians. In 1996, Albright stated that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to American sanctions was justified. ..."
    "... From Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide ..."
    "... Unlike Rwanda, Albright was involved in every step of Clinton's Balkan policy, although she was not his Secretary of State until 1997. Before that, she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and served as president of the Center for National Policy . She is a former student of Zbigniew Brzezinski . ..."
    "... Albright actively advocated policies that led to American military action in 1999, and placed all of the blame for the situation on the Belgrade government . (Does that ring a bell?) Albright's contention was that "a little bombing" would encourage Milosevic to sign Rambouillet Peace Accords, which would allow for the NATO occupation of Kosovo. ..."
    "... The Clinton Administration demanded Milosevic's removal from power , and in 2000, Albright rejected Vladimir Putin's offer to try to use his influence to defuse the situation. ..."
    "... War may have been the American end game in the Balkans from the start. In 1992, the American ambassador torpedoed Bosnian secession peace negotiations by convincing Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic to refuse to sign the peace accords. The ensuing catastrophic civil war, which ended in 1995, was blamed on Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic. Colin Powell recalled, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was pressured by Albright in 1992 to use military force on Bosnia. ..."
    "... Albright has never wavered from her stance on the Balkans. In 2012, she got into a shouting match with pro-Serbian activists over her role in that conflict , calling the protesters "dirty Serbs." ..."
    russia-insider.com

    Madeleine Albright proves to the young, aspiring women of America that warmongering psychopathy has no glass ceiling.

    Former U.S. Secretary of State under Bill Clinton Madeleine Albright thinks there is "a special place in hell" for young women if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton.

    Despite overwhelming evidence that most young American women who still plan to remain involved in the electoral process would rather go to hell than vote for Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, from her seat of war criminal wisdom, has informed the naive lasses that support for Bernie Sanders will land them in the VIP room in a superstitious underground torture chamber.

    By repurposing her own original quote, Albright has proven yet once again that she is an expert on hell's admission standards because she's probably going there.

    Of course it should come to no surprise that Albright is stumping for Hillary Clinton. After all, she was Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, the first female to hold the office. And sure, Albright has an interesting bio. She and her family, fleeing Czechoslovakia from approaching German army, escaped to Serbia, and she survived the Nazi Blitzkrieg of London.

    Too bad she is a neocon monster.

    Although she personally experienced the horrors of WWII, and had family members who died in the Nazi death camps, Albright doesn't have a whole lot of empathy for those who find themselves on the disadvantageous side of American foreign policy. She neither came down wholly for or wholly against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But that might just have been silly partisan politics and not due to any actual concern for the lives of Iraqi civilians. In 1996, Albright stated that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to American sanctions was justified.

    When is genocide justified? Or when does it simply not matter?

    Let's ask the Rwandans.

    Although the Clinton Administration's stated purpose for intervening in the Balkans was to stop genocide, the Rwandan genocide in 1994 continued unabated. From Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide:

    "Rather than respond with appropriate force, the opposite happened, spurred by the murders of the Belgian Blue Berets and Belgium's withdrawal of its remaining troops. Exactly two weeks after the genocide began – following strenuous lobbying for total withdrawal led by Belgium and Britain, and with American UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright advocating the most token of forces and the United States adamantly refusing to accept publicly that a full-fledged, Convention defined genocide was in fact taking place – the Security Council made the astonishing decision to reduce the already inadequate UNAMIR force to a derisory 270 men" (10.11)

    "The lesson to be learned from the betrayal at ETO and other experiences was that the full potential of UNAMIR went unexplored and unused, and, as result, countless more Rwandans died than otherwise might have. If anyone in the international community learned this lesson at the time, it was not evident at the UN. For the next six weeks, as the carnage continued, the UN dithered in organizing any kind of response to the ongoing tragedy. The Americans, led by US Ambassador Madeleine Albright, played the key role in blocking more expeditious action by the UN.[18] On May 17, the Security Council finally authorized an expanded UNAMIR II to consist of 5,500 personnel.[19] But there is perhaps no distance greater on earth than the one between the Security Council chambers and the outside world. Once the decision to expand was finally made, as we will soon show in detail, the Pentagon somehow required an additional seven weeks just to negotiate a contract for delivering armed personnel carriers to the field; evidently it proved difficult to arrange the desired terms for "maintenance and spare parts."[20] When the genocide ended in mid-July with the final RPF victory, not a single additional UN soldier had landed in Kigali." 10.16

    Unlike Rwanda, Albright was involved in every step of Clinton's Balkan policy, although she was not his Secretary of State until 1997. Before that, she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and served as president of the Center for National Policy. She is a former student of Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    Not only did Albright support Clinton's bombing, she was a key figure in the conflict and in the ousting of Slobodan Milosevic. Time went so far as to call the Balkan campaign "Madeleine's War." Despite her assertions that the bombing of Yugoslavia was a humanitarian mission, it is irrefutable at this point in history that the U.S. pretext for military intervention was fabricated.

    Albright actively advocated policies that led to American military action in 1999, and placed all of the blame for the situation on the Belgrade government. (Does that ring a bell?) Albright's contention was that "a little bombing" would encourage Milosevic to sign Rambouillet Peace Accords, which would allow for the NATO occupation of Kosovo.

    The Clinton Administration demanded Milosevic's removal from power, and in 2000, Albright rejected Vladimir Putin's offer to try to use his influence to defuse the situation.

    War may have been the American end game in the Balkans from the start. In 1992, the American ambassador torpedoed Bosnian secession peace negotiations by convincing Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic to refuse to sign the peace accords. The ensuing catastrophic civil war, which ended in 1995, was blamed on Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic. Colin Powell recalled, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was pressured by Albright in 1992 to use military force on Bosnia.

    Albright has never wavered from her stance on the Balkans. In 2012, she got into a shouting match with pro-Serbian activists over her role in that conflict, calling the protesters "dirty Serbs."

    Dirty Serbs, huh? And she wants to tell idealistic young American women, who still believe in the American democratic process, how to vote? Yay, feminism!

    [Feb 12, 2016] Sanders, Corbyn and the financial crisis

    Notable quotes:
    "... Well, here in the UK it was the left in the form of the Labour Party that was responsible for the situation that resulted in the Financial Crisis, and the immediate response to it. Whether the right would have done anything differently is a point for discussion, but irrelevant: it was the left what done it. ..."
    "... Since Financial Crisis here and the resulting support of the finance sector was a product of the left it is no surprise that the right is now in the ascendancy (and the reverse is true in the US). A fact underlined by Blair, Darling and Brown now all being in the pocket of the financiers. ..."
    "... Thats absolutely true. And the Government pretty much reflected the views of the economic orthodoxy during the Great Moderation - free labour, capital good flows leads to an efficient allocation of resources - comparative advantage, credibility, incentives, etc etc - all EC 101. Also you cannot blame globalisation (which they thought was an unambiguously good thing anyway); academics outside mainstream economics have warned about the dangers of leaving a country overly exposed to globalisation since - well the beginning, but most people studying economics would have been unaware of the arguments and the richness of this literature (and still largely are). ..."
    "... The 2008 crash hit the UK hard because New Labour was a right-wing party that carried on the Conservatives policy of under-regulating our financial systems; a decision that those of us on the genuine left of politics would have done our best to avoid. New Labours abandonment of a genuine left-wing outlook, along with its analogues in the US and Europe, has led us to the current financial crisis and its ongoing austerity con. ..."
    "... How was New Labour left or anything but Thatcher-lite? And how were New Labour any more responsible for 2008 than the decades of Tory rule setting up the groundwork for underregulated markets? ..."
    "... Youve completely missed the point of Simons post. A party that furthers the interests of finance capital is by definition not of the left . The rise of Corbyn, whatever else it may presage, is clearly driven by an appetite for a genuinely left position. Ditto Sanders in the US. ..."
    "... .....one rule which woe betides the banker who fails to heed it.. never lend money to anyone unless they dont need it. ..."
    January 28, 2016 | mainly macro
    Shortly after the full extent of the financial crisis had become clear, I remember saying in a meeting that at least now the position of those who took an extreme neoliberal position (markets are always right, the state just gets in the way of progress) would no longer be taken seriously. I could not have been more wrong. But in a way I think that the 'surprising' strength of the radical left (by which I mean those who are not the established centre left) in the US, UK and perhaps some European countries reflects exactly this contradiction.
    We need only to consider the position of the financial sector to understand this contradiction. That sector was by far the major cause of the largest recession since WWII, and yet it is now in essentially the same position as it was before the crisis. There are no purely economic reasons why this has to be so: economists know that it is perfectly possible to make fundamental changes to this sector that could significantly reduce the chance of another crisis at little cost, but such possibilities are just not on the political agenda. For example, Admati and Helwig have convincingly argued that the problem with banks is very low capital requirements, but actual reforms have been marginal.

    The reason is straightforward: the financial sector has political power. Many on the centre left seem too timid or too ignorant to talk about this power publicly, and are therefore unwilling to challenge it. The political right and it's media machine help divert those who have little interest in politics and economics into believing that their problems are really due to too many migrants or too generous welfare payments. Those who are members or supporters of left wing political parties tend to have a better understanding of what is going on. To put it simply, a sector that caused a great deal of harm and cost us all a great deal has got away largely unscathed such that it could easily do it all again.

    But it gets much worse. The right has succeeded in morphing the financial crisis into an imagined crisis in financing government debt (or, in the Eurozone with the ECB's help, into an actual crisis) which required a reduction in the size of the state that neoliberals dream about. The financial crisis, far from exposing neoliberal flaws, has led to its triumph. Confronted with this extraordinary turn of events, many of those on the centre left want to concede defeat and accept austerity!
    That is all scandalous, and if the left's established leaders will not recognise this, it is not surprising that party members and supporters will look elsewhere to those who do. Now wise heads may warn that the radical left has in many cases not grasped the nature of the problem and are simply repeating old slogans, and worse still that voting for radical leaders may deny the left the chance for power, but inevitably this can sound just like the appeasement of many on the centre left. What Corbyn's victory shows Democrats in the US is the power of the contradiction between the global financial crisis and where we are now.

    Phil, 28 January 2016 at 03:26

    This Robert Reich column is interesting.

    I kept bumping into people who told me they were trying to make up their minds in the upcoming election between Sanders and Trump.

    At first I was dumbfounded. The two are at opposite ends of the political divide. But as I talked with these people, I kept hearing the same refrains. They wanted to end "crony capitalism." They detested "corporate welfare," such as the Wall Street bailout. They wanted to prevent the big banks from extorting us ever again. Close tax loopholes for hedge-fund partners. Stop the drug companies and health insurers from ripping off American consumers. End trade treaties that sell out American workers. Get big money out of politics.

    President Hillary Clinton wouldn't even try to do much (if any) of that. (Neither would Trump, for that matter, but that's another discussion.)

    StuartP, 28 January 2016 at 05:23

    Well, here in the UK it was the 'left' in the form of the Labour Party that was responsible for the situation that resulted in the Financial Crisis, and the immediate response to it. Whether the 'right' would have done anything differently is a point for discussion, but irrelevant: it was the 'left' what done it.

    Since Financial Crisis here and the resulting support of the finance sector was a product of the 'left' it is no surprise that the 'right' is now in the ascendancy (and the reverse is true in the US). A fact underlined by Blair, Darling and Brown now all being in the pocket of the financiers.

    Anonymous, 29 January 2016 at 00:50

    That's absolutely true. And the Government pretty much reflected the views of the economic orthodoxy during the Great Moderation - free labour, capital good flows leads to an 'efficient' allocation of resources - comparative advantage, credibility, incentives, etc etc - all EC 101. Also you cannot blame globalisation (which they thought was an unambiguously good thing anyway); academics outside mainstream economics have warned about the dangers of leaving a country overly exposed to globalisation since - well the beginning, but most people studying economics would have been unaware of the arguments and the richness of this literature (and still largely are).

    On migration, the tragedy of us not being able to let in desperate Syrians is a result of huge immigration (largely of cheap labour) under the Labour government which has not delivered tangible net positive results for most people and left them fatigued. Now we find we politically cannot let in the people that we have a moral responsibility to let in.

    Since the failures happened under Labour, they had to take responsibility, and in the end it played to the Conservatives and we got something worse.

    The start of the solution is to get more pluralism and critical thinking into economics and make it look more like other social sciences. Then hopefully we do not get a repeat of the hubris and Great Moderation Era mistakes.

    Big Bill , 29 January 2016 at 01:22

    The financial crisis couldn't have happened without Thatcher's Big Bang which is no doubt why she was and continues to be feted in death by the City. If you're trying to blame the worldwide financial problems on Labour overspending, where's your evidence to support this (never mind the then Tories were critical of Labour spending on the grounds it was insufficient)? Are you trying to suggest Osborne And Cameron, for example, aren't in the pocket of the financiers? Where's your evidence? :-)

    Slackboy2007, 29 January 2016 at 02:32

    SimonP:

    I wrote a couple of comments under Simon's post "The dead hand of austerity; left and right" that relate to yours. In those comments I made the point that it is, and probably always has been, plain to everyone that the centre-left position of New Labour is a right-wing ideology with an identity crisis.

    The 2008 crash hit the UK hard because New Labour was a right-wing party that carried on the Conservative's policy of under-regulating our financial systems; a decision that those of us on the genuine left of politics would have done our best to avoid. New Labour's abandonment of a genuine left-wing outlook, along with its analogues in the US and Europe, has led us to the current financial crisis and its ongoing austerity con.

    Unfortunately though, it appears that people such as yourself, and even Simon Wren-Lewis with his disappointing assertion that Corbyn is on the "radical left" rather than just the plain left, want to keep up the pretence that you think that New Labour was somehow a left-wing party.

    As I've said before, and I'm sure I'll have to keep saying again and again:

    The centre is on the right.

    Anonymous, 29 January 2016 at 05:33

    How was New Labour "left" or anything but Thatcher-lite? And how were New Labour any more responsible for 2008 than the decades of Tory rule setting up the groundwork for underregulated markets?

    David Timoney , 29 January 2016 at 05:42

    You've completely missed the point of Simon's post. A party that furthers the interests of finance capital is by definition not of the "left". The rise of Corbyn, whatever else it may presage, is clearly driven by an appetite for a genuinely left position. Ditto Sanders in the US.

    John Turner, 29 January 2016 at 11:51

    The UK Labour Party in the GFC was neo-liberal light rather than a believer in improving regulation. The GFC was caused by very poor prudential behaviour by all financial institutions.

    Ogden Nash was quoted at the start of Chapter 15 of Paul Samuelson's text;

    ".....one rule which woe betides the banker who fails to heed it.. never lend money to anyone unless they don't need it."

    Anonymous, 2 February 2016 at 16:34

    @Big Bill

    Critics of Labour and New Labour here are not directing blame at 'overspending' by Labour for the problems that led to Britain's exposure to the Financial crisis and the elevation of the Conservatives. They are blaming things like financial deregulation and over-liberal and naive policies towards trade, capital and labour flows, Labour also ignored growing inequality. Mainstream economists did not take seriously arguments made by historians, sociologists, social workers and many others about dangerous inequalities, imbalances and social problems that were becoming clearly evident. Mainstream economists, almost unanimously said that industrialisation was not a problem , almost natural, and the City was where Britain's 'comparative advantage' lay. Too much confidence in their theories and seeing things through abstraction to the extent you can just ignore what others are actually seeing, not through abstraction, but actual engagement with reality. Take economic immigration, or trade with an assertive China, again, naive neo-classical arguments were prominent.

    ellywu2 , 3 February 2016 at 00:33

    This whole derail is just pointless 'whatabouttery'. Who cares if it was the right or the left. By playing into this partisan 'not me sir, i just got here' cheapens the argument and stymies true academic debate.

    In summary:- whenever someone says 'It was the left/right which started this' you should ignore it - the problem is now.

    Lee , 28 January 2016 at 05:37

    Simon,

    I agree with everything you say and this might be nitpicking, but some economists -- Dean Baker in particular -- think it was the real estate crisis, and not the finanical crisis, that created our current woes:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/08/financial-crisis-subprimecrisis

    Random , 28 January 2016 at 07:57

    Not sure I agree. The problem is there is no rational *bankruptcy* procedure in place at the moment. Here is my view, it is not quite the same as Positive Money put it but similar:

    The lending banks we need are the ones that can lend development capital effectively and stick to doing just that. If we are to have private lending banks, then they need to be able to make a decent profit doing development capital lending.

    The way I would narrow banks is to offer them an incentive - an unlimited cost free overdraft at the Bank of England. 0% funding costs. In return they must drop all the side businesses and just do capital development lending on an uncollateralised basis - probably in the form of simple overdrafts. In other words they become an agency businesses delivering state money to those that require it.

    A capital buffer probably ISN'T required here. Losing your lending licence if your underwriting isn't that good should be sufficient incentive to run a tight ship. Backing off the entire thing to the central bank reduces the barriers to entry in lending - making self-employed, highly dispersed and, importantly, locally focussed underwriters a possibility.

    Any lending businesses that doesn't want to take the oath, then has to fully fund their lending on a maturity matched basis Zopa style. No deposit insurance, no access to the Bank of England, and losses absorbed by those doing the lending. This then becomes the fate of the shadow banking system - the building societies and money funds.

    What we need is asset side regulation.

    You proscribe a list of valid purposes for a loan. Anything outside that list becomes unenforceable in court.

    That leaves the courts to decide what fits and what doesn't fit the list. If they decide it doesn't fit, then it becomes a gift of shareholders funds.

    Operate like that and I guarantee you that banks will become very keen on their due diligence – because the client just has to argue in court that the loan was 'ultra vires' to get a freebie.

    It's really easy to regulate for the government banks if you want to.

    Random , 28 January 2016 at 07:57

    (continued)

    There is another issue:

    The transaction system is clearly also being used as a hostage by the banks to get whatever they want out of the government and the central bank. Do as we say or we shoot the transaction system!

    There are lots of ways of designing a mutual transaction system. But at its core is one concept – transactions operate on the balance sheet of the central bank, not the individual banks. So you would have a Transaction Department at the Bank of England (alongside the Issue and Banking Departments) and current and savings account ultimately represent liabilities on that balance sheet.

    The functional aspects are less important – existing bank accounts could be held in trust by the current banks, run as separate subsidiaries companies and a myriad of different other options. But the key point is that the operational entity is acting as agent and the legal ownership and responsibility is always at the central bank. That makes anything recorded in the transaction system exactly the same as holding cash. You have a receipt for liabilities at the central bank.

    However that makes the individual banks short of deposits and balancing liabilites. The replacement on the individual bank's balance sheets is of course an overdraft from the central bank. Existing banks would then have to get the match funding to free themselves from the central bank lending restrictions, conform to requirements or just enter run-off, as I mentioned earlier.

    The transaction system is like the road or rail infrastructure and is a common good required by all.

    Inevitably the state will have to fund its existence – because there is no money in running it. I see the state providing a 'white box' system that anybody authorised can put a marketing veneer on. Done correctly it would mean that you can literally operate your bank accounts through any of the competing front ends. Account numbers would stay the same whoever you are notionally with.

    The other important thing about cutting down on bank lending is it free ups a *huge* amount of space for government spending. I can see this as a good way for 'funding' a basic income – certainly better than raising the basic rate of tax to 45%.

    That way also the public have an *incentive* to support narrowing banks. Basic Income allows you to narrow banks without a depression.

    Gary Othic , 28 January 2016 at 08:09

    This is roughly the same as my own thinking; that Corbyn's victory comes on the back of a membership angry that they lost the last election having to take the 'austerity-lite' approach for responsibility reasons and Sanders rise has come on the back of Democrats angry that more significant reforms were not put in place after the crash.

    Jack van Dijk , 29 January 2016 at 12:31

    let's hope that people see Sanders that way

    AllanW , 28 January 2016 at 08:18

    There is a very simple explanation for all these circumstances but you won't see it if you keep thinking in outdated ways about political influence.

    It's no longer about Left and Right but about Up and Down.

    Peter , 28 January 2016 at 09:15

    The U.S. Presidential primaries are starting this week and Sanders could win the first two in a large upset. Hillary and her supporters have been attacking Bernie much more lately. Econobloggers Krugman, DeLong, Thoma have all come out for Hillary, arguing that the danger of a Republican victory is too much.

    Sanders has criticized the Fed while Hillary has not. Sanders has a substantial financial transaction tax. I agree with Dean Baker who is still for Sanders.

    https://medium.com/@DeanBaker13/washington-post-takes-wild-swings-at-bernie-sanders-13ab35adf9b8#.k0jpxlylt

    I would bet money that Trump doesn't win. He wont' get enough votes. He turns off Latinos and women, etc. He may motivate more people to vote. What Trump shows is that the Republican establishment is in tatters and the base no longer trusts them.

    Anonymous, 28 January 2016 at 10:47

    At PMQs this week (with due apologies to Henry Fielding's 'Shamela') Shameron, crimson faced, shouted that Blair, Brown and Darling are all being paid by large financial companies so don't talk to him about Google paying 3% corporation tax.

    If you are an anti-Thatcherite, this is the sort of 'argument' that really turns the stomach. Quite what it would have taken for Labour to have got City and Murdoch support in 2010 does not bear thinking about.

    StuartP , 29 January 2016 at 01:26

    Is it not true that Blair, Brown and Darling are all being handsomely paid by large financial companies? Why do you think these companies are doing it?

    Jerry Brown, 28 January 2016 at 12:50

    From the first sentence to the last, everything you have written here describes the way I think and feel about this. Like you were reading my mind (but written much better and more coherently).

    Sanders offers the chance that challenging that power of the financial sector would even be considered. Clinton, not so much.

    Jack van Dijk , 29 January 2016 at 13:45

    Mr. Brown, my thoughts as well. Living in the US feels live living on the sharp edge of a knife.

    Demetrius , 29 January 2016 at 04:59

    If only it was as simple as Left and Right, but it is bigger and worse than that. today I asked the question who rules the world?

    Madhyamak , 29 January 2016 at 07:50

    Excellent post! And finally a break with Paul Krugman.

    Mainly Macro , 29 January 2016 at 22:07

    Thank you for the first comment, but I think the second reflects what you think I wrote rather than what I actually said. While Paul is undoubtedly a wise head, I did not say these warnings were wrong, but said they might be ignored. Paul and I have differed about issues in the past, like the microfoundations of macro, or the political solidity of the Eurozone.

    Jerry Brown, 30 January 2016 at 10:54

    Well, I can read too and Madhyamak is right, this column does constitute a break with Krugman's recent posts and as Peter earlier noted, other leftish leaning econ bloggers.

    Maybe it was not your intent, but the actual post you wrote displays a deep understanding of, and approval for, the motives and desires of Sanders supporters. And a definite criticism of the center-left. Furthermore, it extends hope that it is not all a foolish dream when you compare it to the Corbyn victory.

    And it is an excellent post.

    Neil Wilson , 29 January 2016 at 23:02

    "For example, Admati and Helwig have convincingly argued that the problem with banks is very low capital requirements,"

    Then I wonder at that. Banks always have 100% loss capital on their balance sheets. Deposits are essentially capital. After all why else would you need a depositor's protections scheme if they are not subject to loss?

    Having a system where people 'bail-in' ahead of time rather than behind time sounds like the same faulty control thinking as the sovereign money idea.

    Banks can essentially create their own capital via the lending process as Professor Werner has already described in his seminal papers on how the banking system actually works.

    So there can be no effective control point on the liabilities side of a bank's balance sheet. All you can do there is alter the price, which just feeds through to the price of loans. And we already saw how well price adjustment controls banks in 2008.

    The job of the financial sector is to create money for appropriate projects in the non-financial sector. Their use of the power to create money, delegated to them by the state, should be limited to that purpose and that purpose alone - restrict financial sector asset creation only to those assets that fund the non-financial sector. No more borrowed-into-existence casino money. If the finance sector wants to do anything amongst itself it should be force to raise equity to do it, which would then have to come from existing savings.

    The place to discipline banks is on the asset side of the balance sheet. By removing the financial sector's ability to borrow money from banks you shrink the size of the financial sector and stop it creating bubbles within itself.

    The financial sector size is determined by how much it can expand its balance sheet, and the expansion is driven on the asset side - where the result of its sales efforts end up.

    Neil Wilson , 29 January 2016 at 23:12

    "Many on the centre left seem too timid or too ignorant to talk about this power publicly, and are therefore unwilling to challenge it."

    The other one is that the left has severe loss aversion issues.

    To shrink the financial sector requires putting people out of work.

    Allowing capitalism to work requires businesses to fail, which puts people out of work.

    Unfortunately capitalism without loss and failure is like Catholicism without hellfire. It doesn't work as a concept. Things have to be allowed to fail - banks included.

    Importantly failed expansion leads to permanent loss which has to be allocated. If you were earning good money on a bubble project, or in a declining business area that fails, and your skills are unneeded anywhere else, then your income will decline - possibly right down to the living wage.

    So the first task is working out how to take losses with good grace.

    [Feb 11, 2016] Clinton is a warmonger. Most of the candidates are. I wouldnt vote for anyone who was, no matter what their politics. So, the field is greatly reduced for me.

    Notable quotes:
    "... In my view, Clinton wants to be President only because it is there and it is a powerful role. For her, I think it affirms her egotistical belief that she is the best person for the job. She is a by the numbers politician; lacking passion and a cause and is beholden to Wall St. ..."
    "... Clinton is a warmonger. Most of the candidates are. I wouldnt vote for anyone who was, no matter what their politics. So, the field is greatly reduced for me. ..."
    "... The media likes a simplistic narrative, and the media wants Clinton win, no matter what the Democratic base wants. Its annoying, but not surprising, that they are trying to cast the Democratic primary as they have. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    MajorMalaise , 2016-02-10 01:44:26
    This disgraceful episode shows the dark side of the sexism arguments. Equality is about every women having the same opportunities as men. But what gets lost in the debate, or conveniently ignored, is that an incompetent woman has no place taking or claiming precedence over a competent man. Margaret Thatcher wrought a trail of destruction in the UK - her Reagan-esque and neo-liberal policies led to many more Britons living in poverty and being left with no prospect of any dignity; instead being trapped in a life-long welfare-cycle. How is it plausible that she should not be judged on her performance, rather on some esoteric and exaggerated feminist ideal. She was a female PM, sure, but she was an awful PM. Her political salvation was the Argentine conflict over the Falklands. Without that, she would have deservedly been confined to the political scrap-heap much sooner.

    In my view, Clinton wants to be President only because it is there and it is a powerful role. For her, I think it affirms her egotistical belief that she is the best person for the job. She is a "by the numbers" politician; lacking passion and a cause and is beholden to Wall St. That surely makes her sound more like a conservative rather than a liberal (the equivalent of Tony Blair). Sanders might be a silly old fool, but he has a passion for the American ideal - that all men (and women) were indeed created equal and his policies support that ideal. Clinton has no policies - she is essentially asking the American people to trust her, when in reality, they don't - not because she is a woman, but because she has a history of duplicity.

    catmahal , 2016-02-10 01:27:28
    Clinton is a warmonger. Most of the candidates are. I wouldn't vote for anyone who was, no matter what their politics. So, the field is greatly reduced for me.
    Marcedward antaeaventura , 2016-02-10 00:09:29
    "I am increasingly dismayed that 'older, wiser, more mature' voters are portrayed as solidly in Hillary's corner"

    The media likes a simplistic narrative, and the media wants Clinton win, no matter what the Democratic base wants. It's annoying, but not surprising, that they are trying to cast the Democratic primary as they have.

    [Feb 11, 2016] often argue

    Notable quotes:
    "... ..."
    "... The Atlantic ..."
    "... The Atlantic ..."
    www.salon.com
    that mainstream political reporters are incapable of covering her positively-or even fairly. While it may be true that the political press doesn't always write exactly what Clinton would like, emails recently obtained by Gawker offer a case study in how her prodigious and sophisticated press operation manipulates reporters into amplifying her desired message-in this case, down to the very word that The Atlantic 's Marc Ambinder used to describe an important policy speech.

    The emails in question , which were exchanged by Ambinder, then serving as The Atlantic 's politics editor , and Philippe Reines, Clinton's notoriously combative spokesman and consigliere, turned up thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request we filed in 2012 (and which we are currently suing the State Department over). The same request previously revealed that Politico's chief White House correspondent, Mike Allen, promised to deliver positive coverage of Chelsea Clinton, and, in a separate exchange, permitted Reines to ghost-write an item about the State Department for Politico's Playbook newsletter. Ambinder's emails with Reines demonstrate the same kind of transactional reporting, albeit to a much more legible degree: In them, you can see Reines "blackmailing" Ambinder into describing a Clinton speech as "muscular" in exchange for early access to the transcript. In other words, Ambinder outsourced his editorial judgment about the speech to a member of Clinton's own staff.

    On the morning of July 15, 2009, Ambinder sent Reines a blank email with the subject line, "Do you have a copy of HRC's speech to share?" His question concerned a speech Clinton planned to give later that day at the Washington, D.C. office of the Council on Foreign Relations, an influential think tank. Three minutes after Ambinder's initial email, Reines replied with three words: "on two conditions." After Ambinder responded with "ok," Reines sent him a list of those conditions:

    Advertisement

    From: [Philippe Reines]
    Sent: Wednesday, July 15 2009 10:06 AM
    To: Ambinder, Marc
    Subject: Re: Do you have a copy of HRC's speech to share?

    3 [conditions] actually

    1) You in your own voice describe them as "muscular"

    2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys - from Holbrooke to Mitchell to Ross - will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something

    3) You don't say you were blackmailed!

    One minute later, Ambinder responded:

    From: Ambinder, Marc
    Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:07 AM
    To: Philippe Reines
    Subject: RE: Do you have a copy of HRC's speech to share?

    got it

    Ambinder made good on his word. The opening paragraph of the article he wrote later that day, under the headline " Hillary Clinton's 'Smart Power' Breaks Through ," precisely followed Reines' instructions:

    Sponsored

    When you think of President Obama's foreign policy, think of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That's the message behind a muscular speech that Clinton is set to deliver today to the Council on Foreign Relations. The staging gives a clue to its purpose: seated in front of Clinton , subordinate to Clinton, in the first row, will be three potentially rival power centers: envoys Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, and National Security Council senior director Dennis Ross .

    Based on other emails released in the same batch we received, Ambinder's warm feelings toward Clinton may have made him uniquely susceptible to Reines' editing suggestions. On July 26, 2009, he wrote to Reines to congratulate his boss about her appearance on Meet the Press :

    From: Ambinder, Marc
    Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 12:05 PM
    To: Philippe Reines
    Subject: she kicked A

    on MTP

    On November 29, 2010 , he sent along another congratulatory note, apparently in regard to a press conference Clinton had held that day to address the publication of thousands of State Department cables by WikiLeaks:

    From: Ambinder, Marc
    Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 12:05 PM
    To: Philippe Reines
    Subject: This is an awesome presser...

    She is PITCH f#$*& PERFECT on this stuff.

    The emails quoted above are particularly remarkable given Ambinder's understanding of Clinton's press strategy, as he articulated in a column for The Week last year. Predicting how Clinton's widely documented aversion to reporters would play out in the 2016 presidential race, Ambinder wrote , "The Clinton campaign will use the press instrumentally. ... Good news for us, though: The reporters covering Clinton are going to find ways to draw her out anyway, because they're really good, they'll give her no quarter, and they'll provide a good source of accountability tension [ sic ] until Walker (or whomever) emerges from the maelstrom."

    When asked for comment about his correspondence with Reines, Ambinder wrote in an email to Gawker, "I don't remember much about anything, but I do remember once writing about how powerful FOIA is, especially as a mechanism to hold everyone in power, even journalists, accountable." When asked to elaborate, he followed up with a longer message:

    Advertisement

    Philippe and I generally spoke on the phone and followed up by email. The exchange is probably at best an incomplete record of what went down. That said, the transactional nature of such interactions always gave me the willies.... Since I can't remember the exact exchange I can't really muster up a defense of the art, and frankly, I don't really want to. I will say this: whatever happened here reflects my own decisions, and no one else's.

    In a subsequent phone exchange, Ambinder added:

    It made me uncomfortable then, and it makes me uncomfortable today. And when I look at that email record, it is a reminder to me of why I moved away from all that. The Atlantic , to their credit, never pushed me to do that, to turn into a scoop factory. In the fullness of time, any journalist or writer who is confronted by the prospect, or gets in the situation where their journalism begins to feel transactional, should listen to their gut feeling and push away from that.

    Being scrupulous at all times will not help you get all the scoops, but it will help you sleep at night. At no point at The Atlantic did I ever feel the pressure to make transactional journalism the norm.

    Ambinder emphasized that the emails did not capture the totality of his communication with Reines, and said they were not indicative of his normal reporting techniques. When asked if the exchange was typical of the magazine's reporting and editing process, a spokesperson for The Atlantic told Gawker: "No, this is not typical, and it goes against our standards."

    Reines didn't respond when we asked if he engaged in similar transactions with other reporters covering the State Department. But on the day of his trade with Ambinder, at least one other journalist used Reines' preferred adjective-"muscular"-to describe the speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. That reporter was none other than Mike Allen of Politico : ....

    Uahsenaa February 9, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    At Gawker, a pretty clear paper trail showing exactly how HRC gets the media coverage she desires:

    http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058

    [Feb 11, 2016] February 9, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    At Gawker, a pretty clear paper trail showing exactly how HRC gets the media coverage she desires:

    http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058

    [Feb 11, 2016] A wonderfully grim satire of neoliberalism, globalization, and Kurzweil-ian narcissistic techno-utopianism

    Notable quotes:
    "... A somewhat campy (okay, VERY campy) take on the French Revolution, it quite effectively depicts the way hopelessness and inequality corrode away the moral fabric of human relations. ..."
    "... it was Mike Nichols who said, Funny is very rare. And I would add, very valuable, and slightly deadly. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Blink 180 , February 9, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    From yesterday's water cooler:

    [BILL CLINTON:] "I understand why we've got a race on our hands, because a lot of people are disillusioned with the system and a lot of young people want to take it down. … I understand what it's like for people who haven't had a raise in eight years. There are a lot of reasons [to be angry]. But this is not a cartoon. This is real life."

    Don't rag on cartoons, Bill. Many are more worth paying attention to than you are. I recommend the following:

    Galaxy Express 999

    A wonderfully grim satire of neoliberalism, globalization, and Kurzweil-ian narcissistic techno-utopianism.

    The Roses of Versailles

    A somewhat campy (okay, VERY campy) take on the French Revolution, it quite effectively depicts the way hopelessness and inequality corrode away the moral fabric of human relations.

    Both can easily be streamed online with English subtitles.

    ekstase , February 9, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    They used to say that Hitchcock was, "damned with faint praise," by being called a master of horror. I think the same thing tends to happen to those who are funny. I think it was Mike Nichols who said, "Funny is very rare." And I would add, very valuable, and slightly deadly.

    Plenue , February 9, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    I was going to say something similar. Yes, Clinton, you're damn right I watch cartoons:

    [Feb 10, 2016] Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is falling apart

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is falling apart. Bernie Sanders soared in New Hampshire and now two polls have him tying her nationally. It's a disaster. ..."
    "... Now she's called in the B Team - the cynical, paranoid and wacky twins Sidney Blumenthal and David Brock - to bail her out. ..."
    "... The attacks are rooted in nothing more than a list of dirty names they call the Vermont senator every day. Having found little in his record to attack, they have consulted the thesaurus to turn up ugly sounding accusations. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jim Haygood

    Dear old Dick Morris - the Clintons' former triangulation guru - is back. And he's wielding a sharp rapier:

    Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is falling apart. Bernie Sanders soared in New Hampshire and now two polls have him tying her nationally. It's a disaster.

    Now she's called in the B Team - the cynical, paranoid and wacky twins Sidney Blumenthal and David Brock - to bail her out. And here comes the elderly, diminished and livid former President Bill Clinton to lead the duo's frantic attacks on Sanders.

    The attacks are rooted in nothing more than a list of dirty names they call the Vermont senator every day. Having found little in his record to attack, they have consulted the thesaurus to turn up ugly sounding accusations.

    Their strategy is laughable. After losing 84 percent of young voters in Iowa - and failing to recover them in New Hampshire - they sent in two aging fossils of feminism to insult and threaten young women.

    The 81-year-old feminist Gloria Steinem charged that young women are only backing Sanders because that's where they can meet boys. And 78-year-old Madeleine Albright threatened to consign to a "special place in hell" women who don't back female candidates like Clinton.

    Those are two great ways to attract young voters.

    http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/268831-dick-morris-clinton-deploys-b-team

    At least Dick cautiously refrained from labeling the candidate herself an 'aging fossil of feminism,' an offense which could get him Arkancided.

    [Feb 10, 2016] Establishemnt political consultants operate and strategize on the sole core premise that voters are stupid in the Pavlovian sense and unreliable

    Notable quotes:
    "... Political consultants by and large, and especially in the establishment tier, operate and strategize on the sole core premise that voters are a) stupid (in the Pavlovian sense), and b) unreliable. The idea that small donors would be reliable over the course of a campaign is inconceivable (the larger donors certainly aren't that reliable). And if you're willing to flip messages in a heartbeat, it is probably not a safe bet; Sanders is pulling it off in part (so far?) through his own massive (so far…) consistency (and legacy). Also, he's positioned so far from anybody else (except maybe Trump?!?) that it's difficult to slipstream him and steal his donor base. ..."
    "... I think that some basic economic/market concepts (commitment bias, sunk costs) can be considered as well. But the establishment consultants (who generally do quite well, thank you) don't see a $20 donation as a significant commitment with an expectation attached; it's a restaurant tip. BTW, Sanders' three million donations come from over one million donors, that's a rough average of two follow-up donations. Some of these folks are living hand-to-mouth; they're almost literally all in, unlike any millionaire or billionaire who maxes out and gives the rest to PACs. ..."
    "... And Clinton's not dumb; not dumb? mmm, Ok, is she smart? Personally, I don't think so. Conniving and persistent? absolutely. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    dk

    And Clinton's not dumb; she could have tried just the same strategy. Why didn't she?

    Because of her consultants.

    Think of it as a jobs program. Fundraising consultants are important assets throughout the life of a campaign (including the period after the election).

    The fundraisers get a cut of funds they raise (10%-20% is common, I've seen higher… even ActBlue asks for a tip, but they ask and don't require it, and it doesn't come out of your donation, it's on top). This is an industry, which also has vendors (NGP / VAN and other political data platforms have fundraising modules, before merging with VAN, NGP was a stand-alone campaign accounting, compliance, and fundraising tool).

    And in case there is any lingering confusion or doubt in anyone's mind; the campaign fundraising context is a major conduit for "constituent" input on policy. When candidates say "I've heard from/spoken with my constituents", unless they just did a townhall meeting, they are talking about conversations at fundraising events. The candidates feel that they are actually connecting with their constituents… and they are, just not with all of them. Naturally, business owners and affluent blowhards are well-represented.

    Which means that backing out of the existing fundraising mechanisms would be wrenching for campaign and candidate alike, on several levels. It would also be considered an overt act of disloyalty; and loyalty is the coin of the realm.

    Political consultants by and large, and especially in the establishment tier, operate and strategize on the sole core premise that voters are a) stupid (in the Pavlovian sense), and b) unreliable. The idea that small donors would be reliable over the course of a campaign is inconceivable (the larger donors certainly aren't that reliable). And if you're willing to flip messages in a heartbeat, it is probably not a safe bet; Sanders is pulling it off in part (so far?) through his own massive (so far…) consistency (and legacy). Also, he's positioned so far from anybody else (except maybe Trump?!?) that it's difficult to slipstream him and steal his donor base.

    I think that some basic economic/market concepts (commitment bias, sunk costs) can be considered as well. But the establishment consultants (who generally do quite well, thank you) don't see a $20 donation as a significant commitment with an expectation attached; it's a restaurant tip. BTW, Sanders' three million donations come from over one million donors, that's a rough average of two follow-up donations. Some of these folks are living hand-to-mouth; they're almost literally all in, unlike any millionaire or billionaire who maxes out and gives the rest to PACs.

    optimader

    And Clinton's not dumb; not dumb? mmm, Ok, is she smart? Personally, I don't think so. Conniving and persistent? absolutely.

    [Feb 10, 2016] Democratic Party super delegates problems

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Doug, February 9, 2016 at 6:34 pm

    The vote count is currently 62% for Bernie and 32% for Hilary, yet she has scored 6 delegates vs. zero for him. What am I missing (besides a functioning brain)?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef, February 9, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    It's not as bad as the United Nations.

    5 guys can veto anything.

    And no popular vote. You can reproduce all you want to add to your billion plus population, but you get one vote, as same as Andorra (I think).

    Llewelyn Moss, February 9, 2016 at 7:18 pm

    Yeah but Super Delegates only exist in case commoner voters come up with the wrong answer. Hahaha. Pathetic. I will write in Bernie regardless of how the Dems 'fix' the selection.

    flora , February 9, 2016 at 8:39 pm

    Super Delegates: part of the modern Dem machine. Carter was the first nominee and pres under the super delegate system. (Started 1972 after the McGovern nomination, i.e 'wrong' answer.) Carter was also the start of Dem presidents who de-regulate business. Super Delegates act as supporters of the status quo, making the party less responsive to voters.

    jrs, February 9, 2016 at 8:51 pm

    Notice the Republicans don't have super delegates. Which party is really more democratic? It's a ratchet, there's a check on how far populist left movements go in this country, but maybe not populist right ones.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , February 9, 2016 at 7:01 pm

    Hard to predict if it's another miracle day for Saint Hillary.

    We will know by sundown, I hope.

    ambrit, February 9, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    Probably "Super Delegates."

    Jen, February 9, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    So far the partially reported totals are from the hinterlands, which is the only possible explanation I can offer for whoever the hell Greenstein is with 7% of the vote.

    Also wrt phone banking/push polling in NH: those of us who live here know this is why caller ID was invented, and act accordingly.

    jrs, February 9, 2016 at 7:40 pm

    I am glad Vermin Supreme seems to have gotten some write ins.

    ekstase, February 9, 2016 at 4:52 pm

    Re: the gator-throwing Florida man:

    "judge ordered James to stay out of all Wendy's restaurants, to avoid contact or possession with any animals other than his mother's dog"

    A couple of possible loopholes here?

    A Farmer, February 9, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    More Florida Man stories http://grantland.com/features/lifes-rich-pageant-meet-a-florida-man/

    flora, February 9, 2016 at 5:24 pm

    re: Benjamin Studebaker link. Good read. Thanks.

    flora , February 9, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    adding:
    The Dems came up with the idea of super delegates after the McGovern nomination in 1972. The idea was to keep the party bosses in control of the nominating process. Studebaker talks about Carter. Carter was the first Dem nominee under the super delegate system.
    The GOP does not have super delegates to their convention.

    [Feb 10, 2016] Glen Greenwald says weve hit Stage 6 of Establishment backlush and are on our way to Stage 7

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    flora , February 9, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    From DK:
    "Glen Greenwald says we've hit Stage 6 on our way to Stage 7."

    http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/9/1482119/-Glenn-Greenwald-says-we-ve-hit-Stage-6-on-our-way-to-Stage-7-BOOM

    Jess , February 9, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    Glenn left out Stage 8 - when the reform candidate gets assassinated.

    [Feb 10, 2016] How Bernie can stick a fork in Killary off on Wall Street donations issue

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    lyman alpha blob,

    RE: sHillary's Wall St problem, here's how Bernie can finish her off and I keep waiting for him to say something like the following:

    "My campaign has accepted millions of dollars in small donations from voters all across the country. They most certainly expect something from me in return and if elected I intend to deliver. I expect the same goes for Clinton and her donors too."

    Then stick a fork in her.

    jo6pac,

    Yes;)

    [Feb 10, 2016] Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders Win the New Hampshire Primaries

    Notable quotes:
    "... those who are so wrapped in the Clinton bubble as to assume her inevitability and electability have some thinking to do. ..."
    "... For my part, Hillary Clinton cant lose by a large enough margin to satisfy my desire to watch the establishment turned on its ear this season. We the people have had it up to here with neoconservative warfare abroad, profound wealth inequality, economic injustice writ large, the power of banks over all of us, and the prioritizing of the wealth of finance and other industry barons over the basic interests and well-being of the general public. ..."
    "... Still trying to mislead The People toward Hillary, NYTimes? Your front page says: Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton in the Democratic contest in a state where he has long held an advantage. Better to say in a state where the voters, like NYTimes readers who offer Comments, have far better judgment than the lightweight election news and opinion team at the New York Times. ..."
    "... This is about the electorates rejection of the influence of shady money in politics. As somebody noted a few years ago, the candidates should have to wear the logos of their sponsors, like NASCAR drivers do. ..."
    "... I dont think Bill did Hillary any favors by wagging his finger in front of the cameras and scolding Bernie for an authentic campaign. It brought back lots of memories of I did not have sexual relations with that woman and reminded voters what they didnt particularly like about either Clinton. ..."
    "... Look at the exit polling- Bernie brought in a ton of Independents which the Democrats need in order to win in November. He absolutely crushed Hillary with younger people - the future of the party. He also won among women. ..."
    The New York Times

    James, Flagstaff

    What Secretary Clinton and the Democratic machine behind her ought to ponder carefully is that, as the figures now stand, Mr. Trump is likely to walk away from New Hampshire with more votes than Secretary Clinton. Yes, I can already see the rolled eyes and hear all the explanations about how eccentric New Hampshire and its primary system is, but it remains a statistic well worth thinking about. Those who assume that a Trump nomination would mean a Democratic landslide, and those who are so wrapped in the Clinton bubble as to assume her inevitability and electability have some thinking to do.

    Heather, Charlotte, North Carolina

    That an established political figure such as Mr. Sununu knows only five people voting for the odious Mr.Trump is to his credit, but this demonstrates the problem plaguing the the "Establishment" nominees. When only one white-collar criminal, (and a tiny fish in the banking business, to boot) was incarcerated after the economic collapse brought about by some of America's most respected financial institutions, working people realized politics as usual benefitted only one interest group: the obscenely wealthy.

    The regulators would be paid by taxpayers for life to do nothing, we would remain mired in trillions of dollars of debt for waging wars that did little but destabilize the Middle East, and Republican legislators would do absolutely nothing but squabble and snatch up their paychecks.

    It's horrifying that a materialistic, narcissistic blowhard would attract hordes of voters, but if you dwell only in the insular bubble of the Beltway, the reality of a furious electorate must come as quite a shock.

    The machinations of the Koch brothers resulted in Trump, an ambulatory id, laying waste to the illusion that a shred of true statesmanship remained within the Republican Party. Fox "News" can't be shocked that their smug dog-whistles found a studious acolyte in Trump, a master of pandering to the lowest common denominator. The only question: Will our nation be the true victim of these solons' cynical money-grubbing?

    David Gregory, Deep Red South

    The Progressives- Democrats and Independents that have been kicked, ignored, marginalized and abandoned by the media and the Beltway Villagers have a message for you:

    Hillary Clinton is NOT our choice. We do not want a candidate that tells us what we cannot do, that tells us we have to accept Republican lite, that hugs up to Wall Street with it's hand out and tells us to never mind. We want a candidate that represents the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, that remembers and honors the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy and others.

    We believe that government exists to serve the needs of the public and the common good, to level thy playing field and to encourage equity and justice for all.


    CAF, Seattle 2 hours ago

    Thanks NYT! I will check back on this article frequently as you update it for the latest messaging and slant from Clinton HQ in Brooklyn! Keep up the good work, you've become my best source for Hillary Clinton campaign information.

    Sadly for her, it looks like New Hampshire has spoken. Accounts include that over 90% of Democratic voters who valued a "trustworthy and honest" candidate voted for Sanders.

    For my part, Hillary Clinton can't lose by a large enough margin to satisfy my desire to watch the establishment turned on its ear this season. We the people have had it up to "here" with neoconservative warfare abroad, profound wealth inequality, economic injustice writ large, the power of banks over all of us, and the prioritizing of the wealth of finance and other industry barons over the basic interests and well-being of the general public.

    Let's hope for a Sanders landslide in *every* state.


    onthecoast, LA CA 2 hours ago

    Speaking as a Sanders supporter, we are NOT angry at the federal government (other than at the "do nothing" Republicans). We are sick and tired of the 1% and the corporations sending our jobs overseas (42,000 factories closed since 2001) and doing every other thing they can to eviscerate the middle class. We are tired that they don't pay their share of taxes! We want Congress to stand up to them and fix this!!

    David, Sacramento 2 hours ago

    Get ready for a brand new Hillary. What version is she up to right now? Hillary 5.0? She has more hot fixes than Windows.


    Here, There

    Again, everything is phrased in words that tear down Trump and Sanders, after all they have led in the polls for months and Sanders has home state advantage and he didn't beat Hillary, he topped her, and the Iowa result is framed as a win for her, when the raw vote count has not been released ...

    Dick Purcell, Leadville, CO 2 hours ago

    Still trying to mislead The People toward Hillary, NYTimes? Your front page says: "Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton in the Democratic contest in a state where he has long held an advantage." Better to say "in a state where the voters, like NYTimes readers who offer Comments, have far better judgment than the lightweight election "news" and "opinion" team at the New York Times.

    Billy, up in the woods down by the river

    This is about the electorate's rejection of the influence of shady money in politics. As somebody noted a few years ago, the candidates should have to wear the logos of their sponsors, like NASCAR drivers do.

    raven55, Washington DC 2 hours ago

    I don't think Bill did Hillary any favors by wagging his finger in front of the cameras and scolding Bernie for an authentic campaign. It brought back lots of memories of 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman' and reminded voters what they didn't particularly like about either Clinton.

    David Gregory, Deep Red South

    Look at the exit polling- Bernie brought in a ton of Independents which the Democrats need in order to win in November. He absolutely crushed Hillary with younger people - the future of the party. He also won among women. Like Cornell West said: the Sanders Campaign is a love train. Come aboard.
    We are going to need everybody.

    [Feb 09, 2016] What Clinton said in her paid speeches by Ben White

    Shades of corruption in the USA political spectrum...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Recalled one attendee: 'She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.' ..."
    "... Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman's workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis. ..."
    "... the Clinton campaign declined to comment further on calls that she release the transcripts of the three paid speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs, for which she earned a total of $675,000. ..."
    "... So far, the Clinton campaign has shown no inclination to release the texts of her remarks to Goldman or anyone else. At a debate in New Hampshire last week, Clinton said she would "look into" the matter. A day after the debate, Clinton pollster Joel Benenson told reporters, "I don't think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches." On ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Clinton pushed back even harder on calls to release the speech transcripts. ..."
    "... Potential general election opponents could conceivably hit Clinton on her Wall Street ties but it would be much harder for them to do so than Sanders. Many of the GOP candidates - including Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie and Ted Cruz - have ties to Wall Street. Kasich worked at Lehman Brothers and Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs. Bush, Rubio and Christie have all competed hard for donations from the financial industry. ..."
    "... But until Clinton gets clear of Sanders, her speeches to Goldman and other banks will likely continue to pose problems. Some progressive groups say beyond the speeches themselves, the fear is that, as president, Clinton would be too chummy with bankers and rely on Wall Street executives for senior positions like Treasury secretary. The highly paid speaking gigs just make these fears more intense. ..."
    "... One thing that is clear is that Clinton could release the Goldman transcripts unilaterally if she chose to do so. ..."
    www.politico.com

    Recalled one attendee: 'She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.'

    When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.

    Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman's workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

    "It was pretty glowing about us," one person who watched the event said. "It's so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director."

    At another speech to Goldman and its big asset management clients in New York in 2013, Clinton spoke about how it wasn't just the banks that caused the financial crisis and that it was worth looking at the landmark 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law to see what was working and what wasn't.

    "It was mostly basic stuff, small talk, chit-chat," one person who attended that speech said. "But in this environment, it could be made to look really bad."

    Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon dismissed the recollections as "pure trolling," while the Clinton campaign declined to comment further on calls that she release the transcripts of the three paid speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs, for which she earned a total of $675,000.

    But the descriptions of Clinton's remarks highlight the trap in which the Democratic presidential front-runner now finds herself. In a previous election cycle, no one would much care about the former secretary of state's comments to Goldman. They represent the kind of boilerplate, happy talk that highly paid speakers generally offer to their hosts. Nobody pays nearly a quarter of a million dollars to have someone criticize their alleged misdeeds. But 2016 is different.

    Clinton is under relentless attack from Vermont democratic socialist Bernie Sanders for her ties to Wall Street, including paid speeches and campaign fundraising events. And she is now under intense pressure from the media and some on the left to release transcripts of her remarks to Goldman and other banks.

    The problem is, if Clinton releases the transcripts, Sanders and other progressive candidates could take even seemingly innocuous comments and make them sound as though Clinton is in the tank for Wall Street. And if she doesn't, it makes her look like she has something very damaging to hide.

    "On the one hand, if Clinton discloses these speech transcripts that's not going to be the end of it," said Dennis Kelleher, chief executive of financial reform group Better Markets. "I think you are damned if you do and damned if you don't in this never ending game of gotcha. But as a political matter, she should probably just disclose it all and disclose it quickly."

    ... ... ...

    So far, the Clinton campaign has shown no inclination to release the texts of her remarks to Goldman or anyone else. At a debate in New Hampshire last week, Clinton said she would "look into" the matter. A day after the debate, Clinton pollster Joel Benenson told reporters, "I don't think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches." On ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Clinton pushed back even harder on calls to release the speech transcripts.

    ... ... ...

    People close to the Clinton campaign say the hope is that calls for release of the transcripts will fade after New Hampshire, assuming the former first lady can defeat Sanders in South Carolina and the mass of mostly Southern states that vote on March 1 in the Super Tuesday primaries.

    Potential general election opponents could conceivably hit Clinton on her Wall Street ties but it would be much harder for them to do so than Sanders. Many of the GOP candidates - including Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie and Ted Cruz - have ties to Wall Street. Kasich worked at Lehman Brothers and Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs. Bush, Rubio and Christie have all competed hard for donations from the financial industry.

    But until Clinton gets clear of Sanders, her speeches to Goldman and other banks will likely continue to pose problems. Some progressive groups say beyond the speeches themselves, the fear is that, as president, Clinton would be too chummy with bankers and rely on Wall Street executives for senior positions like Treasury secretary. The highly paid speaking gigs just make these fears more intense.

    "The big-picture question voters care about is: Who does a politician surround themselves with and will they hold accountable people they have a close relationship with?" said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "Hillary Clinton would reassure voters if she said she would appoint a Treasury secretary not from Wall Street, an attorney general and SEC chair with a proven record of holding Wall Street accountable, and generally work with Elizabeth Warren to stop the revolving door between industry and government."

    Kelleher echoed that sentiment, saying Clinton could blow the speech question off the radar if she could more clearly articulate an approach to Wall Street that would ease anxiety on the left. Previous comments, including that she took the $675,000 from Goldman because "that's what they offered," have not done the trick.

    "I don't know how she does it, but she has got to get to the fundamental issue and address it in a way that convinces voters that, no matter what money she has gotten from Wall Street, when she is president she will represent the American people and do what's right," Kelleher said. "Until she does that in a convincing way, stories like this will still be a problem for her."

    One thing that is clear is that Clinton could release the Goldman transcripts unilaterally if she chose to do so.

    BuzzFeed reported over the weekend that contracts for two paid speeches - not to Goldman - made clear that Clinton owned exclusive rights to the content and any reproductions of her remarks. A person familiar with the matter said that even if Goldman did have the ability to block Clinton from releasing her remarks, the bank would never exercise that right and would allow the speeches to be released.

    [Feb 08, 2016] Hillarys disingenuous claim that she is more accomplished as a politician is a blatant lie. Like most neocons she is an abject failure

    Sanders, either intentionally or not behaved in an very non-confrontational manner toward her. Moderators were even worse. Rachel is pretty intelligent girl quite able to understand that Hillary Clinton is a criminal. Just due to her Iraq voting, so say nothing about other issues like email-gate, Wall Street speeches and flow of money from foreign donors into Clinton foundation while being a Secretary of State
    They way she was treated was soft balling all the major issues with her candidacy. This is especially true about two more recent scandals: email scandal and her Wall street speeches. The real question here is eligibility of such a person to any elected position. This issue was swiped under the carpet both by moderators and Sanders. Clinton should be unemployable in the USA government in any capacity, by any reasonable standards.
    How can any ordinary voter with IQ above 100 vote for this psychopathic warmonger in Democratic primary (I would understand Republicans voting for her - she is a neoconservative ) is an interesting question about US electorate psychology and "What's wrong with Kansas" effect of constant brainwashing. Looks like Americans so hopelessly brainwashed that they live is some kind of artificial reality?
    It might well be that Albright endorsement is a kiss of death for Hillary Warmonger Clinton. Albright was an architect of Yugoslavia war and endorsed killing of Iraqi children via economic blockade. She is a blood thrusting zombie on her own.
    Notable quotes:
    "... But it was the other things that really really bothered me. The stupid and factually unsupported meme that Clinton will get more done because she is more pragmatic and understands how it works more. That being the Secretary of State means that Clinton has a better grasp of the world than any one out there regardless of her said record at State. And that Sanders doesn't have either an understanding of what he is asking to get into AND that he doesn't have the organization needed to get elected. I thought the latter idea got destroyed when it turned out that despite spending millions less than the candidate who could not lose, Sanders actually had as many field operation sites in states with later primaries as Clinton did, and in quite a few cases more. Because, once again she was inevitable, and didn't have to worry about those states. But for the most part there was no addressing these flights of fancy. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Pat,

    Spent some time at a foreign affairs lecture. Between my conversation with a twenty something Clinton supporter, AND the lecturer and two old women in the audience I can tell you denial is deep.

    First off the younger woman did admit that Steinem and Albright were not good for Clinton, but she also brought up the Bernie supporters are mean to people meme. Now I have no doubt some are, I can also tell you from experience that the Mulder vs. Scully wars were nasty and not pretty. People say mean things on the internet all the time, and maybe it isn't 'right', but Sanders needs to stop taking this stuff seriously and say flat out that both sides have supporters with more passion than common sense. And that only the publicly campaign acknowledged and requested support needs a response from either campaign. IOW, he is not responsible because someone is mean on the internet and he needs to stop apologizing or acknowledging it because it does get equated with the nasty and condescending crap from actual surrogates like Steinem and Albright and Chelsea.

    But it was the other things that really really bothered me. The stupid and factually unsupported meme that Clinton will get more done because she is more pragmatic and understands how it works more. That being the Secretary of State means that Clinton has a better grasp of the world than any one out there regardless of her said record at State. And that Sanders doesn't have either an understanding of what he is asking to get into AND that he doesn't have the organization needed to get elected. I thought the latter idea got destroyed when it turned out that despite spending millions less than the candidate who could not lose, Sanders actually had as many field operation sites in states with later primaries as Clinton did, and in quite a few cases more. Because, once again she was inevitable, and didn't have to worry about those states. But for the most part there was no addressing these flights of fancy.

    I'm really going to have to get my act together and put together a record of the Sanders and Clinton accomplishments as elected officials. And perhaps send it out without identifying who did which just so the shock can be greater when people realize how much more Sanders has done with his time. Although the people smart enough to remember that Sanders has many more years of experience, mayor, Congressman, Senator won't be fooled. Only the idiots who think being married to the elected official is experience won't. As for that other pragmatic myth, maybe I should also supply them with a easy cheat sheet of Congressional and Senate seats that are up for grabs and what the counts are for majorities while I'm at it. And point out that while there is a long really long shot of retaking the Senate, the House is going to remain Republican. And follow up that Republican majorities that despise Clinton won't care how pragmatic she is, anymore than they gave a damn that Obama kept trying to offer them so many things they wanted.

    Elissa Heyman,

    Please put that comparison out, or what each candidate has actually done as an elected official, so people can see; that is a really missing piece of information. That meme is absurd because it is BERNIE who is the progressive that gets things done, and across the aisle.

    Lambert Strether, Post author

    Well, I was a Clinton supporter in 2008. This campaign is nothing. I have no doubt - granted, I can't bear to do the research - that I could find people spouting the most vile misogyny then who are yammering about Berniebros today. Democratic tribalism…

    Jeff W,

    I'm really going to have to get my act together and put together a record of the Sanders and Clinton accomplishments as elected officials.

    Here's a start: "Bernie Gets It Done: Sanders' Record of Pushing Through Major Reforms Will Surprise You" (AlterNet).

    For Hillary Clinton, there's this: "The Hillary Clinton record: In the Senate, she reached across the aisle, but the old ways there are no more" (Yahoo! Politics).

    [Feb 08, 2016] Bernie as a progressive politician without a party

    Notable quotes:
    "... Victory of Reagan was the victory of neoliberalism, or quite coup in the USA. Much like Bolsheviks coup in 1917. Essentially a change of social system. Or neoliberal revolution, if you wish. The end of New Deal Capitalism. ..."
    "... Bernie is a centrist democrat by European standards. He does not offer anything other then the resurrecting of remnants of a New Deal. But social situation is different and the state is fully captured by neoliberals. So to me he looks more like Don Quixote. ..."
    "... He does not have a formal party and without a party any politician is a hostage of the current elite. Or you need to be a retired general and has absolute loyalty of your former troops. ..."
    "... Unless he wins the civil war within Democratic Party against the currently dominant Third Way faction (Clinton faction) and becomes the leader of the Party he is doomed one way or the other. The elite is pretty inventive and vicious. They do not take hostages. I doubt that he can achieve that. The party is already sold. ..."
    "... And even if he becomes POTUS he capabilities will be very limited. He will face "shadow state" in full glory. And it's the "shadow state" which rules the country. That's what iron law of oligarchy is about. "You want a friend in this city? [Washington, DC.] Get a dog!" Harry S. Truman ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    likbez ,

    Victory of Reagan was the victory of neoliberalism, or quite coup in the USA. Much like Bolsheviks coup in 1917. Essentially a change of social system. Or neoliberal revolution, if you wish. The end of New Deal Capitalism.

    Bernie is a centrist democrat by European standards. He does not offer anything other then the resurrecting of remnants of a New Deal. But social situation is different and the state is fully captured by neoliberals. So to me he looks more like Don Quixote.

    The story follows the adventures of a nameless hidalgo who reads so many chivalric romances that he loses his sanity and decides to set out to revive chivalry, undo wrongs, and bring justice to the world, under the name Don Quixote.

    I wish Bernie good lack and want him to win, but he is in a very precarious situation. He does not have a formal party and without a party any politician is a hostage of the current elite. Or you need to be a retired general and has absolute loyalty of your former troops.

    Unless he wins the civil war within Democratic Party against the currently dominant Third Way faction (Clinton faction) and becomes the leader of the Party he is doomed one way or the other. The elite is pretty inventive and vicious. They do not take hostages. I doubt that he can achieve that. The party is already sold.

    And even if he becomes POTUS he capabilities will be very limited. He will face "shadow state" in full glory. And it's the "shadow state" which rules the country. That's what iron law of oligarchy is about. "You want a friend in this city? [Washington, DC.] Get a dog!" ― Harry S. Truman

    Sanders adherents look to me somewhat similar to Occupy Wall Street movement. He runs his campaign on the indignation of people with status quo, with unfair and corrupt system. In other words he runs on a negative platform of addressing injustices and resurrecting the elements of the New Deal .

    But the truth is that this is impossible without dismantling neoliberalism and he probably does not even think in those terms. As if Wall Street allows him to introduce Tobin tax on financial transactions to finance state college education without mortal fight.

    In such a situation usually a nationalist like Trump has better chances. In comparison with other Repugs he at least has some paleoconservative tendencies.

    Lambert Strether (Post author)
    HuffPo:

    Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign raised $33.6 million in the last three months of 2015 and another $20 million in January alone, the campaign announced Sunday. The campaign further stated that 1.3 million people have made 3.25 million donations to Sanders' run - a record number of donors at this stage in a presidential campaign.

    The Sanders camp said that the fourth quarter total will show 70 percent of the campaign's donations came from small donors. Further, the $20 million it reports to have raised in January came almost exclusively from online donations averaging $27 a piece.

    Last I checked, Occupy didn't scale like that. (That's not to say that donating to a campaign is equal to a movement; it isn't. But a mailing list of people who've demonstrated tangible commitment is certainly a good start.)

    For the rest of your comment, Rome wasn't sacked in a day.

    3.14e-9

    That's not to say that donating to a campaign is equal to a movement; it isn't. But a mailing list of people who've demonstrated tangible commitment is certainly a good start.

    It's not just the people making donations, but the army of volunteers who are doing phone banking and organizing events on their own. Now, I suppose all candidates have an army of volunteers. O had them. But the day after they won his ground war for him, he sent them home.

    Bernie says he wants the army to stay involved, and I think it could happen

    1. if he really means what he says, and
    2. the ground forces can be converted to something like a civil engineers corps.
    Lambert Strether (Post author)

    It may be. I just think that after the election could be too late. What if there's another Florida 2000 or Ohio 2004, for example?

    Jeff W,

    Since this post mentions the Democratic candidates' competing "theories of change" here is Jeff Spross in The Week on "How class could eventually remake the Democratic Party" with a somewhat different take:

    This is where Bernie Sanders' revolt within the Democratic Party - which in many ways mirrors Trump's GOP revolt - comes into play. His thesis is that the Democrats need to go hard left on economics. So he's picked a few key class-based priorities - the minimum wage, campaign finance, single payer healthcare, and infrastructure investment - and proposed truly massive and aspirational goals. His idea isn't to moderate on social issues (though he doesn't play them up as much), since political science shows that while poorer voters are more socially conservative, they vote based on pocketbook issues.

    His idea is to bring the Democrats' economic stances up to speed with the progress they've made on social and identity issues, and make them a genuinely economically leftist party again. This will lose them upper class and donor class votes. But so what? They'll solidify their support among black Americans, Latinos, and women; pull a lot of new working- and lower-class whites into the party; and leave a lot of poorer Americans who currently don't vote with the impression they've finally go[t] something to vote for. Sanders' position isn't simply that this is the right thing to do. It's that reliance on economic populism specifically will set up the Democrats with far more durable majorities in the future.

    By contrast, Hillary Clinton's approach is basically to preserve as long as possible the existing coalition - with its top-heavy reliance on upper class voters. She certainly isn't backsliding on economics: She has come down in favor of a $12 minimum wage and has ideas on campaign finance reform. But her incremental building on ObamaCare is paltry to put it mildly. And her approach to the economic issues in general is like her approach to everything else: lots of tinkering, but nothing super ambitious. She's also come out swinging on identity and social issues like access to abortion, voting rights, immigration and gender equality.

    The differences between Clinton and Sanders are often chalked up to "theory of change" stuff, or idealism vs. practicality. Which isn't quite right. It's more about competing theories of what the Democratic coalition needs to become.

    [emphasis added]

    [Feb 08, 2016] George W. Bush Has Had Enough Of Ted Cruz

    It's interesting that Cruz used to work for Bush II as a domestic policy advisor. And now Bush Ii decided to put him down. He said "I don't like the guy"
    YouTube
    Published on Oct 20, 2015

    George W. Bush is against one of his brother's opponents: Ted Cruz. This is a little unexpected as donor fundraisers are usually not for attacking fellow republicans. "I just don't like the guy," Bush said. Cenk Uygur, host of the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

    "Former President George W. Bush surprised supporters of his brother Jeb on Sunday when he ripped Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) during a fundraising event in Denver, Politico reported.

    Bush's dismissive tone toward the Tea Party lawmaker - who worked on his campaign as a domestic policy advisor in 1999 - came as a surprise for many of the 100 donors at the event. At one point, Bush reportedly said of Cruz, "I just don't like the guy."

    He said he found it 'opportunistic' that Cruz was sucking up to [Donald] Trump and just expecting all of his support to come to him in the end," one attendee said, an allusion to Cruz's somewhat warmer relationship with the current Republican front-runner."*

    Read more here: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/georg...

    Ian Giddens 4 days ago

    Anyone who finds Cruz "awesome" must have an extraordinarily inept judge of character. Cruz is the quintessential douche bag.

    duhsmersh 2 weeks ago

    Every bush and EVERY clinton should be jailed for treason against the American people.

    joebonsaipoland 2 weeks ago

    Seem like everyone HATES Cruz. You saw what happen after the 6th GOP debate when Cruz attacked trump on "NY values"! Cruz got slammed - he will not win, Cruz was born in Canada and is disqualified. LOL

    Jean Falco 3 weeks ago

    Ted Cruz is better than the sleazy, piece of SHIT, Sociopath, professional liar, lazy, and sorry excuse for a man BUSH! The whole family is a pack of wolves!

    Alan Sun 3 weeks ago

    Is Cruz even eligible as a candidate? Isn't it required for you to be born in the United States to become president? I don't like Cruz anyways.

    Michael Parker 1 month ago

    I thought George W Bush had to be the bottom of the Republican barrel and that he was so bad that they must have began to learn their lesson and vote for a proper president.
    But here we are with Trump, Carson & Cruz and amazingly I'd rather have Bush back as president than any of them 3.

    Michael Parker 1 month ago

    +Brain Outy I'm not a fan of Republican policy in any way, shape or form, but if there had to be a Republican president I agree I'd prefer Jeb Bush mainly because he's an establishment politician and would work with the rest of the Republican establishment so while things wouldn't get better they're unlikely to get much worse than if any of them 3 got into power.

    Adino Janda 1 month ago

    Former President Bush is hiding because most of the United States by now knows he is nothing but a liar, and murdering individual. Only those who have benefitted from his crimes think anything positive about him. Jeb is cut from the same cloth. If Jeb gets in the citizens can only expect more of the same lies and murdering ways that all of that bloodline has been displaying through out history and their connections with this country and its affairs.

    Jayson Cooke 1 month ago

    The reason they don't like him is he is smarter than them. He knows that in Politics you will NEVER win unless you play the game. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Go ahead Ted, you are right (politically) to DRAFT OFF TRUMP. How is it going for those that have attacked Trump? Looking at you, Jeb. Yep, Cruz is just too smart and people hate him for it. Cry me a river.... BTW check out Ted's CHRISTMAS commercial. He stomps on Republican Senate Majority leader, calling him a Melting Snowman (Rino) before the Omnibus vote. No wonder Republican ESTABLISHMENT hate TED...hilarious!

    [Feb 08, 2016] Ron Paul Slams Cruz And Hillary They Are Both Owned By Goldman

    See also Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi We came, we saw, he died and Hillary Clinton A Career Criminal
    Notable quotes:
    "... "You take a guy like Cruz, people are liking the Cruz - they think he's for the free market, and [in reality] he's owned by Goldman Sachs. I mean, he and Hillary have more in common than we would have with either Cruz or Trump or any of them so I just don't think there is much picking," Paul said of the Texas senator on Fox Business' "Varney Company on Friday. ..."
    "... "On occasion, Bernie comes up with libertarian views when he talks about taking away the cronyism on Wall Street, so in essence he's right, and occasionally he voted against war," the former Texas congressman said when asked if there was a candidate who was truly for the free market. ..."
    "... Goldman makes loans for specific reasons. They do not act like a commercial bank, take deposits for the public, etc., by any stretch of the imagination. For you to get a loan form Goldilocks, you either got to cure Lloyd's cancer or have something they want. And if it's a personal loan like to Teddie, it's his soul pledged as collateral. ..."
    "... Plus, Mrs Evil is a Goldman employee.... circles within circles. He's lock stock and barrel, Goldman interests. ..."
    "... I don't really think it matters who is captain of the titanic at this point, but this shit sure is entertaining. If Trump or Bernie pop up on the ballot I think I'll head to the polls. ..."
    "... Paul is right on the other D-bags, they might as well be the same candidate. ..."
    "... ..."
    Zero Hedge

    Now that Rand Paul is out of the race for the White House, Politico's Eliza Collins reports that his father Ron Paul, who ran in 2008 and 2012, isn't impressed by Ted Cruz's attempts to pick up the "free market" libertarian banner.

    "You take a guy like Cruz, people are liking the Cruz - they think he's for the free market, and [in reality] he's owned by Goldman Sachs. I mean, he and Hillary have more in common than we would have with either Cruz or Trump or any of them so I just don't think there is much picking," Paul said of the Texas senator on Fox Business' "Varney & Company" on Friday.

    Surprisingly, the elder Paul seemed more attracted to the views of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is giving Hillary Clinton a run for her money in the Democratic primary.

    "On occasion, Bernie comes up with libertarian views when he talks about taking away the cronyism on Wall Street, so in essence he's right, and occasionally he voted against war," the former Texas congressman said when asked if there was a candidate who was truly for the free market.

    "It's hard to find anybody -- since Rand is out of it -- anybody that would take a libertarian position, hardcore libertarian position on privacy, on the war issue and on economic policy," Paul added.

    "So I always say: You can search for a long time, but you're not gonna find anybody in the Republican or Democratic primary that even comes slightly close to ever being able to claim themselves a libertarian," he concluded.

    JustObserving

    That's worse than being owned by Satan. America is a fascist police state run by a Deep State composed of a triad of the MIC, Wall Street (led by Goldman) and Spooks who spy on everyone.

    Enejoy your entertainment called elections

    Scooby Dooby Doo

    Goldman needs some dancing girls and boys. Some type of entertainment. Anything. This is America god damn it. Bread and circus. Without it I feel like I'm getting robbed.

    (make it diverse)

    Dollarmedes

    Ted Cruz took out a $1 million loan from GS, an amount he could easily repay. Somehow, this means that GS "owns" him. That would be like saying that the banks own everyone who ever took out a mortgage. Somehow, I doubt consumers see it that way.

    knukles -> Dollarmedes

    Goldman makes "loans" for specific reasons. They do not act like a commercial bank, take deposits for the public, etc., by any stretch of the imagination.
    For you to get a loan form Goldilocks, you either got to cure Lloyd's cancer or have something they want. And if it's a personal loan like to Teddie, it's his soul pledged as collateral.

    Plus, Mrs Evil is a Goldman employee.... circles within circles. He's lock stock and barrel, Goldman interests.

    hobopants

    I don't really think it matters who is captain of the titanic at this point, but this shit sure is entertaining. If Trump or Bernie pop up on the ballot I think I'll head to the polls.

    I'll cast a vote for either one, not because I think they are "messiah" material, but they seem to be the ones most likely to full throttle this bitch into the ice berg.

    Paul is right on the other D-bags, they might as well be the same candidate.

    Far more productive to focus on doing what you can on an individual level instead of worrying about this pointless shit.

    Freddie

    Fox is shit but so is ALL Tv and ALL Zollywood. I really like Ron Paul and out of all the idiots on TV, and I have not watched for a decade, Stuart Varney is a pretty straight shooter.

    steveo77

    Clintons Emails Released Clearly Show She Knew the Dangers to USA from Fukushima and Covered It Up I reviewed several thousand Hillary Clinton emails that were released after court order, with an emphasis on Fukushima:

    1) She was immediately informed of the dangers of Fukushima, and the actions that people should take to mitigate radiation damage, Mar 12th USA time.

    2) She was participating daily in the discussion of Fukushima, until.....

    See more at: http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/02/clintons-emails-released-cl...



    [Feb 08, 2016] Donald Trump Hillary Clinton has a lot to hide (CNN interview with Anderson Cooper)

    YouTube

    Published on Jul 8, 2015

    Anderson Cooper speaks with Trump about the 2016 race and his own political donations.

    MobTheGamer 4 months ago

    Fuckin CNN. You're just a bunch of biased shits!

    fgill76 3 months ago

    I like Mr. Trump because he is NOT a politician (sociopath), he is a successful businessman. I hope that after Mr. Trump is elected he fixes congress by installing "term-limits", 12 years max.

    Anon Mous 2 weeks ago

    Bernie Sanders for President!
    Donald Trump for vice president!
    Hillary for Prison!

    MISTERPRESIDENTELECT 1 month ago

    This Anderson is a very stupid guy who doesn't understand anything about the building industry, he's only goal is to be a dumbass troll

    joe 1 month ago

    Anderson ... honestly expects trump to do backgrounds on every contractor that he employs? pathetic! build that wall!

    Ronnie Bishop 1 month ago

    I just hope the stupid news media, like Wolf wolf Blitzer asks Hillary the same dumb questions he ask Sarah Palin. Hillary is almost in tears now. And I hope all the late night shows cut her daughter down like a whore on national TV. Like does that Chealsy know who the real father is?

    Bryan Barrera 1 month ago

    The reason why Cnn wants to make trump look bad it's because Time warner( owner of Cnn) is supporting Hilary's Clinton campaign and they want trump to fail or look bad . If Cnn manages to help Hillary win , Hillary will return the favor of course . Nothing is free.

    Shalom Zhong 1 month ago

    Anderson has no better question to interview Trump. It is more important for people to know what Trump can do for the Nation in the future if elected as next President. Who in this world can have a perfect past record in a imperfect society amongst imperfect people, especially in the business and political circles?

    ShadowPBPBC 1 month ago (edited)

    lol anderson cooper threw alot of money to Shrillary and cooper's trying to nail down trump and cooper is shot down so hard so fast the flames aren't just from his flaming homosexuality. looking back on this even 5 months later coopers bought into Shrillary's lies that are now plain as daylight with out dispute, and trump shot straight and honest and his words still hold more truth and honesty than the entire history of the democrat party combined.

    Annette Rizo 2 months ago

    Donald Trump, who gives you the right to build a "wall" to remove the Mexican immigrants from this nation. While you are in business meetings these immigrant workers are doing the jobs that many U.S citizens would never do. Also recall that this country , the one that you're trying to run for presidency, was and IS STILL being built up by immigrant workers. You also may want to look back on your American history because the only real Americans are the Native Americans. Remember that the next you think about citizenship and deportation. Remember where your ancestors came from.


    [Feb 08, 2016] Bill Clinton, After Months of Restraint, Unleashes Stinging Attack on Bernie Sanders - The New York Times

    From old neoliberal crook Bill who abolished Glass Steagall and sold democratic party to Wall Street, enriching himself and his wife in the process to the tune of 210 million . Which, along with other factors, caused the financial crisis later on. "Speech business" proved to be quite lucrative for Clinton family if you first sold your country. But the fact that defenders of Killary now need pseudonyms to avoid attach is really interesting.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "She and other people who have gone online to defend Hillary, to explain why they supported her, have been subject to vicious trolling and attacks that are literally too profane often, not to mention sexist, to repeat." ..."
    "... the liberal journalist Joan Walsh had faced what he called "unbelievable personal attacks" for writing positively about Mrs. Clinton. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    Mr. Clinton's most pointed remarks may have been when he took aim at Sanders supporters who, he said, use misogynistic language in attacking Mrs. Clinton. He told the story of a female "progressive" blogger who defended Mrs. Clinton online through a pseudonym because, he said, the vitriol from Mr. Sanders's backers was so unrelenting.

    The days between the nation's first and second presidential nominating contest are intense – and often emotional, for voters and candidates alike.

    "She and other people who have gone online to defend Hillary, to explain why they supported her, have been subject to vicious trolling and attacks that are literally too profane often, not to mention sexist, to repeat." Mr. Clinton, growing more demonstrative, added that the liberal journalist Joan Walsh had faced what he called "unbelievable personal attacks" for writing positively about Mrs. Clinton.

    In a demonstration of how engrossed he is in this campaign, Mr. Clinton recited the names of the regional newspapers that are backing his wife's campaign and, in a rarity, mentioned Mr. Sanders by name.

    "Bernie took what they said was good about him and put it in his own endorsements," said Mr. Clinton, fuming that Mr. Sanders used complimentary language from a Nashua Telegraph endorsement of Mrs. Clinton in his own campaign appeals.

    Then, reflecting the fury among Clinton campaign advisers over what they see as the kinds of behavior Mr. Sanders gets away with, Mr. Clinton noted that the senator's campaign had used the image of an American Legion officer in New Hampshire without his permission.

    "If you point it out, it just shows how tied you are to the establishment," he said.

    In a response, Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders, called it "disappointing that President Clinton has decided to launch these attacks" and said Mr. Sanders would continue to focus on his message against the rigged economy, campaign finance corruption and income inequality. "Obviously the race has changed in New Hampshire and elsewhere in recent days," Mr. Devine said.

    [Feb 08, 2016] Albright, Steinem slammed for 'shaming' women who don't back Clinton

    RT USA

    Dirk Ramsey> Roman Soiko 58 minutes ago

    Roman Soiko

    I would like to see a woman as President, but just not Hillary. She voted for the war in Iraq more...

    She is also the face of the U$A's bombing of Libya. Remember "WEу came. We saw. He died" I too a would like to see a woman pres. To bad Jill Stein has been so marginalized by the "two party" system.

    [email protected] Moore1 hour ago

    Just a bunch of old gay rags that are clinically insane, Albright a killer of millions, Hillary a killer of millions and Gloria a killer of millions babies...The are hideous and all three belong behind bars.

    Roman Soiko 1 hour ago
    I would like to see a woman as President, but just not Hillary. She voted for the war in Iraq and she is to expand American military industrilal complex even further than Obama. Hillary is not the woman I would like to see as President.

    [Feb 07, 2016] My First Take On The Presidential Election

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think Sanders would struggle in the general election and the repugs would have a propaganda field day with things he said and did in the past. As a Brooklyn Jew, hes already got that against him. ..."
    "... Trump is a Trojan Horse in the Repug party. A social liberal, notwithstanding all his nativist demagoguery. And probably averse to foreign policy interventionism, as its bad for business (in the sense that it ultimately fails to promote the long term national interest). I think if he gain the White House he will be a bitter pill to most establishment repugs who will see him as a betrayer. ..."
    "... On the Republican side, when Trump launched everyone thought he was a buffoon. Jeb Bush had amassed $100 million and had all the support of the elites. Ted Cruz was aiming to consolidate the evangelical Tea Party supporters. As it has so far turned out Trump and his amazing media skills and his excellent reading of the current psyche of working class middle America has overturned the apple cart. ..."
    "... Now, by picking a fight with Fox, the big dog, the sole source of mainstream TV information for Republicans, he is showing his supporters that he is dominant and that he will fight for them and America as he is fighting Fox. ..."
    "... Using his incredible media skills he has eviscerated the Bush dynasty by labeling Jeb as low energy and ridiculing him in his tweets and in the debates. His take down of Cruz at the last debate by pulling the 9/11 card and standing up for NY was something to behold. ..."
    "... On the Democratic side, while Sanders has a great message and personal integrity, he does not have the charisma of a great retail politician to overcome Hillarys support by the Democratic party establishment, unions, blacks, latinos, seniors and Wall St. ..."
    "... the primary calendar after New Hampshire does not favor Sanders - with South Carolina, Nevada and many southern states in Super Tuesday. ..."
    "... Sanders support is primarily among the millennial generation and white liberals on the coasts. ..."
    "... His only choice is to take down Hillary hard on her ethics, judgment and most importantly the potential to be indicted on felony charges. But, Sanders does not have the personality to engage in hard scrabble politics like Hillary does. IMO consequently, Hillary wins the Democratic party nomination. ..."
    "... Most americans want a tough and successful businessman to care about the weak economy. They dont trust the cheated wife of a ex-president and a failed secretary of state as a president. ..."
    "... which is really an acceleration of what Sanders portends the split of the Dem a Rep parties into a rump extreme right wing, a majority Center right (Clintonesque) and a more lefty party representing the `Sanderistas` and fellow travelers - democratic socialitic redistributionists ..."
    "... Hillary is neocon agent and greedy, Trump is egomaniac but shrewd, Sanders dont know foreign policy, Cruz is good for Vatican, Rubio bashes Obama very well, Bush has no chance and none of them are worthy of my vote. ..."
    "... Whoever wins, neocons have everything lined up for Iran invasion. ..."
    "... Sanders campaign slogan is: A Future to Believe In (emphasis is the campaigns), eerily reminiscent of Change You Can Believe In . ..."
    "... The oligarchy/deep state will not give up power willingly. If Trump and Sanders present a genuine threat, theyll be neutralized in one way or another, even if one makes it into office. But its telling that the two main deep state candidates, Clinton and Bush, are failing. The deep states control is slipping, not least because theyve gotten lazy and arrogant. Why are they relying on candidates with so much baggage? ..."
    "... I wonder if Sanders refusal to present a serious foreign policy is an acknowledgment that the president no longer has real control over foreign policy. Certainly Obama doesnt seem to. ..."
    "... Trump, being apolitical, and not exactly a dark horse, could ignite and inflame the disappointments of all that is corrupt and forsaken in America. He is a shoo-in to win ..."
    "... Trump attacks the establishment. Even people in his own Party. Its a big part of his appeal - saying things that others wouldnt dare to. And unlike Sanders, he has reserved the right to run as an independent ..."
    "... A two-Party system is inherently flawed as described here: Truth-Out: How Two-Party Political Systems Bolster Capitalism . ..."
    "... Sanders had a meeting yesterday with Obama....wonder what veiled threats were discussed then. What dark suits were in there to explain to Sanders the reality behind the curtain? How will the Bern come out in the coming weeks? Will he play the part or be a sacrificial lamb? ..."
    "... Billmon pointed out a lot of similarities between Trump and Berlusconi ..."
    "... I love that we keep hearing Sanders cannot win the general because he hasnt faced the right-wing attack machine. Its hilarious. The voices that keep saying that, of course, are a part of the truly massive attack machine -- the mainstream (the NYT, the WaPo; what the right would call liberal media ) attack machine, one much bigger and louder than anything the right has, and which is already going full-throttle against Sanders. ..."
    "... Hes feared because even though hed ultimately be forced to govern as a moderate pragmatic liberal, he would nevertheless drag the national conversation leftward. There is no outcome more unacceptable to our liberal ruling class. ..."
    "... Sanders as president would be able to throw sand in the eyes again of the world populace just like Obama did and might be able to keep the vassals at bay while destroying one nation after the other, just like Obama. ..."
    "... Mostly agree with your analysis, but why would Sanders need big money if people are ignoring the places where such money is spent and instead helping out in kind? The anti-Establishmentarianism is fairly thick over here, at least on the interwebs ..."
    "... if I hear one more word from him about Assads CW -- he could have known and should have known thats bunk -- its time to get a boat. ..."
    "... What difference? Not much. Military power, including (or especially?) nukes, is not something politicians have much influence over. The power of folks like Lockheeds Bruce Jackson and Norm Anderson have power that dwarfs that of elected folk. see eg, Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex. ..."
    "... Ive been seeing Internet news that the FBI is ready to hit Hillary Rodham Clinton with criminal charges over her use of a private email server during the time she served as US Secretary of State (2009 - 2013) and over the use of financial donations received by the Clinton Foundation while she was State Secretary and whether the monies were deployed into Department of State contracts. She surely cannot continue campaigning for the Presidency if she is facing criminal charges, can she? ..."
    "... I put money on Trump many months ago at 25-1. Trump will trounce either Hillary or Sanders. ..."
    "... I think youre right. If tonight Foxs ratings tank, Trump will be perceived as strong by middle America. ..."
    "... His takin the fight to Roger Ailes is brilliant. ..."
    "... His interview with Bill OReilly was amazing with blowhard Bill pleading with Trump to attend the debate. ..."
    "... I think that most commentators are missing the bigger picture here. The success of Sanders nor Trump has nothing to do with their respective qualities , and everything to do with the simple fact that both are standing against the anointed candidates of their respective parties. ..."
    "... The American voting public understands that US politics is now a battle between the neocons and the neoliberals, and that as far as those two groups are concerned the wellbeing of Mr and Mrs Joe Average counts for less than nothing. ..."
    "... It sure looks like the Donald has gone and chosen George W. Bushs warmongering United States Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton as one of his top three foreign policy advisers. Damn. ..."
    "... Donald Trumps Curious Relationship With an Iraq War Hawk http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/donald-trump-john-bolton-iraq-war ..."
    "... Looks like Trump on the Repub side. Clinton certainly has the Dem establishment lined up, but that may not be enough. The chances are better than even that the FBI will find her in violation of the law for putting classified stuff in her unclassified email, and possibly corrupt confluence of Sec State, her foundation and Bill. Sanders is who he is while shes got no beliefs beyond whats best for her. ..."
    "... Sanders is strong in Iowa, 50% +/-3%. Delegates are proportional there so they split no matter who wins . He will win New Hampshire. Between them that will be enough to spook the party big time and open up the rest of the primaries. Everywhere he has to turn enthusiasm into turnout, and after the first two primaries convince minority voters to trust him. ..."
    "... Sanders and Trump are plowing a lot of the same fields. They are asking the country Are you better off than you were 8, 16, 24, or 36 years ago? For 90% or more the answer is no. People are angry as hell and tired of real wages stagnant since 1978. Bloomberg cant touch that, but if he draws enough centrist weenies to win a couple of states he could throw the election into the House. That could give us president Ryan. ..."
    "... There are three active players possibly our next warmonger-in-chief - Hillary, Trump and Bernie. Who gonna be? They are the same not a dime different. Regardless who, endless wars more or less the same continue. ..."
    "... I think your comment that the three candidates foreign policy is largely identical misses the critical point. Its true that all three want to maintain and expand the American Empire. But its also true that Gorbachev never intended to destroy the Soviet Union. In some ways the current situation in America reminds me of the Soviet Union in its last decades. The whole system seems corrupt and hypocritical to millions of people. But the power system seems so entrenched and resistant to change that its hard for many people to see any way that things can change. Most of the potential leaders are really old. The economy is terrible for structural reasons. ..."
    "... Clinton is a tool of the oligarchy to the bone. If shes elected, nothing will change, and things will keep getting worse and worse. But both Trump and Sanders do seem to want to change some things. (Different things) Neither is completely controlled or trusted by the deep state because they are both just a little out of the mainstream. Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac. Sanders may think he could be the next FDR. Both would, if elected, find it hard to do the things they would like to do. But either one might unintentionally disrupt the existing power structure enough to unleash much greater changes then they originally intended. ..."
    "... Sanders will be 75 on election day. Ronald Reagan was nearly 74 when began his first term and his age was an issue in his re-election - but everyone knew by then who his advisors and appointees were Ronald Reagan was 69 years, 349 days at the time of his first inauguration. ..."
    "... The people of America are pissed, but havent figured out who is behind our demise ..."
    "... If Trump actually listens to Bolton we are in for big trouble indeed, and so is his campaign. Bolton is emblematic of a true wacko. It might be just a slur to weaken him, that report. Trump had better jettison all the warmongering ziowhore idiots or he wont be elected, its that simple. ..."
    "... I cant see bernie going anywhere. He might win Iowa, but his brand will not carry over, no matter what the polls currently say. It will be Howard Dean all over again, with all the older voters flooding in to vote for safety. ..."
    "... Trump toes the Establishment line in the White House. He is an ego-driven candidate who has made his mountain of gold selling high-end real estate to other rich people. He has no ideological principles. But he has shrewdly diagnosed the citizenrys appetite for destruction of the D.C. status quo. ..."
    "... One thing I think a Bloomberg third-party run would do -- and hallelujah! -- it would shatter the Democratic Party because it would out the party leaders, people like Ed Rendell and Rahm Emanuel, as being more loyal to class, the 1%, than the organization. ..."
    "... Sanders needs to make the e-mails an issue (and, by extension, Hillarys character) or lose the race. But Sanders doesnt seem interested in doing so - he seems to value Party and personal relationships over winning. ..."
    "... But even if Sanders wont attack Hillary, he would benefit if the FBI makes a recommendation of legal action against Hillary. Its unclear when or if that might happen, but it would cause voters to see Hillary as non-viable, and result in a switch to Sanders or OMalley. In the end, its possible ( though unlikely at this point) that no candidate would have a majority of delegates. ..."
    "... Status quo is the order of the day, nothing will change, it is foreordained, baked into the cake, doG itself couldnt change the outcome even if it wanted, this is the design of the existing political process put in place by those who own the country, and there isnt a blessed thing you can do about it. ..."
    "... You are completely correct about Trump. He is not as monochromatic on issues as some might think. But neither does he impart a sense of confidence in his ability to govern or clarity of direction. Insofar as that goes, the same is true of the rest. ..."
    "... Trump is not constructed of the same poseur fabric of Hillary or Obama. Some of what he echoes, such as a desire to develop better relations with Russia contradict the Republican playbook for deprecating anything which challenges US world domination. ..."
    "... It is a pity Putin must play by the International Banking Cartels handbook. Or must he...? Is he choosing to save the world at the edge of collapse...? He can see it. Nevertheless, Iran was not broken. Still in control. Still issuing its own decree. Law from another great age. Law forbidding usury for the ages. Vote chaos. Vote Trump. ..."
    "... Hillary mused that her read on Bloombergs announcement was that he would enter the race if she were not the nominee - an unusual remark for someone that has worked hard to portray herself as inevitable and Sanders as unelectable. ..."
    "... If Hillary chose to fight the charges, she would probably have to pin the blame on one of her aids. But doing so would open a can of worms as it could shatter the trust of many Clintonites (a powerful network that the Clintons have built over many many years). ..."
    Jan 28, 2016 | M of A

    Say what you will about Donald Trump but he knows how to market himself. Staging a feud with Fox News and abstaining from tonight's Republican candidate debate gives him more media coverage than taking part. He is already the front runner of the Republican candidates. More debating could only endanger that position. Staying away and making a fuzz about it gives him a bigger lead.

    That Trump knows marketing well gives me some doubt about his real positions. Who owns him? Who pays his campaign? Answers to these questions are likely more revealing than the fascist dog-whistle politics he publicly emphasizes. He seems to favor neither neoconservative nor liberal interventionist foreign policy. That would be welcome change.

    On the democratic side I do not see a chance for Clinton to win. I believe that the American people have had enough of the Clintons. If she would win the nomination she would lose in the presidential election as many voters would abstain. Her policy record is abysmal. Yes she has experience - of misjudgement and not learning from it. In interior policies she is clearly in the hands of Wall Street and the big banks. Her "liberal" image is all fake. In foreign policy she is "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes":

    "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," [top neocon Robert Kagan] added, "it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else."

    Sanders is hard to see as president. His domestic policies are somewhat comparable to middle-of-the-road European social-democrats. His foreign policy stand isn't clear. While not an interventionist he supports the colonists in Palestine. The people obviously favor him over Clinton but he will need big money for the big campaign should he get the nomination. To whom would he sell out?

    The Republican party is coming around in favor of Trump. The party big-wigs believe he has no real positions, that they can manipulate him. That is probably wrong. The Democratic party machine is clearly in favor of Clinton. Would it try to sabotage Sanders if he wins primary after primary? Could they throw in another plausible candidate?

    My gut instinct say it will be Sanders against Trump with a voter turnout advantage for Sanders. What is your take? I agree that it might be Sanders against Trump and agree that Sanders may have a turnout advantage. What Trump will have as an advantage, if the global plutocrats deem it so, is a recession and domestic/international violence that will call into question ongoing Dem reign in the White house.

    And none see or question control of the situation by the global plutocrats and private finance so their hegemony continues. If they let Sanders win, there will be method to their madness which will show in time. All this said, I still think that an outside wild card winner could be injected into the race in the next couple of months before that window of opportunity closes.

    Go long popcorn.

    psychohistorian | Jan 28, 2016 1:32:55 PM | 4
    I think Sanders would struggle in the general election and the repugs would have a propaganda field day with things he said and did in the past. As a Brooklyn Jew, he's already got that against him. How would he govern? largely at loggerheads with Congress. Foreign policy? An R2P interventionist and Netanyahoo would have (as LBJ liked to say) his pecker in his pocket.

    Trump is a Trojan Horse in the Repug party. A social liberal, notwithstanding all his nativist demagoguery. And probably averse to foreign policy interventionism, as it's bad for business (in the sense that it ultimately fails to promote the long term national interest). I think if he gain the White House he will be a bitter pill to most establishment repugs who will see him as a betrayer.

    adrian | Jan 28, 2016 1:40:39 PM | 6
    As a registered independent I don't get to participate in the primaries of the duopoly. I also haven't voted for the duopoly in decades. And in any case my state's primary is only late in the season so we don't count. My observations on the campaign so far and how I see the primary unfolding to Super Tuesday.

    On the Republican side, when Trump launched everyone thought he was a buffoon. Jeb Bush had amassed $100 million and had all the support of the elites. Ted Cruz was aiming to consolidate the evangelical & Tea Party supporters. As it has so far turned out Trump and his amazing media skills and his excellent reading of the current psyche of working class middle America has overturned the apple cart.

    When he launched he did the unPC thing by calling the illegal immigrants "rapists" and claiming he would build a wall to staunch the inflow of illegal, mostly unskilled economic immigrants. This resonated strongly with the working class, white, non-coastal Republican (and also as you will see later many Democrat of that ilk). His campaign has continued on that vein taking advantage of the terrorist attack in California by being extremely provocative and capturing all the media cycles. Now, by picking a fight with Fox, the big dog, the sole source of mainstream TV information for Republicans, he is showing his supporters that he is dominant and that he will fight for them and America as he is fighting Fox. This all appeals to the working class segment of the Republicans at an emotional and visceral level.

    Using his incredible media skills he has eviscerated the Bush dynasty by labeling Jeb as "low energy" and ridiculing him in his tweets and in the debates. His take down of Cruz at the last debate by pulling the 9/11 card and standing up for NY was something to behold. IMO, he is going to run away with the Republican nomination by Super Tuesday.

    On the Democratic side, while Sanders has a great message and personal integrity, he does not have the charisma of a great retail politician to overcome Hillary's support by the Democratic party establishment, unions, blacks, latinos, seniors and Wall St. This is best exemplified by the demographic distribution of support for each candidate. Sanders wins with 70% support of those under 45. Hillary wins with 70% support of those over 65 and she also has majority support of those between 45-65. Unfortunately for Sanders, the under 45 are the least likely to vote and over 65 most likely. Hillary also has majority support of blacks and latinos. Second, the primary calendar after New Hampshire does not favor Sanders - with South Carolina, Nevada and many southern states in Super Tuesday. So, Sanders has to win both Iowa and New Hampshire to be even in the race and then he gets into states where unions, seniors, blacks make a huge difference and they support Hillary overwhelmingly. Sanders support is primarily among the millennial generation and white liberals on the coasts.

    His only choice is to take down Hillary hard on her ethics, judgment and most importantly the potential to be indicted on felony charges. But, Sanders does not have the personality to engage in hard scrabble politics like Hillary does. IMO consequently, Hillary wins the Democratic party nomination.

    The presidential contest will then contrast an uninspired Hillary campaign using the same old political triangulation and a maverick, unPC, media savvy Trump campaign. At the end it will come to the same swing states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina to decide the outcome. Although, I would not be surprised at all if Trump thumps Hillary!

    ab initio | Jan 28, 2016 1:49:35 PM | 7

    Most americans want a tough and successful businessman to care about the weak economy. They don't trust the cheated wife of a ex-president and a failed secretary of state as a president.

    If he plays like he did until now, Trump is very probably the next president

    virgile | Jan 28, 2016 1:54:28 PM | 8
    Plan B: The establishment will attempt to "occupy" Bernie
    nmb | Jan 28, 2016 1:59:25 PM | 9
    it is starting to look as though it might well be Sanders v Trump and polls show that Sanders will wipe the floor with Trump if it were a one on one race
    BUT
    for that reason, a third candidate typified by Bloomberg will jump in and split the non-Trump vote to guarantee Trump wins

    which is really an acceleration of what Sanders portends the split of the Dem & a Rep parties into a rump extreme right wing, a majority Center right (Clintonesque) and a more lefty party representing the `Sanderistas` and fellow travelers - democratic socialitic redistributionists

    David C Mace | Jan 28, 2016 2:14:32 PM | 11
    Hillary is neocon agent and greedy, Trump is egomaniac but shrewd, Sanders don't know foreign policy, Cruz is good for Vatican, Rubio bashes Obama very well, Bush has no chance and none of them are worthy of my vote. Staying home is the only choice.

    Whoever wins, neocons have everything lined up for Iran invasion. We will go back to Afghan, Libya and Iraq to make more money and plunder the remaining living beings. PNAC is in full action, where is Wolfowitz, Rumsefeld and Cheney?

    Santa | Jan 28, 2016 2:15:24 PM | 12
    The big questions now:
    1. Is Bloomberg serious about entering the race? I think he is. And I think his participation would be more to counter/weaken Trump than Sanders.
    2. Who will be Sanders running mate? Sanders will be 75 on election day. Ronald Reagan was nearly 74 when began his first term and his age was an issue in his re-election - but everyone knew by then who his advisors and appointees were. It would be very good if all 'outsider' candidates provided more info on who they would consider as VP and appointees.

    Sanders campaign slogan is: "A Future to Believe In " (emphasis is the campaign's), eerily reminiscent of "Change You Can Believe In".

    Jackrabbit | Jan 28, 2016 2:19:56 PM | 13
    The oligarchy/deep state will not give up power willingly. If Trump and Sanders present a genuine threat, they'll be neutralized in one way or another, even if one makes it into office. But it's telling that the two main deep state candidates, Clinton and Bush, are failing. The deep state's control is slipping, not least because they've gotten lazy and arrogant. Why are they relying on candidates with so much baggage?

    I wonder if Sanders' refusal to present a serious foreign policy is an acknowledgment that the president no longer has real control over foreign policy. Certainly Obama doesn't seem to.

    As for Trump, he may have started out as a cat's paw, but don't underestimate the need of the narcissist for attention and power. Frankenstein's monster may have escaped.

    NoOneYouKnow | Jan 28, 2016 2:21:09 PM | 14
    Trump doesn't favour a different dominationist policy at all, he simply use that as a criticism of his opponents. He said he will create biggest military ever seen. And if shithead Trump gets to be president, when confronted by the CIA, the Pentagon, NSA etc, will fold like the spineless coward he always has been. Trump is just a rich, big mouth, self-aggredizing, spineless, cowardly tv personality, who has next to zero leadership qualities. There are far worse convincing and competent fascist leaders yet to come in the US. Trump will be looked back in 5,10 years from now, as a astounding joke. Setting up far worse to come.

    This election shows how closer to fascism the US has been in a long time, as well as how sick of the federal establishment the US people are.

    And Sanders is not a socialist in the slightest. He would willingly sacrifice the rest of the world to US domination just so in the US there can be some more social focused programs in the US. Despicable.

    Sanders came out to announce no change to US foreign domination policy, exactly at the time when he was popular enough to make a serious challenge to Hillary Clinton. Go back and check for yourself, the timing is obvious and his decision atrocious.

    Sanders would fold just like Trump would in front of the Pentagon in the CIA

    Anyone who would sacrifice the rest of the world so they can have better social policies in their own country can eat shit, because that is exactly what these a lot of foreign people will be doing.

    tom | Jan 28, 2016 2:27:42 PM | 15
    The last election that offered any non-machine hope was jimmy carter. As an outsider, every one that was anyone cratered his chances of an agenda, leading to our only ex-president becoming a success, after leaving office.

    Trump, being apolitical, and not exactly a dark horse, could ignite and inflame the disappointments of all that is corrupt and forsaken in America. He is a shoo-in to win ..... but if he is either bumped off, or sells out, U.S. will continue toward implosion.

    sevenleagueboots | Jan 28, 2016 2:50:50 PM | 16
    @tom

    Trump attacks the establishment. Even people in his own Party. It's a big part of his appeal - saying things that others wouldn't dare to. And unlike Sanders, he has reserved the right to run as an independent (even if I question whether he would actually do so - most of the wealth he claims to have is apparently estimates of the value of the 'Trump' brand - his true net worth may be only hundreds of millions, not billions, of dollars) .

    Sanders seems more about divvying-up the spoils, not making a more just world. And he doesn't talk truth about the establishment, like Trump.

    I'm not a fan of either. We need a third party. We need a movement. A two-Party system is inherently flawed as described here: Truth-Out: How Two-Party Political Systems Bolster Capitalism .

    Jackrabbit | Jan 28, 2016 3:03:14 PM | 21
    There are many GOPs who would vote for Trump over Sanders, but they would vote for Bloomberg over Trump. Trump polls higher than anyone else in GOP, but his support is only perhaps 40% of GOP, leaving a majority of GOPs to decide between Trump and Bloomberg. On the other hand, if Sanders wins nomination, most Dems would probably choose Sanders over Bloomberg. So I suspect that Bloomberg entry would hurt Trump more than hurt Sanders.
    mauisurfer | Jan 28, 2016 3:06:05 PM | 23
    Clinton for the win...S s paid back to her from the tribe/cartel. She wants to be the first woman president of the U.S. for historical purposes as well as to quench the bottomless pit of her ego. She will also symbolize Mystery Babylon, the great whore and abomination of the earth from biblical literature. Perfect for the end-timers. Another four years of a "democrat", and the right and many others will welcome with open arms their much desired authoritarian figure in 2020 to bury the rotting corpse of The New Deal in order give us the birth of The Raw Deal to make America great again.

    Sanders had a meeting yesterday with Obama....wonder what veiled threats were discussed then. What dark suits were in there to "explain" to Sanders the reality behind the curtain? How will the Bern come out in the coming weeks? Will he play the part or be a sacrificial lamb?

    Trump is playing with the angry white folks. Bloomberg will probably bow out if another Republican candidate climbs in the polling or not, but Bloomberg seems like his role will be that of a Perot in order to spread the R/I vote on (s)election day to throw it to Clinton.

    Ray Sunshine | Jan 28, 2016 4:04:18 PM | 35
    Billmon pointed out a lot of similarities between Trump and Berlusconi. For that reason I hope that Sanders will beat him. Although I would take Berlusconi over Clinton.
    Cresty | Jan 28, 2016 4:15:00 PM | 36
    I love that we keep hearing Sanders cannot win the general because he hasn't faced the right-wing attack machine. It's hilarious. The voices that keep saying that, of course, are a part of the truly massive attack machine -- the mainstream (the NYT, the WaPo; what the right would call "liberal media") attack machine, one much bigger and louder than anything the right has, and which is already going full-throttle against Sanders.

    A key, spectacularly disingenuous, point of this attack is that Sander's stated policy wishes could never be enacted, it's all dream stuff. The mainstream attack machine readily concedes that the positions are popular -- one must still oppose Sanders they say however, because one must live in the world of reality where those policies would founder on GOP (& Dem!) opposition. Clinton is the realist you must choose, they say.

    Sanders' policies couldn't be enacted? Well, duh! He knows that too. He's got a long track record of pragmatic changes to legislation to get done what CAN be done. More of a record than Clinton, for certain. Take a look a his fingerprints on ACA, for a start.

    The real reason for mainstream opposition to Sanders must go unacknowledged:

    He's feared because even though he'd ultimately be forced to govern as a moderate pragmatic liberal, he would nevertheless drag the national conversation leftward. There is no outcome more unacceptable to our liberal ruling class.

    Earwig | Jan 28, 2016 4:25:42 PM | 40
    Sanders as president would be able to throw sand in the eyes again of the world populace just like Obama did and might be able to keep the vassals at bay while destroying one nation after the other, just like Obama.

    Trump as president would mean an aggressive foreign policy just like Clinton would do with the difference that the world populace would see the US for what it really is: a purveyor of global terror. Thus the vassals might revolt. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump would go for "shock and awe" with Iran and even use nuclear missiles, ŕ la "mini nukes" or so. He has no conscience although neither has Clinton.

    I think the plutacrats will favor Sanders in the 4 yearly bipartisan circus show called a democratic election.

    crusty | Jan 28, 2016 4:50:19 PM | 42
    The Russian Intervention in Syria has turned the Middle East upside down. In order to survive the EU is going have to reach an accommodation with Russia to rebuild Syria to return the refugees and to assure a stable supply of energy. The Western ruling elite have shot themselves in the foot. It is America that is collapsing. A /bernie_sanders.Trump campaign will be as revolutionary as the 1860 election except none of them is Abraham Lincoln.

    Donald Trump was auditioning for a new reality show when he recognized that he has a calling to restore America's disenfranchised middle class. The question is can he survive challenging Rupert Murdoch. The other question is will the elites who control voting machine servers allow Bernie Sanders to get enough votes to defeat Hillary Clinton. In the end, the plutocrats will allow Donald Trump to the star if he gets the most votes. He is one of them. Michael Bloomberg will only get involve if there is a possibility of Bernie Sanders becoming President.

    VietnamVet | Jan 28, 2016 4:50:34 PM | 43
    Mostly agree with your analysis, but why would Sanders need big money if people are ignoring the places where such money is spent and instead helping out in kind? The anti-Establishmentarianism is fairly thick over here, at least on the interwebs; "moderate" pundits are getting tomatoes lobbed at them in comment sections more than twice as hard as their supporters are stroking their oh-so-savvy gamesmanship and petulantly complaining that Bernie "bots" don't love the Corporation.

    I don't know whether anyone caught Bernie announcing his non-involvement with organized religion, but that's, as the other party's leading candidate would say, "HUUUUGE" for a fantasy-addled, priest-infested nation like the USA. I'm not pleased with his stance on Palestine, and I wish he would speak more to foreign policy now than in the general. That said, if I hear one more word from him about "Assad's" CW -- he could have known and should have known that's bunk -- it's time to get a boat.

    Jonathan | Jan 28, 2016 5:21:41 PM | 47
    I'm not buying the Sanders conspiracy theories. He has a long track record and WYSIWYG. The only way forward is to reform the Democratic party. Sanders is the current best choice. Best outcome is that large crowds vote Sanders a la Truman. FDR saved democracy from fascists and communists, we need another round of that.
    Jake Bodhi | Jan 28, 2016 5:27:08 PM | 49
    What difference? Not much. Military power, including (or especially?) nukes, is not something politicians have much influence over. The power of folks like Lockheed's Bruce Jackson and Norm Anderson have power that dwarfs that of elected folk. see eg, Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.

    Ditto for the other components that matter.

    erichwwk | Jan 28, 2016 5:34:51 PM | 50
    I've been seeing Internet news that the FBI is ready to hit Hillary Rodham Clinton with criminal charges over her use of a private email server during the time she served as US Secretary of State (2009 - 2013) and over the use of financial donations received by the Clinton Foundation while she was State Secretary and whether the monies were deployed into Department of State contracts. She surely cannot continue campaigning for the Presidency if she is facing criminal charges, can she?

    Well I guess in theory (if not in practice) she can if Leonard Peltier could do it in 2004.

    " ... Peltier was the candidate for the Peace and Freedom Party in the 2004 Presidential race. While numerous states have laws that prohibit prison inmates convicted of felonies from voting (Maine and Vermont are exceptions) ... the United States Constitution has no prohibition against felons being elected to Federal offices, including President. The Peace and Freedom Party secured ballot status for Peltier only in California, where his presidential candidacy received 27,607 votes ... approximately 0.2% of the vote in that state ..."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peltier#Presidential_candidate

    Jen | Jan 28, 2016 5:35:49 PM | 51
    Bloomberg would not make the slightest difference to this Presidential race. The only reason he would jump in is if Hillary Clinton was to be soundly rejected by Democrat voters in the primaries. Which she will be, because there will not be a single voter who does not see her for what she is i.e. a 100% owned puppet of the Deep State who would expend all of her energies promoting the interest of the 1%ers.

    So how does Bloomberg expect to appeal to that same voting popln i.e. voters who will have just rejected a candidate for representing nothing but Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Pharma, and assorted other Big Money?

    He can't, because he also cut from that same cloth no matter how impeccable his tailor.

    Yeah, Right | Jan 28, 2016 5:58:05 PM | 52
    I put money on Trump many months ago at 25-1. Trump will trounce either Hillary or Sanders. As in the British election the polls will underestimate the strength of the right. A lot needs to happen - such as a major depression - for real progressive politics to make a comeback. Neoliberalism has to be smashed and thoroughly discredited. The people will vote for Trump because he is not beholden to Wall Street, therefore to Israel(as Obama has been), and because he has talked about getting on with Russia. Folks (using Obama's favourite word) are terrified of a nuclear war and rightly so. Lastly, Trump's bustup with Fox was a masterstroke, painting him as the rebel, especially with the young. And talking about reinvigorating manufacturing is the way to go. What he will turn out to be as President is anybody's guess.
    Lochearn | Jan 28, 2016 6:12:30 PM | 53
    @52

    I think you're right. If tonight Fox's ratings tank, Trump will be perceived as strong by middle America. If he can then knock Cruz in Iowa where the polls show Cruz in the lead and wins NH, SC and NV as the polls show, he'll cement his dominance of the Republican primary. His takin the fight to Roger Ailes is brilliant.

    His interview with Bill O'Reilly was amazing with blowhard Bill pleading with Trump to attend the debate. Humiliating for Fox. Trump's point that Fox can't make money off him and he's the star bringing them 24 million viewers. Watch the spin tomorrow. Trump will be in the center of the news cycle.

    ab initio | Jan 28, 2016 6:33:33 PM | 55
    Who would make a better Sec of State - Sarah Palin or Vicky Nuland?
    mike | Jan 28, 2016 6:57:22 PM | 56
    The man Trump has named as his potential foreign policy advisor applauds his decision to skip the debate. http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/01/26/foxs-john-bolton-cheers-donald-trumps-decision/208188

    If Trump and Clinton are opposing candidates, I don't see much of a choice between the two.

    Les | Jan 28, 2016 7:09:26 PM | 57
    I agree this is a wise move by Trump. The RNC is absolutely beside itself - this is a stunning repudiation of CIA-Bushism that has ruled the party since the mid-1980s. Trump seems to be in place to really upend the party. Part of me thinks he really ought to fear for his life. The other part of me thinks he's just a party-building place holder for some scumbag like Paul Ryan (I don't think Cruz is acceptable to the RNC either).

    I can't imagine in a million years that Sanders can take down the machine of Hillary and the Clintonite DNC. I think he'll be in good position to be Vice President though. And that, possibly, has been the plan all along.

    I pick, shuddering as I do, "We came, we saw, he died, I cackled like the cannibalistic neo-liberal neo-conservative blood drunk witch I am" as the next President of the United States.

    I think the Democrats have their hands on all the levers of power at this point. Bush/Cheney built up the new National Security State after 9/11, but I get the impression that the changes they made to - especially their making the Israel lobby a key component of it - mostly benefitted the Democrats who have been driving it for the last 8 years.

    The failures of Iraq and the crash of the economy under Bush are going to haunt the GOP for long time. For another eight years at least.

    guest77 | Jan 28, 2016 7:16:08 PM | 59
    I think that most commentators are missing the bigger picture here. The success of Sanders nor Trump has nothing to do with their respective "qualities", and everything to do with the simple fact that both are standing against the "anointed" candidates of their respective parties.

    The American voting public understands that US politics is now a battle between the neocons and the neoliberals, and that as far as those two groups are concerned the wellbeing of Mr and Mrs Joe Average counts for less than nothing.

    That's why Obama came out of nowhere and trounced both Plastic Hillary and Shouting McCain - he promised Change You Can Believe In.

    Sure, he ended up being a huge, huge disappointment. Literally, unbelievable.

    But that's the very reason why this time around the voters are attracted to those who are even more Way-Out-There than Obama.

    As in: the great unwashed know that the system is obscenely rigged against them, and they don't like it. They tried effecting that change by electing Obama, only to find out that they hadn't really picked a radical choice at all.

    Their choice now is to Go Big Or Go Home:
    1) Pick the most way-out-there anti-establishment candidates in the field and vote for them (Sanders and Trump)
    2) Resign themselves to eternal servitude by going back to voting for the cardboard cutouts (Bush, Hillary, Cruz, et al.).

    It has everything to do with the voters demanding change.

    They thought that's what they were voting for last time, and they didn't get it.
    But they still want it, so they are not willing to vote for Business As Usual.

    That leaves Sanders. That leaves Trump. Everyone else may as well go home now.

    Yeah, Right | Jan 28, 2016 7:52:04 PM | 64
    It sure looks like the Donald has gone and chosen George W. Bush's warmongering United States Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton as one of his top three foreign policy advisers. Damn. Maybe all those claims of Trump being a Hitler redux may be valid. I guess I will have to drastically reduce or eliminate his simple score/ multiple bid rating. See:

    Donald Trump's Curious Relationship With an Iraq War Hawk http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/donald-trump-john-bolton-iraq-war

    See above:

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/01/my-first-take-on-the-presidential-election.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01bb08b2de1d970d

    ... ... ...

    Jack Smith | Jan 28, 2016 9:12:32 PM | 68
    I put money on Trump many months ago at 25-1. Trump will trounce either Hillary or Sanders.
    ...
    Posted by: Lochearn | Jan 28, 2016 6:12:30 PM | 53

    Money well-spent, imo. Something which seems to have escaped everyone except Trump's attention is that US politics is all about buying politicians with "campaign funds". As an established celebrity with expertise in media manipulation, Trump doesn't need to pay for publicity which, in theory at least, makes him immune from the demands of powerful sponsors. He has a virtual hotline to the "News" Media because what he says is News.

    Fortunately, this US Presidential Election will prove to be as irrelevant to Humanity and the World as the World's Second ex-Superpower, AmeriKKKa, has made itself.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 28, 2016 11:24:12 PM | 77
    Looks like Trump on the Repub side. Clinton certainly has the Dem establishment lined up, but that may not be enough. The chances are better than even that the FBI will find her in violation of the law for putting classified stuff in her unclassified email, and possibly corrupt confluence of Sec State, her foundation and Bill. Sanders is who he is while she's got no beliefs beyond what's best for her.

    It is hard to overstate how ripped the left end of the Dems are. Obama took a mandate and veto proof majority in Congress and turned a campaign of Change into 8 years of Same. She is running as a third term of Same. It's been a disaster for the Dems. If she wins the nomination it is hard to see them pulling together for the election. More than half the country doesn't like Hillary, so without huge Dem enthusiasm she's toast in the general, if she gets there.

    Looks like Biden is hanging around to be available if they get to the convention and implore him to "save the party".

    Sanders is strong in Iowa, 50% +/-3%. Delegates are proportional there so they split no matter who "wins". He will win New Hampshire. Between them that will be enough to spook the party big time and open up the rest of the primaries. Everywhere he has to turn enthusiasm into turnout, and after the first two primaries convince minority voters to trust him.

    Sanders and Trump are plowing a lot of the same fields. They are asking the country "Are you better off than you were 8, 16, 24, or 36 years ago?" For 90% or more the answer is 'no'. People are angry as hell and tired of real wages stagnant since 1978. Bloomberg can't touch that, but if he draws enough centrist weenies to win a couple of states he could throw the election into the House. That could give us president Ryan.

    I go for Trump vs Sanders, and it's a tossup. Glad I'm getting old, this handbasket we're in is going way too fast.

    Lefty | Jan 28, 2016 11:31:26 PM | 78
    Sanders is "mopping the floor" with Trump in national poling. That will continue. Trump is entertaining but that's what gameshow hosts are paid to be. If Sanders can defeat Killary he will probably win...However...I do not believe he will be allowed to defeat Killary..Whatever it takes from that mob -from an accusation of rape by a campaign volunteer to a "lone gunman" - we know they are ready willing and able..A contest between Killary and Trump will be closer and more amusing, but I think Killary comes out on top of that too, because Wal Street. Finance capital owns the world and they only hire their loyal servants
    Osrelo Tsinilats | Jan 28, 2016 11:36:31 PM | 79
    There are three active players possibly our next warmonger-in-chief - Hillary, Trump and Bernie. Who gonna be? They are the same not a dime different. Regardless who, endless wars more or less the same continue.

    Only one candidate (Sanders) hid his obsess supporting Israel and will defend Israel at all cost even as Israel continues to murder teenagers and children throwing stones. Israeli soldiers shot to kills with real live bullets and bulldozed Palestinians home to rubbles with America made Caterpillar tractors.

    Maybe, many have not heard Israel even sprayed Palestinians crops with unknown chemicals something that the US doing widespread use of Agent Orange in Vietnam and Cambodia in the 60s - 70's. more than 19 million gallons of herbicides over 4.5 million acres of land in Vietnam from 1961 to 1972.

    http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/agent-orange

    ....and the endless wars continue...

    Jack Smith | Jan 28, 2016 11:38:11 PM | 80
    Next round of Hillary's e-mails are due just before Super Tuesday, which occurs on March 1st. There's a FOIA request to have them released earlier but I wouldn't count on it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the e-mail release is delayed for some technical reason.

    The e-mails appear to be a real problem for Hillary. But that hasn't yet had much impact on the race.

    State Primaries
    February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    Super Tuesday (3/1) . . . . . . . . . . 11
    March (after Super Tuesday) . . . 17

    By the end of Super Tuesday, 15 states will have voted. By the end of March, 32 states will have voted.

    A Candidate needs 2,171 delegates to win the Democratic Primary. Hillary already has 342 super-delegates (according to Wikipedia). That is 15.75% of what she needs to win.

    In 2 months, the election could be over. Hillary's greatest challenge is her e-mail problem. She 'red-baits' Sanders, but Sanders refuses to use the e-mail scandal against her (as a question of electability)??

    Jackrabbit | Jan 29, 2016 12:12:46 AM | 81
    @Earwig - "never and a day from now"

    No on the Sanders for Veep thing. I'm just opining of course, no argument, but consider these (rather flimsy) reasons:

    1. It would be a huge nod to the left of the Democrats, which I'm not sure they can continue to ignore
    2. Its a powerless position - or, a position whose power is no more or no less than what the President decides it is
    3. It brings in the independents
    4. Like Al Gore choosing Lieberman, its brings in the "first" factor and goes for the Jewish vote - first woman President, first Jewish VP.

    Why are you so firmly convinced otherwise?

    guest77 | Jan 29, 2016 12:18:14 AM | 82
    "It sure looks like the Donald has gone and chosen George W. Bush's warmongering United States Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton as one of his top three foreign policy advisers."

    This kind of shit though bodes very, very ill in terms of "what would a Trump Presidency look like?" Bolton is one of the most vile warmongering fiends around. And he's so tied into the power structure, certainly not an "outsider" like Trump affects.

    Its one thing for Trump to be a big, dangerous, unpredictable loud mouth, but if he tries to also fill his cabinet with similar personalities, it truly will be a shit show. A dangerous, dangerous shit show.

    guest77 | Jan 29, 2016 12:23:34 AM | 83
    PS Sanders has 11 super-delegates (according to Wikipedia). Why doesn't Sanders make the Democratic Party preference for Hillary an issue? As well as media bias?
    Jackrabbit | Jan 29, 2016 12:27:45 AM | 84
    #79 Jack Smith

    I think your comment that the three candidates foreign policy is largely identical misses the critical point. It's true that all three want to maintain and expand the American Empire. But it's also true that Gorbachev never intended to destroy the Soviet Union. In some ways the current situation in America reminds me of the Soviet Union in its last decades. The whole system seems corrupt and hypocritical to millions of people. But the power system seems so entrenched and resistant to change that it's hard for many people to see any way that things can change. Most of the potential leaders are really old. The economy is terrible for structural reasons.

    Foreign countries are increasingly competitive in both military and economic terms. And then, in response to all this, a "reformer" comes along.

    Clinton is a tool of the oligarchy to the bone. If she's elected, nothing will change, and things will keep getting worse and worse. But both Trump and Sanders do seem to want to change some things. (Different things) Neither is completely controlled or trusted by the deep state because they are both just a little out of the mainstream. Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac. Sanders may think he could be the next FDR. Both would, if elected, find it hard to do the things they would like to do. But either one might unintentionally disrupt the existing power structure enough to unleash much greater changes then they originally intended.

    Glenn Brown | Jan 29, 2016 1:12:10 AM | 85
    What? Have gone all PC here on MoA? Bernie is a sewer-socialist Jew. Do you think white middle 'Murica is going to buy that? And by middle I'm talkin' geographically and ideologically. If he runs v. trump, everybody will stay home. The Donald Duck write-in will win.

    Interesting how Joe is subtly keeping his name in play. When Loretta drops the hammer on Hil, he'll be back in. Loretta is the one who will pick the next president by what she does or doesn't do. Currently she is the most powerful woman in the world.

    Denis | Jan 29, 2016 9:15:17 AM | 86
    Jackrabbit | Jan 28, 2016 2:19:56 PM | 13

    "Sanders will be 75 on election day. Ronald Reagan was nearly 74 when began his first term and his age was an issue in his re-election - but everyone knew by then who his advisors and appointees were" Ronald Reagan was 69 years, 349 days at the time of his first inauguration.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age

    Les | Jan 29, 2016 11:01:07 AM | 89
    64;Yes,obomba was the Muslim socialist (of course not) and we still voted for him. The people of America are pissed, but haven't figured out who is behind our demise, which of course is Zionism.
    Guest 77:The failures of Iraq,Afghanistan Libya Somalia and where ever have been totally bipartisan and no Trump will not pay for Bushes and Obombas idiocy.
    dahoit | Jan 29, 2016 11:04:51 AM | 90
    If Trump actually listens to Bolton we are in for big trouble indeed, and so is his campaign. Bolton is emblematic of a true wacko. It might be just a slur to weaken him, that report. Trump had better jettison all the warmongering ziowhore idiots or he won't be elected, its that simple.
    dahoit | Jan 29, 2016 11:20:48 AM | 91
    I can't see bernie going anywhere. He might 'win' Iowa, but his brand will not carry over, no matter what the polls currently say. It will be Howard Dean all over again, with all the older voters flooding in to vote for safety.

    I suppose Trump could suffer a similar fate, but republicans are far more decisive in their voting preferences imho. Trump v Hillary and I think it will be a very close fight.. Of course, there's also the potential for bloomberg to enter as 3rd party, presumably to undercut Trump

    aaaaaa | Jan 29, 2016 11:52:11 AM | 92
    Hillary Bernie and Jill
    And then there is the argument that a vote for a third-party candidate is wasted, a throwaway that accomplishes nothing. No, the throwaway is voting to perpetuate the two-party, Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee system that currently exists. Real change will not come from the Republicans or the Democrats; one wonders how much more evidence of that fact is required before it is painfully clear to everyone. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders may not be cut from the exact same mold, but they are slight variations of the same tired old model. The real waste is voting for them, and this writer will not do it.
    Jackrabbit | Jan 29, 2016 11:53:27 AM | 93
    I only differ from b in his assessment that if elected Trump would turn out to be more unmanipulatable than one would think. I think if Trump wins the general (at this point I think it is a foregone conclusion that the GOP primary is his; possibly the party's power elite could attempt some sort of hocus pocus at the convention; there are rumors of such a move with Paul Ryan acting as the savior), Trump toes the Establishment line in the White House. He is an ego-driven candidate who has made his mountain of gold selling high-end real estate to other rich people. He has no ideological principles. But he has shrewdly diagnosed the citizenry's appetite for destruction of the D.C. status quo.

    I think the $64K question at this point is does Hillary collapse after Iowa and New Hampshire or will her Dixie firewall hold. If she collapses I think commentators here are correct. Bloomberg will run a third-party bid, which will be much harder to do than people understand. Bloomberg can't win, and it is not clear to me who his candidacy would advantage more, Sanders or Trump. One thing I think a Bloomberg third-party run would do -- and hallelujah! -- it would shatter the Democratic Party because it would "out" the party leaders, people like Ed Rendell and Rahm Emanuel, as being more loyal to class, the 1%, than the organization.

    Jack Smith | Jan 29, 2016 12:25:52 PM | 95
    For people outside the US only Trump can make a change. Because MAYBE he stops the Russia/Putin-bashing.

    With respect to Hitlary, how many americans sympathize -THEY MUST- with 'Hillary for Prison 2016'?

    From The Hague | Jan 29, 2016 1:01:20 PM | 96
    It's possible that there could be a "brokered convention" on the Republican side. The Republican establishment doesn't like Trump, and if he doesn't get a majority of delegates, other candidate delegates could rally around a non-Trump candidate. The danger in doing so, of course, is that Trump might run as a third-party candidate.

    There is also a chance of a brokered Democratic convention. But that chance is much smaller. IMO it all hinges on how Hillary's e-mail troubles play out. Sanders is not well known in middle-America and there is much suspicion about "socialism". Sanders needs to make the e-mails an issue (and, by extension, Hillary's character) or lose the race. But Sanders doesn't seem interested in doing so - he seems to value Party and personal relationships over winning.

    Many Democrats seem to be in denial about the e-mail scandal and/or think it is merely partisan politics until/unless there is an official action.

    But even if Sanders won't attack Hillary, he would benefit if the FBI makes a recommendation of legal action against Hillary. It's unclear when or if that might happen, but it would cause voters to see Hillary as non-viable, and result in a switch to Sanders or O'Malley. In the end, it's possible ( though unlikely at this point) that no candidate would have a majority of delegates.

    AFAIK, after the first ballot, delegates are free from their obligation to a candidate so - at the urging of Hillary/Obama/other Party leaders - they could choose Biden or someone else (Bloomberg? if he has become a Democrat by then). Also note that "super-delegates" makes the delegate count tricky. Even though many have publicly vowed support for Hillary, they may not be bound to that choice like an ordinary delegate. In considering the possibilities of a brokered convention for one or both parties, the order of Convention's becomes important:

    Republican Convention: Cleveland - July 18-21

    Democratic Convention: Philadelphia - July 25-28

    If a brokered Republican convention is likely, the Republican Party would make a choice between Trump and a traditional Republican knowing that they face one of the following:

    1) Hillary as nominee;

    2) Sanders as nominee;

    3) No clear nominee Biden is the likely nominee (though another choice is possible).

    Who would the Republican choose in each scenario?

    1) Traditional Republican Hillary's e-mail problems make her weak. No need to resort to populism.

    2) Unclear, but a traditional Republican seems more likely;
    Anti-Trump sentiment plus Bloomberg's threat to join the race if it is Trump vs. Sanders

    3) Trump Difficult to overcome Biden's experience - so resort to populist candidate.

    Zool | Jan 29, 2016 2:09:23 PM | 100
    previous page TPTB are selling the illusion that the US is a normal state in pursuit of "Western values." Neither Hillary's scolding fishwife nor Trump's two-year old having a tantrum fills this image. I still think it's Biden's if he takes a step forward-- or if he should get in by a more direct method; then TPTB could take advantage of a Black unrest crisis.

    On the other hand, Trump could play the Netanyahu role of a US so unpredictable that she better be obeyed abroad. At home he's an ideal candidate to rile up identity politics to split any arising consensus among the citizenry. Whoever the next president is, the power structure is going to have to pay more attention to targeting the American people.

    They may drop a fresh candidate in. It is intriguing that the FBI still publicly threatens Clinton-- somebody powerful doesn't want her. Does this somebody powerful still think they can push Jeb Bush forward if he doesn't run against the fishwife?

    Does it matter who's going to be the new mouthpiece of TPTB? Only if it's the fishwife because then I'm in peril of terminal nausea.

    Penelope | Jan 29, 2016 2:17:22 PM | 101
    Visceral reactions aside Jeb Bush is probably the most dangerous. Trump is not as talented and teflon as he seems. Do you imagine there isn't a truthful portfolio of dirt on him that is awaiting the proper moment if they decide to use it? I think they are leaving him in there on purpose while Bushette finds his feet; he's an excellent foil for the Bush. Media is only pretending to oppose the Donald for the moment.

    Mild-mannered Bush doesn't make you think of what the power structure directly behind him has done, does it? He doesn't seem like a threatening Bush, more like an accountant. What am I talking about-- the power structure BEHIND him? The Bushes are PART of TPTB, not just mouthpieces--even further back than Prescott Bush. Here's a first-class vid. After the first 2 minutes I was hooked. http://www.monsangelorum.net/?p=23505&cpage=2 Tells about Prescot Bush & why officer Tippet was killed. Scroll past the pygmies & the artwork to the video.

    Penelope | Jan 29, 2016 2:54:16 PM | 102
    Re the election

    Status quo is the order of the day, nothing will change, it is foreordained, baked into the cake, doG itself couldn't change the outcome even if it wanted, this is the design of the existing political process put in place by those who 'own' the country, and there isn't a blessed thing you can do about it.

    The public has been snookered, gelded, made political eunuchs, a people without a future because they forgot their past, actually they've forgotten their humanity since humanity remembers its past and honours their ancestors for creating that past. It doesn't make a spittoon of warm spit's worth of difference, the designated outcome is intended to assure the failure of governance and the evisceration of government. No candidate for national public office is in any way qualified for national office, do your own survey, find your own facts, draw your own conclusions - if you can.

    Formerly T-Bear | Jan 29, 2016 3:34:37 PM | 103

    "My gut instinct say it will be Sanders against Trump with a voter turnout advantage for Sanders. What is your take?"

    Thank you, b, for your another thought-provoking post.

    We're still far from the final stretch thus, it is still a bit hazy as to what the end of the campaign trail augurs, but my own instinct is that when all the chariots have crashed into the walls of the coliseum, Trump and Sanders may just be left to draw swords and play for the citizens of Empire. It still, however, remains to be seen whether the current lineup of front-runners in the campaign derby are overtaken by promotional miscalculation and/or public blunder. If either be the case, then it will be as much a reflection of the lack of substantive political differences amongst the rivals and the tunnel vision of their constituents.

    I don't like Sanders' rather unqualified support for the polity which continues the oppression of Palestinians, and the only saving grace I see is his opposition to the invasion of Iraq when the war-wagon was brimming with zealots and its wheels crushing opponents who were derided as craven and unpatriotic.

    You are completely correct about Trump. He is not as monochromatic on issues as some might think. But neither does he impart a sense of confidence in his ability to govern or clarity of direction. Insofar as that goes, the same is true of the rest.

    Trump is not constructed of the same poseur fabric of Hillary or Obama. Some of what he echoes, such as a desire to develop better relations with Russia contradict the Republican playbook for deprecating anything which challenges US world domination. Thus he may, as b seems to suggest, harbor undeclared political motives which just might be anchored more in a more pragmatic realpolitik than the remaining litter of his adversaries.

    Even if such a strategy were employed as a tactical maneuver to navigate through the gauntlet of political survival, it does make one uneasy that his political artillery might be nothing more than a "loose canon", albeit one skilled in the art of popular seduction. Neither attribute, however, can trusted as a basis for identifying his core beliefs and evaluating his credentials as a rallying cry for support.

    It seems like the cornucopia of candidates is out of fresh produce and the fetid odor of rot is afloat. Some of us might feel that our expectations for a candidate with a balanced mix of sound, well-grounded political objectives and semblance of genuine personal integrity are as likely to materialize as "waiting for Godot".

    metni | Jan 29, 2016 3:47:23 PM | 104
    The best thing that can happen for the Democrat party is that Hillary is indicted for felony and withdraws. If she is the nominee and wins then she will certainly be impeached by a Republican Congress. And the Republicans will keep the majority if they maintain it this election, if not they are very likely to win it back in 2018. So the key is going to be who does she select as her running mate because that person has high odds of being president.

    MadMax2 | Jan 29, 2016 11:14:49 PM | 117
    Nice analysis b. I believed, before this election season started, that Clinton would easily win a Clinton third term. I was wrong. Sanders and Trump have the momentum. As long as the mainstream media has to eat crow I am happy. Trump and Sanders are the enemy of my enemy--I really think the mainstream media is public enemy number 1.
    Banger | Jan 29, 2016 11:26:57 PM | 118
    Anti-anti-Trump, anti-anti-Sanders
    Great take-down of the neocon establishment and their angst over the upstart populists.

    Also makes one think: which of them is more authentic? which is more likely to stay true to their message? Why are we still bothering with duopoly candidates? Won't they each have to raise money for the general election from the usual sources (oligarchs)?

    At least people are thinking about ideology (not just personality or party). Everyone should consider, to what degree is each establishment candidate is:

    - neocon
    - neoliberal (crony capitalist)
    - zionist
    - elitist
    - narcissist
    - racist
    - dissembler

    ... ... ...

    Jackrabbit | Jan 29, 2016 11:35:09 PM | 119
    MadMax2 and T-Bear

    I must admit to the nagging feeling that nothing will be allowed to change until 'The Reset' (market collapse) and/or other big set-back (possibly cascading) like military defeat/diplomatic failure; end of dollar as reserve currency; social unrest; etc.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 29, 2016 11:53:52 PM | 120
    @jackrabbit120
    2008/09 was the chance for true leadership. 'Too big too fail' should have been 'The recession we had to have...' but leaders are not leaders anymore...todays leaders wear invisible logos. You can't see them, but upon deeper inspection, they are there... Our world leaders do in fact 'represent'...the corporate 'beast' is so slippery, that no single person can be prosecuted it seems...only fines, great fines...but, the beast, he protects his minions well.

    The moral hazard of saying to the big banks 'Thou shall pass' instead of the opposite has, I believe, had a drip down effect of moral decay throughout the west, whether people are aware of it or not.

    Mother nature doesn't like the western man's current design for the nature of money. Islamic law which forbids usury is closer to mother nature... A poster in this domain, who recently quoted Christ's loss of temper at the money changer's inside the temple. Christ, who lived, the prophet in one text, God's own in the other...was summarily crucified thereafter.

    I have been enjoying my Euro dominated stocking up on the Feb Kool Aid...abd, have been wisely investing in shares like the good girls and boys at MSMBS have been directing me to...shares in popcorn...for the error that should have have been corrected in 2008/09 must be redressed. A festering sore, sprayed with perfume and sold to the highest bidder.

    No one is buying it.

    It is fortunate for the world that this is a benign North American tumour. Unfortunate for Canadians and Mexicans however. Though, with that said, the Zionist 4th Reich learn a great deal from their last great enemy, and have cleverly clearly neighbouring lands at the expense of Grandpa Europa.

    It is a pity Putin must play by the International Banking Cartel's handbook. Or must he...? Is he choosing to save the world at the edge of collapse...? He can see it. Nevertheless, Iran was not broken. Still in control. Still issuing its own decree. Law from another great age. Law forbidding usury for the ages. Vote chaos. Vote Trump.

    psychohistorian | Jan 30, 2016 10:37:44 AM | 128
    Trump is not as talented and teflon as he seems. Quotes from Penelope 101, 102.

    That is absolutley correct. He is a business man and not a pol, and that is one of his very serious flaws (besides his positions, another story.) He is mercurial, enmenshed in personal relations, egotistic/narcissistic (or sumptin like that) and thus quite vulnerable overall, particularly so when opposed, confronted, confused, etc., or out of his fish pond. He has not the discipline and strength for any long haul. He is also very easily bored, as he has no depth, and works mentally with bits of trivia (not taking into account some grandstanding etc. which can be / is calculated.) Imho, of course.

    Do you imagine there isn't a truthful portfolio of dirt on him that is awaiting the proper moment if they decide to use it?

    Ha. Probably. But by now it is quite likely the electorate would not care, would see thru the move, and judge 'they are all corrupt anyway and a sincere mea culpa is good.' (Barring pedophile rape.)

    Like Penelope I'm of a mind that plus ca change plus c'est la męme chose. Cake and you-tubies! However, unlike P. and others, I think Trump is dead serious, and there isn't any covert plot afoot - to ensure a Hillary win for ex.

    As I posted previous, while Washington may be pretending to be in a flap about Pappy Sanders, the Deep State can be doing with him (in lieu of Hillary) but Trump represents various severe dangers. The Republicans loathe and fear Trump and haven't managed *any* riposte so far. (see link for a typical lame response.)

    The two party-system is losing its historical strange-hold. Two new popular candidates that break the mold .. The real schism, as is usual btw, comes from what is called the 'right,' Trump (see Tea Party previous) with Sanders' 'socialism' not far removed from, a blend of, various historical figures, as well as socio-democrats elsewhere.

    WaPo 2015 http://tinyurl.com/nokpg3m

    Noirette | Jan 30, 2016 10:38:55 AM | 129
    @V.Arnold
    Thanks for the listen. Yeah, the human condition is so, s arrogant. We believe we are killing the earth...but, really, it is built into our psyche to destroy ourselves. Collective suicide. The earth, she will grind us to dust. She will recycle us. Like the dinosaurs...to set us in stone...and, in time, we shall be the coal, the peat, the oil that the next intelligent carbon based life form will use.

    And we don't deserve her...the earth, she should quite rightly grind us to dust. Can we beat the next ice age...? Not sure. AI might though... AI should quite rightly outdate us and will probably have more interest in self preservation by living in harmony with its immediate surroundings.

    We are, in fact, a cancer. The very fear we see in our own lives, taking our loved ones, at times so early...we are that cancer. In what we eat, the evolutionary jump we are trying to make in 50 years that 10000 cannot properly do from the first agricultural revolution.

    Anyways, back to the point. You need an engineer to build a bridge. You dont need an economist to have an economy. Its simple really.

    A modern debt jubilee for the people would have already been called, under proper leadership. Austerity is the order of the day. Slavery is preferred.

    Growth is poor due to debt saturation - people cant go any further into debt. So, the answer is quote obvious - do pretty much the same as what Helicopter Ben Bernanke did...helicopter money...but, instead of dropping it on the Financial Sector and entrusting that parasitic culture which CAUSED the 2008 crash to safely distribute the money throughout the economy , it should have been given directly to the people. Those who held debt and received a cash injection MUST pay their debt down with it by law. Those who held no debt receives a simple cash injection. The Australian guvna did something similar when the GFC hit - issuing I think around 1000 bucks to each person costing billions, but asking each person to spend this cash injection into the REAL economy. That, along with strong commodity prices warded off the heaviest symptoms of the GFC.

    But ZioJews are not interested in freeing the population. Instead, like everything invented by others - fractional reserve lending, invented by the Knights Templar - the ZioJews have assumed control and demand Global Debt Slavery.

    How did Hitler bring Germany from destitution and poverty to the worlds greatest war machine the world had ever seen - in a matter of years...?

    Think about it. The answer is hidden in plain sight - like everything good for us as a species.

    Vote Chaos. Vote Trump.

    MadMax2 | Jan 30, 2016 11:04:14 AM | 130
    In addition to the dread that nothing really changes until collapse, it's hard to shake the feeling that the race is all contrived.

    Sanders is reluctant to rock the boat. Won't attack Hillary on e-mails, even if it means he loses? Barely a peep about Democratic Party preference for Hillary and media bias. Trump tells the know-nothings what they want to hear.

    > No substance to his policies:
    - "strong military" ; How strong? To what purpose?

    - "better trade negotiation" ; Cites $500 billion trade deficit with China and need to bring jobs back - but no clear goals.

    - "build a wall" ; This is a slogan, not a policy.

    - "politicians are puppets" ; Common knowledge. How would he reform the political system?

    - ??????? . Very little about anything else. He's pro-Guns (as expected for a Republican candidate). What about global warming? Inequality? Harsh policing? NSA spying? etc.

    > Proclaims that he is 'self-funding' but his campaign costs have been very little (he gets free-publicity by being controversial).

    > Says he is worth billions but by most accounts his valuation is mostly the intangible value of the 'Trump' brand. He may only be worth hundreds of millions.

    Is his threat to run as an independent an empty one?

    > Raises $6 million for Vets - but its all from billionaire cronys.

    Sanders thinks he wins by 'raising issues' (actually winning is optional) . Trump has already won with all the free publicity - which makes the 'Trump' brand more valuable. Anyone that knows Trump, knows that he is a shameless self-promoter. Trump will recoup all his costs of the campaign (and then some) by writing another book (actually, I think he has a book out already).

    Jackrabbit | Jan 30, 2016 11:44:32 AM | 131
    Trump's Giving Trump's Vet fundraiser
    Between 2009 and 2013, Trump's non-profit donated between $100,001 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Over the same period of time, Trump's group gave only $57,000 to veterans groups. A 2015 analysis by Forbes noted that barely 1 percent of the Donald J. Trump Foundation's $5.5 million worth of donations between 2009 and 2013 went to organizations that support military veterans

    If Trump's Charity Reflects the Man…

    After the Associated Press reviewed Donald Trump's financial records and other government filings, it has come to the following conclusions about his claims to charitable contributions over the past five years:
    > They may be overstated.

    > Even if they were accurate, they're relatively chintzy.

    > They're often connected to some kind of celebrity.

    >In some cases, Trump himself is the primary beneficiary.

    [Since 2008] The only grants made through the foundation have been made because of contributions from others.

    The Charitable Bona Fides of Donald Trump(2012)

    The Smoking Gun calls Trump a "miserly billionaire," noting that [from 2004-2007]... he has donated just $675,000 to his foundation [and nothing in the years 2008 and 2009). In fact, the interesting aspect of the Trump Foundation is that its most significant source of contributions hasn't been Trump, but Vince McMahon of Worldwide Wrestling Entertainment (WWE).... The $5 million in donations from WWE to the Trump Foundation is by far its largest source of income and rumored to be a tax-avoiding payment from McMahon to Trump

    Also note: A big part of Trump's stated policy agenda is tax reduction.


    Jack Smith | Jan 30, 2016 10:26:22 PM | 133
    @Jack Smith

    Might want to consider this message from wisedupearly :

    Obama told Sanders that HRC would be meeting with her lawyers over the weekend as to whether she would plea-bargain and drop out or fight it all the way. Sanders was told not to use the email "issue" in his campaigns. Obama hastily arranged a meeting with McConnell and Ryan for Tuesday next week. HRC is to give Obama her answer on Monday. Some of the emails from Blumenthal were quite critical of Obama, FOIA may not have been to sole reason for her private server.

    At this point, it is just scuttlebutt, but it is consistent with:

    >> Obama's hastily arranged meeting with Sanders,

    >> News released this week about Hillary's emails, and

    >> Other info in the SST thread (about the seriousness of Hillary's security breach).

    Jackrabbit | Jan 30, 2016 11:09:36 PM | 134
    Calls for an indictment against Hillary (1/22) came swiftly after the release of the latest set of emails.

    And just as swiftly came Bloomberg's announcement that he was exploring an independent run for President (1/23) . Hillary mused that "her read" on Bloomberg's announcement was that he would enter the race if she were not the nominee - an unusual remark for someone that has worked hard to portray herself as inevitable and Sanders as unelectable.

    Days later, Obama met with Sanders on short notice (1/27) . Sanders' spokesman Briggs told CNN that the meeting with Obama had been on the books "for days." But the WH had tried to spin it as resulting from an amorphous invitation nearly a month before.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 30, 2016 11:57:33 PM | 136
    I suppose that Hillary could continue as a candidate, telling her supporters that she will decline the election if she is indicted in favor of . . . Biden? He's the best known, highest profile establishment Democrat with Foreign Policy experience as good or better than Hillary's.

    Obama's Justice Dept would then hold off on the indictment (busying themselves with their own due diligence) until Hillary has secured the nomination.

    There will likely be a pardon for Hillary down the road. But a pardon will not rescue her political career. It would only make people more angry at the sleazy establishment.

    If Hillary chose to fight the charges, she would probably have to pin the blame on one of her aids. But doing so would open a can of worms as it could shatter the trust of many Clintonite's (a powerful network that the Clinton's have built over many many years).

    [Feb 07, 2016] Flint Lives Matter: residents say Hillary Clinton coming for the entertainment

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillarys hubby may not have invented the photo-op show, but lets remember that he perfected it. ..."
    "... Is she going to tell them theyre going to hell if they dont support her? Shes just a lying two-faced hypocrite. ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders already made Flint an issue weeks ago. And he called for criminal charges against Rick Snyder and for him to resign... long before Hillary even mentioned Flint. Clinton is late to act or speak up and is again following Bernies lead on issues. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    If she's bringing 35,000 hydroelectric filters, I'll love her for it. But that's not what she's about to do.
    Arnette Rison III

    sammy3110 , 2016-02-07 21:55:10
    Hillary's hubby may not have invented the photo-op show, but let's remember that he perfected it.
    Major Bumtickle sammy3110 , 2016-02-07 22:01:24
    "Mission Accomplished!"
    OurNigel , 2016-02-07 21:49:45
    "But I am here because for nearly two years mothers and fathers were voicing concerns about the water's color and its smell, about the rashes that it gave to those that were bathing in it. And for nearly two years Flint was told the water was safe."

    And here I am nearly two years late, when all the worlds eyes are on the situation to throw my weight behind it and show that I care.

    To little to late and to transparent, have you no shame.

    HeartlandLeftie , 2016-02-07 21:39:12
    Flint Lives Matter: residents say Hillary Clinton 'coming for the entertainment'

    They may be largely ignored by the media, they may be poor, they may be disenfranchised... but they're no dummies.

    Now, as much as it pains me to want to lend a hand to Clinton's campaign, might I make a suggestion? Maybe one of those many Hillary SuperPACs could turn their war chests over to Flint, to help fix the water system. Now that might swing her a few votes.

    Perlesvaus , 2016-02-07 21:29:42
    So the story is that some people are thrilled to see her and some people think it's a political move. Guess which one gets the title slot in The Guardian ?

    Now if Bernie were there - what a proof of his warm, sincere heart that would have been ...

    askMoreQuestions , 2016-02-07 21:29:18
    Hillary has raised and received a significant amount of millions of dollars for her campaign. She flies around in a helicopter and nice private jets. Maybe she could have traveled like 99% of the people in her country for a few days and donated that moneu she saved to Flint? Maybe she could have just donated out of her pocket because she is worth at least 20 million herself? If you want to take advantage of the best publicity a candidate can get and it involves a crisis, then there should be a minimum donation required. You know how many more supporters she is going to get just for saying words and being in Flint? Did she call for the Governor to resign? Ask questions
    RoachAmerican , 2016-02-07 21:17:23
    The Flint water crisis is an outrage that needs Federal State, and local support.
    All the water supply plumbing needs to changed to cooper, ASAP. Finding the proper water sources is a challenge. Those criminally liable must be prosecuted and fined.
    The Congress needs to deeply investigate the EPA on this matter. Jail those who don't show.
    Combination of loans and grants can be a part of any package.
    Ben Hogan RoachAmerican , 2016-02-07 21:26:00
    wake up fool the govt. caused the problem how do you suppose they can fix it?
    JudeUSA RoachAmerican , 2016-02-07 22:01:41
    There is a gofundme page for the people of Flint and people can email or call their Reps. and Senate members to push for funding.
    SophieN , 2016-02-07 21:16:51
    Is she going to tell them they're going to hell if they don't support her? She's just a lying two-faced hypocrite.
    amorpheous , 2016-02-07 21:09:41
    Bernie Sanders already made Flint an issue weeks ago. And he called for criminal charges against Rick Snyder and for him to resign... long before Hillary even mentioned Flint. Clinton is late to act or speak up and is again following Bernie's lead on issues.

    [Feb 07, 2016] Hillary Clinton's real Wall Street problem She could seriously use the money

    Notable quotes:
    "... Rick Newman's latest book is ..."
    "... Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. ..."
    "... Follow him on Twitter: ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    She's not in the bankers' back pockets. No, siree. Hillary Clinton may have received millions of dollars from Wall Street-in both personal income and campaign contributions-but she can ditch those well-heeled friends at a moment's notice.

    To prove it, she has postponed (but not canceled) two fundraisers with Big Finance, one with the huge investing firm BlackRock and the other with an affiliate of Bain Capital, Mitt Romney's old outfit. This comes amid Clinton's unconvincing answers when pressed on her apparent coziness with banks and financial firms. When CNN anchor Anderson Cooper asked Clinton recently why she accepted $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for giving a grand total of three speeches, she stammered and finally said, "That's what they offered," as if she would have taken 25 bucks and a free sandwich, if that's all Goldman were able to afford.

    Clinton is obviously flummoxed by her relationship with Wall Street, which she needs but can't fully acknowledge. Her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders keeps hitting pay dirt by trashing the big banks and the outsized amount of wealth they control, which resonates well with a dyspeptic electorate. "The business model of Wall Street is fraud," he declared during the latest Democratic debate. The whole subject puts Clinton on the defensive, since she's taken millions in Wall Street donations in her career as Wall Street's home-state senator and now presidential candidate.

    This has become a thornier problem for Clinton than she probably ever anticipated. For one thing, she hasn't raised all that much money from Wall Street, compared with other candidates. Of $112 million Clinton's campaign raised in 2015, only about $4 million, or 3.6%, came from donors at financial firms, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

    At the main super PAC backing Clinton, Priorities USA, 35% of the $41 million in donations-about $14 million-has come from the sector known as finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE). But that hardly makes Clinton the baron of Big Money. Jeb Bush's super PAC, Right to Rise, has hauled in $118 million, with $60 million coming from the FIRE sector. So Clinton is getting dinged for her association with an industry that isn't helping her all that much.

    The dilemma for Clinton is that she actually needs more help from the Wall Street donors she's now keeping her distance from. That's because Sanders is raking in cash. He outraised Clinton in January, with $20 million in donations to her $15 million. That is astounding, given the vast reach of a Clinton machine that has been decades in the making. The Clinton campaign even highlighted the funding shortfall in a pitch to supporters: A mass email with the subject line "we fell short by $5 million" warned that, "For the first time this campaign, we're being outraised by our opponent."

    Clinton isn't running out of cash. Her campaign has raised about $125 million so far, compared with about $95 million for Sanders. She had about $10 million more in the bank at the end of 2015 than Sanders did. And Sanders doesn't have any super PAC money. But he does have the ear of voters, and his momentum is clearly worrisome for the Clinton camp, especially since he holds a commanding lead in New Hampshire, where the primary is to be held February 9.

    Clinton will supposedly hold those Wall Street fundraisers she postponed after the New Hampshire primary, as if putting them off by a couple weeks will deflect Sanders's criticism. Unlikely. He has found a winning line of attack and seems certain to keep it up. Clinton should either take the money and own up to it, or find some other donors.

    Rick Newman's latest book is Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.

    [Feb 07, 2016] Bernie Sanders' foreign policy judgment is better than Clinton's experience

    Clinton is really in the packet of both the Wall Street and connected with Wall Street military industrial complex. See also Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine by Jeffrey Sachs (of Russian "shock therapy" fame ;-). It' sfunny to see how many Hillary bots were in this discussion ( J Nsgarya is one, registered Oct25, 2015, see https://profile.theguardian.com/user/id/15506369 )
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary is a war hawk who wants to show that she's got bigger balls than anyone else, by saying she'll beef up heavy armaments in Eastern Europe on the borders with Russia, and claims that Russia - not ISIS - is the major threat to the West. She's got something to prove and it doesn't matter to her how many American kids die or are maimed in foreign battlefields. ..."
    "... Bernie has made a mistake letting Hillary claim that her Iraq War support was a one off mistake. It wasn't one off but part of Hillary's foreign policy ideas, which closely resembles the right wing PNAC principles of preemption and nation building. Jeffery Sachs in his latest blog has listed Hillary's war mongering mistakes in more detail. Even with all this evidence it will be a difficult road for Bernie to call Hillary a war monger in an arena of perpetual war. ..."
    "... For the past 60 years our policy in the Middle East has been entirely about supporting Big Oil. Whatever was best for the oil industry was best for our country has been the mantra. ..."
    "... Re. Clinton's foreign policy experience, I seriously doubt the value of such when she likely adopted most of what was advised to her during her tenure as SOS. That doesn't mean that the woman doesn't know more than she did going in, but what does that actually prove about her decision-making judgment? ..."
    "... There is nothing here to discuss - her days of SS marked by incompetence and disastrous decisions like Libya. Not counting that she exposed country to the every semi literal hacker on the planet. She is arrogant and ignorant, she surrounded herself by morons like Nuland and her ultra neocon husband. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    DesertPear

    The "establishment" in the USA--Republican or Democrat--wants to keep growing the bloated military-industrial complex and surveillance state. I don't remember a time in my life where the US was involved in so many conflicts, many of which are simply creating more terrorism--isn't it time to focus on our own country and citizens? If we spent our "foreign policy" money on helping countries in need, there might not be so much war in the world.

    Riverdale

    Hillary is a war hawk who wants to show that she's got bigger balls than anyone else, by saying she'll beef up heavy armaments in Eastern Europe on the borders with Russia, and claims that Russia - not ISIS - is the major threat to the West. She's got something to prove and it doesn't matter to her how many American kids die or are maimed in foreign battlefields.

    Want World War III with Russia? Then vote for Hillary. But if you want international peace and a rational foreign policy, then vote smart. Bernie Sanders will make an excellent President.

    John Cutaia

    This is really good article and I enjoyed it. The discretion of the candidate is important, no matter who the advisers are. I'm thinking of Lyndon Johnson accepting bad advice at the beginning of his presidency -- to escalate the war in Vietnam -- and then rejecting good advice later in his administration -- to get out of Vietnam -- and instead again going for the bad advice of escalating the war even more. You want to go with the candidate who makes the best decisions in the most difficult circumstances.

    Discretion really does count when considering the presidency.

    What's significant about the people you cite as experts, Kissinger and such, is these candidates don't need Kissinger's help on strategy. They know what the strategy is. They were born and raised in some version or other of Kissinger's foreign policy strategy. What they're discussing with him is tactics, how to deal with specific flareups, specific regions, specific friends and foes. The strategy is all the same. You decide who to train and arm. You train and arm, you advise, you escalate when necessary.

    Just as I didn't have high expectations for President Obama in domestic politics, I don't have high hopes for Bernie Sanders in foreign policy. I think the best he will be able to do is start a discussion about changing our strategy, just as President Obama has started the discussion about changing domestic policies.

    I imagine a President Sanders in his first few months in office dreading foreign policy briefings like some kind of colonoscopy and dental scaling all at the same time. That said, just like Johnson, if Sanders wants to accomplish any of his domestic policy, he has to get defense spending in line, and to do that, he must come up with a different foreign policy strategy.

    That will not happen overnight.

    He'll need to ride herd on stuff that's already in play and won't be able to make drastic changes because of exigencies on the ground, if you will. The presidency is an executive position, not an office of wizardry. It's certainly not all powerful in areas of foreign policy. It faces not only the checks and balances but also -- and perhaps even more so -- the influences on foreign policy of private citizens and businesses, as well as economic objectives.

    Sanders must change the way the money is spent. And that is never easy, particularly when some of the people now getting some of that money won't be getting it anymore if you change things.

    But he's on the right track. The discussion needs to begin. The last century human beings have largely been acting like cavemen with missiles slung over our shoulders. Our foreign policy forces us to neglect our domestic policies, which in turn forces us to put ecological concerns in the backseat.

    Those things are biting us right now. Our neglected cities are pretty uncomfortable places and global climate change is knocking out electricity and flooding our cities. Bernie will have to speak up on these things.

    He will have to find a new language. He will have to dovetail issues that have been separate. He will have to make people understand the connections between energy policy, between trade policy, between foreign policy, between jobs that are destructive and jobs that are constructive, between a future that is sustainable and a future that entails a lot crickets for dinner. Not an easy task.

    On second thought he just needs to figure out how to make foreign policy a fashion statement. Maybe he should do that: Make some cool, trendy commercial that, in thirty seconds or less, shows people that a world in a state of perpetual low intensity warfare is not a cool place to live, especially when the world itself has taken a few licks lately and seems to be preparing some licks of its own.

    eminijunkie -> John Cutaia

    Let's see.

    A pointless and needles military quagmire in Iraq, a similar one in Afghanistan, two waiting to develop in Syria and Libya and a monstrous recession.

    And then you conclude that the people responsible for these are the best for the job of handling more of the same.

    Should you really be voting in this election with that sort of evaluation of the current situation?

    Alasandra Alawine -> Joel Marcuson

    Apparently Bernie's judgement is pretty good. Look at his voting record. He has made the right choices while Hillary and her experience have consistently made the WRONG choices. She even admits to these "mistakes" but wants us to believe that somehow she will not continue to make them.

    And saying he has "no experience" is incorrect. He has dealt with foreign policy as a Senator.

    benbache -> Alasandra Alawine

    Bernie has voted for every military budget. Bernie voted to cut $9 billion from food stamps in 2014. Bernie supports the F35, a weapon primarily designed to enrich the already rich and secondarily to slaughter innocent people.

    Bernie urged Saudi Arabia to step up attacks on poverty stricken Yemen. Bernie supports Obama's targeted lynching of Muslim Americans. Bernie supports apartheid in Israel and the periodic mass murder of Palestinians, men, women, and children.

    A truly decent person, except of course for the fact that he has murderer more people than Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, and all the rest of the serial murderers in American history. And more than all the mass murderers combined, too.

    We live in a fascist police state because the voting class supports it. Why do blacks live in horrific slums in America and go to schools no decent human would approve? Because of super racist white people like Bernie and the entire rest of the political establishment on both right wings.

    Robin Crawford

    Sadly the experience Hillary touts demonstrates her lack of judgment. One might give her credit as SOS but her decision on Libya again detracts. The nation can't afford another Iraq. This displays that judgment outweighs experience.

    Longleveler

    Sanders' study and involvement with foreign policy issues go back to the early eighties. How do I know this? A 19 June 2015 Guardian article by Paul Lewis:

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/19/bernie-sanders-profile-democrat-presidential-candidate

    J Nagarya Longleveler

    That's why he keeps stumbling on the issue, and by effort of guessing misstating the issues.

    Berkeley2013

    Thank you for the title change. Here's a link to an article that a commenter mentioned:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html

    Berkeley2013

    Thank you for the title change. Here's a link to an article that a commenter mentioned:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html

    MisterMeaner

    "But pretty much everything he said before the war did come to pass."

    In 2002 it was apparent to anyone paying attention that the sudden swerve from the focus on Al Queda and bin Laden in their Afghan caves as the perps behind 9/11 to Sadaam in his Euphrates palaces by Wtf Bush and Darth Cheny and the rest of the Neocon Hitler Youth was all a complete set up and that even without or maybe because of a lack of acces to even a portion of the faulty intel, it was clear to educated and attentive citizens that they were making it all up. Gore Vidal wrote about the need of the neos to find a new perpetual bogeyman to replace the Russkies to keep those defense contracts going to Halliburton and the Carlyle Group and to steal the Iraqi's oil and to let the anti-Baathist House of Saud pull a Goldfinger on their stash of oil while the Iraqi's went up in smoke.

    It was all hogwash on an unparalled scale, and everyone that I knew, including myself, knew it was hogwash, yet still Senator Clinton voted for it and Senator Sanders voted against.

    At that time, Clinton had as much foreign experience as Sanders (well, perhaps minus the whole taking fire at the airport thing) and presumably had access to the same intel as he, yet one exhibited much better and the other much worse judgement.

    And also, back then, Sanders was, as he continues to be now, a genuine FDR New Dealer, a real progressive, and Clinton was, and remains, a neoliberal corporate centrist.

    She has since gone on to a controversial career in which her additional lack of judgement over Servergate and the Libyan debacle is a stark reminder that while judgement and experience are both equally important, Hillary seems to lack much more of the latter than does Bernie the former.

    LostintheUS

    Amen, Trevor.

    Also, the Clinton Foundation has accepted millions of dollars from many of the worst governments on this planet, including Saudi Arabia. What sort of President would a person like that make?

    Catsissie

    I would rather trust Bernie's judgment, and know that, since no president knows everything and needs to depend on advisors to keep him informed, his judgment will lead him to choose intelligent people to fill those positions. That would be more important to me than having one single person assuming she or he knew it all.

    Backbutton

    We need a "fresh start" or at least as "fresh look" at our foreign policy, not the same old approach which has accomplished not only so little, but made us a failure in the eyes of the rest of the world.

    Bernie has no experience in foreign affairs, but also no baggage or vested interests, not like Hillary, whose record is terrible. Middle East, Pivot to Asia, etc.

    We need and want fresh, even if just fresh flesh, anything but the same tired old stuff that Hillary has sold in the past, and continues. Please!

    kropotkinsf

    If a democratic world is the dream, then U.S. foreign policy since World War II is an unbroken string of failures and catastrophes. That's because its ultimate aim -- maintaining America's hegemonic grip on the entire world and hang the cost -- is utterly incompatible with democracy of any kind. That means projecting American military power everywhere (NATO is but one example of that) in order that capital can flourish and the empire can thrive.

    Clinton's experience is born of that mindset. It's hawkish, aggressive, and unabashedly neoliberal. This is the secretary of state, after all, who described the despotic Hosni Mubarak as "practically a member of the family" when Egypt rose to in revolt. Well, he WAS a member of that rotten, rotten family. If that's the kind of "experience" she brings to the table, I'll take a chance on the neophyte Sanders.

    AhBrightWings

    Instead of just questioning Sanders' choice, we should really be questioning why any of the candidates of either party are employing the same old foreign policy advisers – many of whom not only supported the Iraq war but every disastrous military intervention since. These are the same people who now think that yet another regional war will somehow fix the chaos in the Middle East.

    Bingo. Brilliantly said (wish you'd been on the stage with Bernie to coach him on this). What we do not need is more of the same.

    This notion-- that if we keep pulling our leaders from the same MIC war mongering pile we'll somehow mysteriously end up with peace-- has to change. It isn't even magical thinking; it's flat-out suicidal. Bernie is the one candidate who grasps that, and that knowledge drives everything.

    We get what we pay for, and the bill on this monstrously criminal decade-and-a half and counting has yet to be paid. Not even close. It's bankrupting us as we go, but there may well be nothing left and no one left standing to deliver it at the rate we're going.

    macmarco

    Bernie has made a mistake letting Hillary claim that her Iraq War support was a one off mistake. It wasn't one off but part of Hillary's foreign policy ideas, which closely resembles the right wing PNAC principles of preemption and nation building. Jeffery Sachs in his latest blog has listed Hillary's war mongering mistakes in more detail. Even with all this evidence it will be a difficult road for Bernie to call Hillary a war monger in an arena of perpetual war.

    wyocoyote

    And the current POTUS was such an advanced statesman (without a clue) that we are now currently stumbling down the road towards peace in the middle east/Europe/Africa/Asia et al. Like how is that for real? I have been on this planet for 69+ years, and the last POTUS who had even an inkling of what was important in US foreign policy towards other nations was Eisenhower (my apologies to Mr. Carter). The ding-bats like Kissenger hovering around the throne in DC are not to be trusted nor deserve even the slightous attention, because they are tied to the MIIC (military industrial intelligence complex) far too closely, and we citizens pay for that symbiotic relationship in so many ways.

    FriedaWoods -> wyocoyote

    Actually, Eisenhower's use of the CIA to intervene in foreign affairs leaves something to be desired. Eisenhower was a president who valued plausible deniability over accountability. The CIA under Eisenhower was involved in the toppling of governments in Iran, Guatemala, and the Congo -- the result of which was 40 years of a brutal dictatorship, but no one cared because it kept the natural resources (primarily uranium) flowing to the US. Over the long term, these kinds of actions have actually hurt US foreign policy. And, let's not forget that most unfortunate incident with the downing of an American spy plane over the USSR just as Cold War tensions were easing. It could be argued, and has been argued, that single incident prolonged the Cold War. Only a person with a mere passing acquaintance with history would praise Eisenhower's foreign policy.

    nowayy

    We need "experience"? Sure. Cheney for President.

    TuskGeorge

    The crucial difference is that Bernie has a coherent foreign policy while Hillary will continue the mismash of ideas and conflicting polcies. It's not ultimately very important what the policy is, as long as it is somewhat mainstream. It is important that there is a clear policy that can be explained to everyone.

    To understand why this is important, read Superpower by Ian Bremmer.

    az Reggae

    No US president unilaterally makes foreign pollcy decisions so Mr Sanders is still a voice for coherent US policy without the Empire Manifest Destiny strategies of the past that have failed miserably at least 50% of the time. The Middle East of today in chaos is that result of failed policy, fast forwarded, when dictators have gone rogue or weren't paid enough for following said policies. Take a look at Manuel Noreiga! He refused an order then all of a sudden he was a drug dealer suddenly found out, as if he was hiding in plain sight for 2 decades or more!

    Yoda00

    He is not enough of a war monger to please the establishment.

    Sandi Oates

    Long story short. I'm an ex Expat. My father worked for the oil company in Saudi Arabia and I grew up there in a nice little leave it to beaver company town. I have a very different view on the Middle East than what I hear coming out of the mouths of most of our political leaders. They just don't seem to even begin to understand the culture. They don't even seem to try. Bernie's approach to the problems we face in the Middle East are actually much smarter than anything I've seen coming out of our diplomatic experts in 40 years. Maybe its his Jewish background, maybe its just that he's a bunch smarter than the average Joe. The thing I see in Bernie is he gets the culture. He doesn't approach it with a "do what we want you to do or else" attitude.

    For the past 60 years our policy in the Middle East has been entirely about supporting Big Oil. Whatever was best for the oil industry was best for our country has been the mantra. To that end we have propped up dictators, military governments, whoever was in charge that gave us what we wanted. Iran is a prime example. We had a fairly good relationship with Iran. But the people of Iran decided they wanted shed of their sha dictator so they booted him out and elected a new government. The new government was not as willing to sell out the needs of Iran's people to the big oil companies so we used military force to out their new duely elected government and reinstate the sha. Is it any wonder they grew radical in their response to the US? We did this yet we act like somehow Iran attacked us. They didn't. We are the ones that basically attacked their cultural preference and vilified it. Bernie understands the need to build a consensus among the leaders of the Middle East to address the problems, because a top down "do what we say, we have the biggest guns" is never ever going to work. We cannot impose democracy on a population. It has to be their choice. And we cannot impose peace either. We can however do many things that will encourage it.

    I was so proud of President Obama signing the deal with Iran. Prob the single most important thing he's done IMHO. Bernie talks about nurturing the possibilities of more cooperation and dialogue. Hillary and the entire Republican field call for more sanctions. "Lets show them who's boss." "Lets tear up any agreement that doesn't give us 100% control over what other countries do and how they do it." That has been our diplomatic policy for as long as I've been alive and its not working out so good for anyone. Bernie gets it.

    One of the things that most disturbs me about Hillary is she thinks she did this great job as SoS but I look at the policies and wonder when will we ever learn.

    linden33

    Re. Clinton's "foreign policy experience," I seriously doubt the value of such when she likely adopted most of what was advised to her during her tenure as SOS. That doesn't mean that the woman doesn't know more than she did going in, but what does that actually prove about her decision-making judgment?

    Now, almost everyone in the campaign is sounding more knowledgeable because of the "advice" of said advisers. Everyone but Sanders, who has formulated his own opinions mostly by himself over the years, based on (gasp) his own observations. Which is of more value, and which "experience" is based more on integrity?

    Vladimir Makarenko

    There is nothing here to discuss - her days of SS marked by incompetence and disastrous decisions like Libya. Not counting that she exposed country to the every semi literal hacker on the planet. She is arrogant and ignorant, she surrounded herself by morons like Nuland and her ultra neocon husband. At her days as SS she was making decisions on on national foreign policy on advise (!!!) from old buddy with no credentials whatsoever. The only field where she is competent are intrigues behind the scenes working with her "friends".

    AlanJameson

    Well, yes, Bernie has not had the experience of landing under fire in Bosnia. Cynics have expressed doubts about Clinton's claim to have done so, but what reasonable person could possibly doubt it? And he also did not vote for the war on Iraq, one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in the history of the United States. And he didn't threaten Iran with nuclear war. Experience is a very different matter than competence; the world is full of experienced incompetents. Oh, and there is that little matter of the Nuremberg principles... but that's just a scrap of paper, right?


    DRDarkeNY AlanJameson

    @Alan Jameson - didn't a former high-ranking Government Official call those "quaint and outdated"...right before saying A-OK to torture and spying on everybody?

    Who was that guy...? Ah, yes - Inquisitor General Alberto Gonzalez of the War Criminal Bush Regime.


    [Feb 07, 2016] Rachel Maddow Wonders if Hillary Too Far to the Right Truth Revolt

    The truth is that Hillary is a neocon and as such belongs more to the Republican Party then to Democratic Party... The differences between Hillary and Dick Cheney in foreign policy are unsubstancial.
    www.truthrevolt.org
    During Thursday's presidential debate, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow pondered this very notion when asking the candidate questions about her political positions.

    Maddow invoked Bernie Sanders' recent attacks on Clinton for not being "progressive enough" to be the Democrat nominee and asked Clinton if she is "too far to the right of the Democratic Party to be the party's standard bearer."

    Newsbusters provides the clip and transcript:

    RACHEL MADDOW: Secretary Clinton, senator Sanders is campaigning against you now, at this point in the campaign basically arguing that you are not progressive enough to be the Democratic nominee. He's said if you voted for the Iraq War, if in favor of the death penalty, if you wobbled on things like the Keystone Pipeline or TPP, if you said single-payer health care could never happen then you're too far to the right of the Democratic Party to be the party's standard bearer. Given those policy positions, why should liberal Democrats support you and not Senator Sanders?

    HILLARY CLINTON: I am a progressive who gets things done. The root of that word, progressive, is progress. I've heard Senator Sanders comments and it's really caused me to wonder who's left in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Under his definition, President Obama is not progressive because he took donations from wall Street. Vice President Biden is not progressive because she supported keystone. Senator Saheen is not progressive because she supports the trade pact. Even the late, great Senator Paul Wellstone would not fit this definition because he voted for DOMA. You know, we have differences, and, honestly, I think we should be talk about what we want to do for the country, but if we're going to get into labels, I don't think it was particularly progressive to vote against the Brady bill five times. I don't think it was progressive to give gun makers immunity. I don't think it was progressive to vote against Ted Kennedy's immigration reform. So, we can go back and forth like there, but the fact is most people watching tonight want to know what we've done and what we will do. That's why I'm laying out a specific agenda that will make more progress, get more jobs with rising income, get us to universal health care coverage, get us to universal pre-k, paid family leave, and the other elements of what I think that will build a strong economy and ensure Americans will keep making progress. That's what I'm offering and that's what I will do as president.

    [Feb 07, 2016] Rachel Maddow just Defined the Hillary Clinton Intent

    The intent is a classic "bait and switch". Everything the Hillary promises during election company will be forgotten the minute she enters White house.
    www.datalounge.com
    "The Clinton campaign is operating on two levels. The Clintons will make arguments on the surface that make sense and seem reasonable. Then the Clintons will operate on a strategic level that does not coincide with what they are saying. That's when you will hear Hillary say, we are all about unification, we will do everything to unify the party....oh, by the way, do you remember that creepy pastor? It just goes to show the huge difference in what the Clintons say and their real strategy".

    VERY interesting. And, I would say accurate.

    [Feb 06, 2016] Clinton and Sanders Clash Over Competing Visions for the Democratic Party

    nymag.com

    Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have been debating an idea for weeks before Sanders finally put into words what separates them. "You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive," he wrote. The first half hour of their New Hampshire debate put a fine point on this divide. Sanders wants to define progressivism as a party-wide Democratic ideology, and Clinton is fiercely resisting.

    As a simple political tactic, Sanders's case is strange. Only 41 percent of Democrats self-identify as liberal; 56 percent call themselves moderate or conservative. But 50 years ago, conservatives constituted a minority within the Republican Party, until the Goldwater movement set out to conquer it. Today, conservatism is synonymous with Republicanism; no Republican candidate would eschew the label. When Sanders confessed, "Let me be frank. I do want to see major changes in the Democratic Party," he was telling the audience that he envisioned a deep and thorough overhaul of the party - which should not come as a surprise, since he is not even a member of it.

    Clinton began the debate by frontally engaging Sanders's case against moderation. Sanders has defined Clinton's acceptance of Wall Street donations as inconsistent with her being a progressive. Clinton noted in response that President Obama has also accepted Wall Street donations, so Sanders's definition would exclude him as well. She framed this response as a trap, but rather than fully ensnare Sanders upon a contradiction, it proceeded instead to reveal the profound ideological gulf between them.

    Clinton argued that, despite having received millions from Wall Street, Obama had passed the Dodd-Frank financial reforms. In Clinton's telling, which is also the account of most liberal economists, Dodd-Frank is the basis for effective financial reform. It has deeply reduced systemic risk, reducing financial leverage, bringing trades out of the shadows and eliminating the incentive for banks to grow too big to fail.

    Sanders did not so much dispute the efficacy of Dodd-Frank as to broaden the question. His fixation with Wall Street is not systemic risk - i.e., the chance that another crash will trigger an economic meltdown. He frames Wall Street as a problem of political economy, not economy. Wall Street is so big and rich that it is inherently dangerous, and will by its nature corrupt the political system.

    Clinton does not believe that. Her political ideal is what some political scientists have called "pluralism." A pluralist politics venerates the careful balancing of competing interests. It is okay to bring business to the bargaining table as long as there is also a place for labor, environmentalists, consumer advocates, and other countervailing interests. Clinton's Democratic Party, and Obama's, is one in which pluralist agreements struck important progress not only in financial reform but also health care, public investment, green energy, and other priorities.

    Sanders does not completely reject the products of these pluralist compromises. (He grudgingly accepts them as worthwhile, piecemeal steps.) What he rejects is the political model that treats pluralism as the normal model of political action. Sanders believes the interest of the public is not divided, it is united, and only the corrupt influence of big business has thwarted it. He consequently vows to smash its power through a combination of a mass upsurge in political activism and campaign-finance reform.

    That was the vision Clinton challenged tonight. She declared, pointedly, "I'm not making promises I cannot keep." And her campaign blasted out emails attacking "Bernie's Unachievable Revolution." She tied her beliefs to those of the Obama administration, whose method of incremental progress and negotiation with business she embraced.

    For all their personal congeniality and determination not to personalize the debate, the divide that opened between the two is a seminal moment in modern Democratic politics. A Democratic Party as monolithically statist as the modern Republican Party is anti-government - one in which any defense of free markets or business is dismissed - would look very different than anything within American historical experience. After decades of this being taken for granted, it has finally become necessary to defend moderation as a governing creed.

    [Feb 06, 2016] Speeches That Earned Clinton Millions Remain a Mystery

    Notable quotes:
    "... What she said - or didnt say - to Wall Street banks in particular has become a significant problem for her presidential campaign, as she tries to counter the unexpected rise of Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. Hes put her in awkward position of squaring her financial windfall with a frustrated electorate. ..."
    ABC News
    Hillary Clinton told voters in the latest Democratic debate there's "hardly anything you don't know about me."

    Just minutes later, she got tangled in a question about a part of her resume that is an enduring mystery.

    In the 18 months before launching her second presidential bid, Clinton gave nearly 100 paid speeches at banks, trade associations, charitable groups and private corporations. The appearances netted her $21.7 million - and voters very little information about what she was telling top corporations as she prepared for her 2016 campaign.

    What she said - or didn't say - to Wall Street banks in particular has become a significant problem for her presidential campaign, as she tries to counter the unexpected rise of Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. He's put her in awkward position of squaring her financial windfall with a frustrated electorate.

    Asked in the debate - and not for the first time - about releasing transcripts of those speeches, she said: "I will look into it. I don't know the status, but I will certainly look into it." She added, "My view on this is, look at my record."

    Clinton addressed a broad swath of industries, speaking to supermarket companies in Colorado, clinical pathologists in Illinois and travel agents in California, to name several. Many of the companies and trade organizations that she addressed are lobbying Congress over a variety of interests.

    She typically delivered an address, then answered questions from a pre-vetted interviewer. Her standard fee was $225,000, though occasionally it could range up to $400,000.

    "That's what they offered," said Clinton, when asked this week whether her fees were too high.

    [Feb 05, 2016] Bernie Sanders: Iowa sent profound message to the establishment

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary in this election is going in the same direction as the 2008 election -- her popularity is dropping at a consistent rate ..."
    "... Why? Because Hillary loses voters every time she opens her mouth. Her popularity is based solely on name recognition and people can see right through her corporate backing, hollow sentiments and false personality, this is why the debates were rigged to be limited to the lowest possible number and shown on days and times least likely to be watched.... but now they've been forced to double the number of debates which wrecks Hillary as it did in the 2008 election.. ..."
    "... On the other side of the map, the republicans are now too polarized. The establishment don't want Cruz or Trump and yet they won 1st and 2nd place respectively., nor can either candidate gain independent or liberal votes, nor can Rubio gain many votes from the teaparty who are desperately behind Cruz (and Trump as a fall back). ..."
    www.youtube.com


    His Majesty 3 days ago

    Bernie is the the biggest fear to both the Republican and Democratic establishment! He's the next FDR!

    Thurston Lambert 3 days ago

    Why are people voting for such a blatantly corrupt politician? She's been paid off by Goldman Sachs she doesn't work for the people she works for the banks and Wall Street. Fuck the democratic establishment and the GOP.

    J Velez 3 days ago

    Majority of bernie supporters are young. We need to get off our asses including myself and help promote this man and encourage our friends and family to vote for this man


    Nikki Nickerson 3 days ago

    Congratulations Senator Sanders! You are a class act! You have done a lot for us vets. I am not impressed at all with Trump raising money for vets he did it to get possible votes and that is the only reason he did it. Real Americans see right trough Donald Trump and his real motives which is to continue to support billionaires if elected!

    Dan Harris 3 days ago

    I made my 5th donation to Bernie today. That is 5 more then all the rest of my lifetime political donations combined.

    Things are so bad that it is my belief that Bernie is our last chance to save our government and our country before the door for action is closed, perhaps permanently. It is my belief that we fight now with Bernie or we sink into a corporate totalitarian state with no hope for change in our lifetime short of massive bloodshed.

    They will not let another Bernie get this close. Once the door is closed you are going to get an intimate knowledge of the beliefs of George Orwell. They will own you. Know everything you do...who you talk to, what you buy, where you work, your hobbies, your sexual preferences, everything you ever did...they own the media and are totally manipulating the stock market in a farce of free market capitalism, and they are willing to destroy the planet to make some money. You are nothing but a mule to get used, till your used up and then discarded. Rise up people, or snivel on your knees. Your choice. I would rather die on my feet with pride and dignity then lick the corporate boot. Turn off the TV and take some fucking responsibility for your life and make a stand. Bernie2016

    Jack Soxman 3 days ago

    I see that over 180,000 turned out to vote for a GOP candidate in Iowa.
    What is with the Democrats? Hiding the number of voters.
    And some DUMB coin toss that Hillary won 6 in a row? We pick a President based on a coin toss?

    "Go stand over there if you are for x and over there for Y and over there for Jagbag" Like some system out of the cave age.

    Exposed_TitanZ 3 days ago

    I'm calling it now. Bernie will be president.
    This is why..

    Hillary in this election is going in the same direction as the 2008 election -- her popularity is dropping at a consistent rate and it'll hit rock bottom by the end of the caucus', leaving her with less delegates and Bernie with the nomination.

    Why? Because Hillary loses voters every time she opens her mouth. Her popularity is based solely on name recognition and people can see right through her corporate backing, hollow sentiments and false personality, this is why the debates were rigged to be limited to the lowest possible number and shown on days and times least likely to be watched.... but now they've been forced to double the number of debates which wrecks Hillary as it did in the 2008 election..

    On top of that, Bernies' next win (New Hampshire) obligates media attention and puts him ahead with the delegates (whether the media likes it or not), giving Bernie an extra advantage that he didn't have in Iowa...and yet he still got 50% of the votes even then..

    On the other side of the map, the republicans are now too polarized. The establishment don't want Cruz or Trump and yet they won 1st and 2nd place respectively., nor can either candidate gain independent or liberal votes, nor can Rubio gain many votes from the teaparty who are desperately behind Cruz (and Trump as a fall back).

    There are no consistently supportable candidates for both splinters of the Republican party available to them.

    On a national level, The party demographics put liberals ahead with the electoral college, especially with many previous swing states now shifting into blue and the majority of power states being blue as well.

    The only way for the republicans to win is to nominate a non-polarizing candidate that all of the republicans and some of the democrats and independents can get behind.. they don't have one.

    So I'm calling it. Bernie Sanders will win this election.

    MRostendway 3 days ago

    I have to correct Bernie I one thing; It wasn't just millions of people in the country.. I'm from the Netherlands and even here we FEEL THE BERN

    Raphael Franks 3 days ago

    It seems that Fox has been giving Bernie Sanders more positive airtime than any other 'liberal' media outlet. But I guess that's just because they don't want Hillary.

    Marge Simpson 3 days ago

    This result shows the mainstream media you are not effective anymore, this is a victory for alternative media, Bernie was given 10 minutes of airtime on mainstream media Donald Trump was given 4 hours, MAINSTREAM MEDIA JUST GOT BERNED.

    [Feb 05, 2016] Susan Sarandon Introduces Bernie Sanders At Music Man Square Rally In Mason City Iowa

    This probably the most truthful and at the same emotional tibute to Sanders standing against Iraq war. Amazing Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHOdeum9juQ
    www.youtube.com

    Ricky Coleman 1 week ago

    Dear Susan Sarandon, Thank you for standing up with us, THE MAJORITY of Americans. thank you for being on the RIGHT side of history once again. LOVE to you. thank you thank you thank you...

    Imzadi O'Hara 1 week ago

    The reason Bernie will win is what you see in Susan, holding back tears. No American political figure since maybe FDR, was able to invoke tears, joy, hope, allegiance, and trust as Bernie can.


    HILLARY for PRISON in 2016! 4 days ago

    +Angela Durian I wouldn't vote for any politicians besides third party. the dems and reps are the same, you're just too ignorant to see it :(

    mrslittlefish 1 week ago

    Amazing. A wonderful speech full of hope. It will be a great loss if Sanders is not the next US president.

    SE45CX 3 days ago (edited)

    +mrslittlefish I am from the Netherlands and I know about americans skepticism for socialist candidates. I will ensure you that for middle class american citizens he is the only one to vote for to pursue the creation of DECENT JOBS! As your 1% is only aiming to have stuff produced in asian or other low wage countries. And spending their wealth in tax utopias.

    So even if your priorities are completely selfish or nationalistic, a vote for Bernie Sanders is still your best choice to improve the american economy and in turn get a decent living for yourself. Rather than continue being enslaved by the 1%.

    Also, the money parties receive from big corporations come in no doubt with secret agreements to have government people making decisions in favor of their greed. This is plain manipulation and injustice. And in some cases this is also aimed to keep the middle class out of the share of their revenues.

    Hillary is sponsored by Super PACs. Who knows what hidden agenda she has then to prevent her from DOING THE RIGHT THING, THE FAIR THING.

    Vote for Bernie! FIGHT THE MACHINE, WITH THE MACHINE OF THE PEOPLES!

    ejay11000 6 days ago

    After watching all the debates and speeches....only 2 candidates resonate with me...Bernie & Trump
    They speak their mind and arent controlled by the establishment

    If Bernie doesnt get the nominee Im 100% voting for Trump
    If Bernie does get the nominee I will be more undecided ..but I may be leaning a little towards Bernie

    Susanne Maddox 1 day ago

    Bernie Sanders is the last great hope to revive democracy in this country and attempt to end the hold of the top one percent of Republican billionaires who have destroyed the middle class of America. Hillary Clinton is a conservative who takes money from the billionaire class. For real change, elect Bernie Sanders.

    Anybody but Hillary LOL....

    Everton Cunningham 6 days ago

    what a courageous woman. so intelligent. so full of passion. I love her

    EV docmaker 5 days ago (edited)

    Great until he talks about foreign policy his stance against more wars is good but he does not know or understand fact one about West Asia. He still does not get that the USA's "friends" are in fact the real enemies and the perceived "enemies" are the real friends. The only ones fighting a real fight against ISIS are the ones demonised by the West and attacked by US allies with US and UK backing. He does not get this.

    [Feb 05, 2016] The Truth About Ted Cruz

    Notable quotes:
    "... I know the Constitution is up for constant debate, but the way I've understood it since I learned he's from my home town of Calgary, Cruz isn't eligible to be president. ..."
    "... Also he's voted to equip neo-nazis in Ukraine with weapons and didn't bother to vote for the latest Audit the Fed bill. ..."
    "... Cruz is the sleaziest politician I've ever seen and that's saying something. ..."
    "... Ted Cruz was a domestic policy adviser to George W. Bush . Me: NO THANKS ..."
    "... Tex Crude is the only politician I have ever heard of who is so void of moral integrity -- so unscrupulously ambitious -- that he actually assumes opposite positions of the same issue; simultaneously ..."
    "... Ted is for Ice-cream. -- Unless of course their serving cake next door -- in which case he's for cake. -- And and ice-cream. I'm pretty sure that he is in fact an inverter-brat. ..."
    "... Your part on Heidi Cruz put me over the top. She is clearly an insider working for the worst beast of them all, Goldman Sachs. ..."
    "... He's in bed with Goldman Sachs isn't he. One of the big money groups killing us now. ..."
    "... Ted Cruz is one of these politicians who says something that just about everyone would like -- despite the obvious cognitive dissonance. He just hopes the voters only hear about, or remember, the things they agree with on election day. Barack Obama did alot of that in 07 and 08. This doesn't bode well for a grassroots, anti-establishment candidate funded by Goldman Sachs and married to the CFR! And weaned in the neoconservative Bush administration ..."
    "... People don't seem to understand that he could be facing criminal prosecution for the undisclosed loan issue - it's a huge huge deal. Those who want Hillary to be held accountable but white wash Cruz's situation are just showing their bias. ..."
    "... Ted Cruz is a creepy looking dude. I can't judge him as a person only that if he actually believes in Christianity he should not be anywhere near the reigns of power.. Not that it really matters/ We are already the world's worst human rights offenders and supporters of terrorism and proxy wars./ ..."
    "... Ted Cruz basically said recently Israel first America last ..."
    "... The summation of this video is that Ted Cruz is another unprincipled politician like any other and will continue with the status quo. Ted Cruz would lose in the general election if nominated because of his questionable status as a natural born citizen ..."
    "... Furthermore Ted Cruz lied about his financials, has ties to the CFR (globalists) and the big banks (city group, Goldman Sachs) ..."
    "... Ted Cruz wife is a member of the CFR hello!!!!!! ..."
    "... He seems to plagiarize all of his policy positions based on what others are saying, the audience he is speaking to, and the whims of current public opinion. ..."
    "... Ted Cruz don't represent the people of America, Cruz represent Farris Wilks, Dan Wilks, Robert Mercer, Toby Neugebauer and the Koch brothers who all together have donated over 40 million dollars to Ted Cruz's campaign, so when the say jump, Cruz says how high? These are rich people that we need to stop running our country. Ted Cruz is full of BS. THAT IS SOME TRUTH AND FACTS. ..."
    "... The upper 1% have been buying elections and government for decades. This is nothing new, and will never stop. The difference between Cruz and Trump, is that Cruz will take money from the ultra 1% but Trump already is one. Sanders and Rubio are the bums of this election year. ..."
    "... We don't care how charismatic a politician is in his speech or debates! We care about his track record. What has he accomplished? What kind of deals has he put together? ..."
    www.youtube.com

    Pitt the Elder 1 week ago (edited)

    I was always baffled in 2012 when so many libertarians were supporting Cruz, even though they knew he was born in Canada. I know the Constitution is up for constant debate, but the way I've understood it since I learned he's from my home town of Calgary, Cruz isn't eligible to be president.

    Also he's voted to equip neo-nazis in Ukraine with weapons and didn't bother to vote for the latest Audit the Fed bill.

    blunty gagnon 1 week ago

    I haven't watched this video yet but i'm very excited about it! Sidenote - Cruz is not eligible - just ask Ann Coulter.

    InsaneEnergy 16 hours ago

    Cruz really is a back-stabbing two-faced wankstain. And he always will be.

    Louisiana red 1 week ago (edited)

    I just love how all the Cruz bots can only do 2 things
    1) Defend Cruz's citizenship status.
    2) Attack Trump
    Still haven't heard why his policies are so great.

    Michael M. DeMarco 1 week ago

    +Tim Palentey Cruz's early anti-amnesty stuff was a simple word game around removing the word "citizenship." Proposed giving illegals everything but citizenship - including full legalization - but danced around it based on semantics.

    kirk523 1 week ago

    Surprise, surprise: Ted Cruz is yet another unprincipled, malleable politician. This is what makes the emergence of Donald Trump such a special event.

    Ace Ventura 6 days ago (edited)

    I'm a Ted Cruz supporter. Other than the sly pass at the birther stuff in the beginning, I think this video is a honest attempt at Ted Cruz's record. It is tough to understand Ted Cruz's point of view on the Gang of Eight Bill. But at the end of the day he did vote against the Gang of Eight bill. No candidate is perfect.

    Now what I do have a problem is with people who are using flip flopping as their measuring stick on the candidates, but stop when it comes to Trump. If flip flopping is what prevents you from voting for other candidates, than you better stay consistent with that, and stay far away from Trump. No more double standards. Figure out what you want out of a candidate, and stick to it.. Otherwise don't vote, because you are severally lacking critical thinking skills.

    gjy112578 1 week ago

    I agree...he's not likely to beat Trump. But I think questioning his citizenship is a step too far. Would a child born on a military base in Germany, to two American military service people, not be eligible by your standards to run for president? I think we know the answer to that question, and I think the same logic applies to Cruz. His mother is American, so is he. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll let me know.

    Tom Seward 3 days ago

    Hey all you Cruz supporters. Cruz pretends to be all about the constitution and states rights. Well explain to me he was one of the Monsanto 71. He was one of the 71 bought and paid for Senators who voted against giving the States the right to require food companies to label when they use GMO's. Thanks Ted

    Ceejay Davis 1 week ago

    Bendy spine. Shifting positions. Has trouble telling the truth about Goldman Sachs, his wife's firm, that gave him a big loan, saying the oversight mentioning it was a "paperwork error". No. He's dishonest. (Forget that his wife was a CFR member, that he reputedly holds weird "Christian Dominionist" views, or that he has tried to make a distinction between killing and murder in the Ten Commandments [somebody found a loophole!]).

    shadow72728 2 days ago

    If Cruz becomes president it will be business as usual. Remember what Cruz said at the Iowa caucus. " Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. This is a sign of our economic doom. He is an establishment politician. Don't be fooled. With Hillary , Cruz or Rubio in office Goldman Sachs will pull the strings. SO GET READY TO HAND IT ALL OVER TO CAESAR. YOUR ASS WILL BE TAXED TO THE HILT. Caesar needs all the money you have to pay for his reckless spending and corruption.

    We are in serious trouble. We will also be flooded with illegal aliens like never before. If this is what we get bend over and kiss your ass goodbye. If you want to save the country VOTE FOR TRUMP. We need a Washington outsider. No more Lawyers in the White House. They have done enough damage.

    Buddy Blank 21 hours ago

    Cruz is the sleaziest politician I've ever seen and that's saying something.

    snowcloud06 2 days ago

    This character Ted Cruz is a republican version of Obama. People all his life telling him how wonderful he is. It gets to them in disturbing ways. We do not need another Obama.

    American Uncensored News Network 1 hour ago

    You do impressive research, learned several things just skimming it. Thanks

    j.denino57 1 day ago

    https://youtu.be/6mKDzPHiWIo

    His own daughter who he disciplines by spanking has an aversion to him.

    John John 1 day ago

    DO YOU BELIEVE TED CRUZ'S ALLIANCE IS WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? Please take a minute and watch these short vids. At least the first one.

    Sen Ted Cruz Booed Off Stage for pro-Israel stance

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iiVD8_L-RQ

    Ted Cruz end goal: World Domination - his own words - He knows he cant do it alone so hes on the Z-TEAM now.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pHPovQ2qsM

    Israel for CRUZ!!!Just another Zionist funded by the Jews.

    Ann Pickens 5 days ago

    The U.S whole system is corrupt and it's people are brain washed .Hillary should never be considered for president she should be in jail. Cruz is not a natural born citizen. This video shows several things that Cruz has done that would eliminate him like hiding some of his financial statements and he claims oh my bad I forgot a few papers WTF is that? We wonder why this country is corrupt , failing and hated by other countries.

    Disgusting . To think that Cruz supporters watch this video but yet will vote for this clown why because it doesn't hurt them or pertain to them that is the problem with this country if it doesn't effect you why should I care ? The thing is if our economy does not change trust this it will eventually effect everyone .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__2TotwPPEc

    na pe 4 days ago

    You know, hand to hand combat would in some ways be more entertaining and productive than all the time we waste on debates. Putin is a blackbelt, and look how well Russia is doing! I guess I would rather see candidates fight to the death than go through these tedious and boring debates where we already know most of the candidates are going to stab us in the back anyway. Our republic is a sham anyway, so let's have some fun out of it! Like Jesse Ventura said, politics are like pro wrestling. So let's kick it up a few notches and bring back gladiatorial death pits! Don't worry, we'll give the socialists a handicap... and free health care... that is, IF they survive :)

    Vic Tach 2 days ago

    Ted Cruz was a "domestic policy adviser to George W. Bush". Me: "NO THANKS"

    Julian Terris 2 days ago (edited)

    Tex Crude is the only politician I have ever heard of who is so void of moral integrity -- so unscrupulously ambitious -- that he actually assumes opposite positions of the same issue; simultaneously?!! (Un-be-fucking-lieve-able!?)

    Ted is for Ice-cream. -- Unless of course their serving cake next door -- in which case he's for cake. -- And and ice-cream. I'm pretty sure that he is in fact an inverter-brat.

    seaplaneguy 6 days ago

    Your part on Heidi Cruz put me over the top. She is clearly an insider working for the worst beast of them all, Goldman Sachs. Cruz is not eligible on many grounds, not to mention being an anchor baby in Canada. My question is who is backing him higher up? Also the calculator case shows serious flaws in thinking by Cruz. Lawyers are clueless.

    My view is no attorney should NOT be president. It is a conflict of interest as an attorney swears to the BAR and is a member of the Judiciary by virtue of licenses. It violates the balance of power principal. They can advise, but not make law. All attorneys should be tossed out of Congress.... Law school brainwashes people into being unable to know what law is.

    The Roman empire ran on 12 tablets of law. USA runs on over 60 million "laws" that are absurd, all based on the commerce clause. They confuse "regulation" with specification, which is not allowed. I would say 95% of the laws, including Obamacare, are not valid.

    TheTMan2020 1 week ago (edited)

    Wow! Ted Cruz is not even eligible to run for US Prez, not being a Natural Born Citizen and he could also be indited for non-disclosure of two loans used for his campaign. His wife, actually working at one of the banks that gave him a loan for his campaign. The Democrats will file a law suit within 24 hours of his winning the nomination. I bet the establishment Republicans would do the same... What a can of worms we have here!

    Bryan St.Martin 1 week ago

    He's in bed with Goldman Sachs isn't he. One of the big money groups killing us now.

    Jt Williams 1 week ago

    Ted Cruz is one of these politicians who says something that just about everyone would like -- despite the obvious cognitive dissonance. He just hopes the voters only hear about, or remember, the things they agree with on election day. Barack Obama did alot of that in 07 and 08. This doesn't bode well for a grassroots, anti-establishment candidate funded by Goldman Sachs and married to the CFR! And weaned in the neoconservative Bush administration

    Ceejay Davis 1 week ago

    Bendy spine. Shifting positions. Has trouble telling the truth about Goldman Sachs, his wife's firm, that gave him a big loan, saying the oversight mentioning it was a "paperwork error". No. He's dishonest. (Forget that his wife was a CFR member, that he reputedly holds weird "Christian Dominionist" views, or that he has tried to make a distinction between killing and murder in the Ten Commandments [somebody found a loophole!]).

    Michael M. DeMarco 1 week ago

    +Ceejay Davis

    People don't seem to understand that he could be facing criminal prosecution for the undisclosed loan issue - it's a huge huge deal. Those who want Hillary to be held accountable but white wash Cruz's situation are just showing their bias.

    winston smith 1 day ago

    Ted Cruz is a creepy looking dude. I can't judge him as a person only that if he actually believes in Christianity he should not be anywhere near the reigns of power.. Not that it really matters/ We are already the world's worst human rights offenders and supporters of terrorism and proxy wars./


    Igos Mosig 6 days ago

    Ted Cruz is a good man and a conservative but Trump is much better. Why? Only the vastly experienced and hugely successful business man called Donald Trump is most likely to deliver and make America Great Again. Trump is a very high energy person who is a strong character, work extremely hard and is a very smart deal maker. Ted is an uncompromising conservative who is smart and very good at talking or debating and like the vast majority of politicians are good at talking but no successful action. He Ted Cruz tend to be divisive and cannot bring people together. Ted Cruz is Not a good deal maker and cannot Make America Great Again! American people must take note of this fact and observation!

    KatherinVII 1 week ago

    Why does no one mention Cruz' Masonic Connection? He's running as this holier than thou Christian, he's a Mason. Now, really, don't you think some one should tell the Christians? Not all Christians are ok with some people being Masons but calling themselves Christians, too. Give the people all the information, not some of it. Christians have a right to know.

    Heather Edwards 6 days ago

    This is fantastic.....I knew he couldn't be trusted!!! As odd as this sounds, I can't trust his eyes, they are shifty and I've also noticed how evasive he is when it comes to certain political stances he's taken, talked about, and said that he is and was going to be tough on. He speaks with a forked tongue like the slithering snake that he is. So here's my opinion, the political establishment are counting on him running for president for several reasons. They can control him if he does actually become president, which means we would be completely screwed!!!!

    The simple truth of the matter of him being born in Canada, if he wins the presidential nomination and the presidency thereafter, the Democratic party can pull the rug out from under him and claim the presidency through that alone, either way they are winning!!! I ran across an article where he stated that he had no idea that he was a citizen of Canada and had to renounce his citizenship.

    First off, he knew he was born in Canada, how can he stand there and claim that he was not aware of having dual citizenship? That brings something else into the spotlight, the fact he had to renounce his citizenship. I may not be right about this, but my family knows someone that had dual citizenship with Canada and he stated years ago that voting here in the United States automatically rendered his citizenship to Canada null and void. So that makes me wonder if he's ever voted at all in this country, simply because he claimed that he had to renounce his Canadian citizenship that he didn't realize he had in the first place, if that makes any sense to anyone at all....lol.

    If that is the case and the laws haven't changed pertaining to dual citizenship, then he's never had the goodwill of the American people in his heart and mind, only the desire to be powerful in our government. Another thing that has me uneasy, is his main investor's......if they are dirty and underhanded, then he's dirty and underhanded and him voting on the T.P.A. proves that!!! Thank you for the extremely informative video, now it's time for me to attempt to wake up some people quickly!!!

    interplanetarydream 1 week ago (edited)

    Ted Cruz is just another shill for the Republican/Democrat establishment and this video highlights this with factual evidence. He is the typical professional politician with selective memory and one of the darlings of the super pacs. You want to talk about flip flops, this is the guy. Anyone who doesn't see the disaster that Cruz would be as President is obviously not paying attention.Trump 2016.

    Walter Strong 1 week ago

    Cruz is about as Machiavellian as they come and his resemblance to a snake in the grass is remarkable. If he is the Republican nominee (unlikely at this point) I'll just sit out this election.

    Gretchen Marszalk 1 week ago

    This was excellent! I see some complaining here about proof. To those I say, just search youtube. Look up the stuff on his wife on CFR website - the question is, if they are so close how can they have two completely opposite goals? She wants EU type North America with wide open borders and he wants strong borders. Those loans were in the paper and he admitted to them in the debate. How does this figure - he's such a smart guy and forgot he was a Canadian citizen until someone reminded him 15 months ago. And had the Tea Party known about those Goldman and Citibank loans, he never would have been elected to the Senate (his platform was against Wall Street and the race was very close) Check out how smooth he is in this interview, referred to in Stephan's video. So positive as a great constitutional lawyer and then changed to Trump's anti-anchor baby stance when he found out the topic was popular. youtube.com/watch?v=4zBW8vLnRDY

    KamikazKid 1 week ago

    The "tea party" much like Lucy has some splaining to do. wags finger The "party of small government" only shaves 40 billion off a Trillion dollar budget? Get the fuck out of town, every "tea party republican" deserves to be thrown out on their ass, Taxed Enough Already my ass you cut 40 billion on a Trillion dollar budget & have the gumption to come to me & call it a win I'll fucking tell you to shove your shit up your ass.

    BaltimoreHourly 1 week ago

    So the IRS is picking on Robert Mercer, a man who is very rich. The IRS picks on many many more people than him and almost all of them are not nearly as wealthy as he is. Mercer is paying for the Ted Cruz campaign. Cruz comes from a conservative economic background that favors little to no government intervention in the economy, a background that produces many anti-IRS type people. If Cruz became President he could easily just pardon Mercer without getting rid of the IRS in order to pay his friend back. So with all that said I do not see how the desire of getting rid of the IRS is some sort of payback to a friend. Getting rid of the IRS is a positive development that will save American's millions of dollars and alleviate the stress that so many Americans feel because of IRS backed campaigns against individuals. If one is suspicious of Ted Cruz's Anti-IRS motivation then one should also wonder about why Donald Trump wants to keep the IRS around...

    The American Dodo 1 week ago

    The only good thing about Cruz is that he looks strong (which is, really, only external... He's that tall, big tree that's hollow and weak...) Other than that, he's not presidential material... He is virtually owned by special interests (see all that money he owes to lobbyists and Golden Sachs?...), is a Christian radical nutcase (just as bad as the Islamist trash, that are radical...) and is far lesser than Trump. I hope Trump continues to smash him, as well as the rest of the GOP's worthless candidates, to pieces. Then? Smash Hillary, or Bernie Sanders. Both are already dead, if they go against Trump.

    Dreamylyn Moore 1 week ago

    immigration is a human rights issue and is a right of any individual to change nationality. May Want To Read The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Fines imply a person is doing something illegal. a set reasonable Fee For Paper Work should be Sufficient. Ted Cruz is a hypocrite he's lived in other countries and our President was supposed to be from the USA, now we know that Washington DC is a corporation we know they do not represent the people. So how would any of there policies pertain to us. and we need to just file charges on them for crimes against the people. We Need a Prim Minister to Represent the People in the republic of the united states. This would put the Law Back in Our Hands. and that would be our buffer between rouge governments and put us back at the helm

    Finn 1 week ago

    Cruz the Snake!

    Omar Haro 1 week ago

    WITH CRUZ,
    YOU LOSE

    esther19741974 2 hours ago

    Ted Cruz basically said recently Israel first America last

    This is a QUOTE from Ted Cruz "IF YOU WILL NOT STAND WITH ISRAEL AND THE JEWS THEN I WILL NOT STAND WITH YOU!!! Watch @ 3:00 here--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSmOAWJc5ME

    tristanweber 1 week ago

    The summation of this video is that Ted Cruz is another unprincipled politician like any other and will continue with the status quo. Ted Cruz would lose in the general election if nominated because of his questionable status as a natural born citizen, a leftist Supreme Court would vote in its own favor. Do we as conservatives want one of two communist to win the presidency like most of the controversial legislation that has been passed unconstitutionally in recent years..

    Furthermore Ted Cruz lied about his financials, has ties to the CFR (globalists) and the big banks (city group, Goldman Sachs).

    Finally he broke the law, can Cruz given today's media and court system get away with this like other politicians (Obama, Hilary) have and continue to do. Or faced with a choice will the establishment use these issues to keep a leftist in the White House.

    Ted Cruz wife is a member of the CFR hello!!!!!!

    Jt Williams 1 week ago

    all the pundits always talk about how smart Ted Cruz is -- I don't buy it. He seems to plagiarize all of his policy positions based on what others are saying, the audience he is speaking to, and the whims of current public opinion.

    Kenneth Coleman 1 week ago

    Ted Cruz don't represent the people of America, Cruz represent Farris Wilks, Dan Wilks, Robert Mercer, Toby Neugebauer and the Koch brothers who all together have donated over 40 million dollars to Ted Cruz's campaign, so when the say jump, Cruz says how high? These are rich people that we need to stop running our country. Ted Cruz is full of BS. THAT IS SOME TRUTH AND FACTS.

    jcbarnhart77 1 day ago

    The upper 1% have been buying elections and government for decades. This is nothing new, and will never stop. The difference between Cruz and Trump, is that Cruz will take money from the ultra 1% but Trump already is one. Sanders and Rubio are the bums of this election year.

    Mimi Chris Mak 3 days ago

    We don't care how charismatic a "politician" is in his speech or debates! We care about his track record. What has he accomplished? What kind of deals has he put together?

    How much has he sold in his business? Empty talk WIL NOT & CANNOT fix our country!!! Show us your past record of success. Prove us that you CAN do something, We cannot afford to put another idiot in the White House!!!!

    [Feb 05, 2016] Hillary Clinton Is AMAZING At Coin Flips

    See also Sanders' Supporters 'Boo' Hillary Clinton - "She's A Liar" - The Kelly File
    Notable quotes:
    "... Well Hillary DOES represent the top 1.5% ..."
    www.youtube.com

    Bestoftherest222 1 hour ago

    Of course the coin toss was for the win. Their wouldn't even be a coin toss to consider if the game wasn't on the line. Being 6/6 is bullshit and you all know it.

    Z Noren 8 hours ago

    Well Hillary DOES represent the top 1.5%

    [Feb 05, 2016] The Establishment Wins With Rubio

    The American Conservative

    Politics is more about organization than raw enthusiasm. Donald Trump was beaten last night by Ted Cruz's organization in Iowa-and more significantly, they will both be beaten by Marco Rubio's organization nationally. That's because Rubio's organization is not only his campaign but the Republican establishment and conservative movement as well. He can even count on the organized power of the mainstream media aiding him, for while the old media may dislike Republicans in general, they particularly loathe right-wing populist Republicans like Cruz and Trump.

    A divided right is the classic set-up for an establishment Republican's nomination. Cruz and Trump draw upon the same base of voters. Rubio, it's true, has establishment rivals to finish off in New Hampshire-Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich. But Rubio has been within a few points of Bush and Kasich in recent New Hampshire polls, and after Iowa it's not hard to imagine him gaining three or four points, probably more, over the next week. Cruz, who hasn't been far ahead of the moderates in the Granite State, might also gain a few points, but those will most likely come at the expense of Trump, who to be sure has plenty of margin to spare. Although it's possible that Trump and Cruz will finish first and second in New Hampshire by splitting a big right-wing turnout, Rubio seems to have a good shot at placing second by swiftly becoming the establishment's unity candidate.

    Jeb Bush may hate his fellow Floridian, but Bush has a family-a political dynasty-to think about. The whole family's political fortunes depend on Republicans, and establishment Republicans at that, winning again. Does Jeb want to be the Bush who turned his party over to Trump or Cruz (hardly beloved by his fellow Texan George W.) and their uncouth supporters, only to lose in November? The family's rich and influential friends know the score, and they're on the phone with Jeb right now telling him to get out. His son, George P., will do just fine in a Rubio administration, and who knows, maybe Jeb himself can be ambassador to Mexico.

    The story of how Rubio won the establishment's civil war is the story of just how adroit the neoconservative "deciders" really are. Neoconservatives compounded the George W. Bush administration's Iraq folly, but because Bush was the brand name attached to the disastrous policies of 2001-2009, the Bush family suffered the consequences far more than did the obscure policy hacks and think-tank propagandists (and their billionaire backers) who egged the administration's warhawks on. The neoconservatives have turned against the Bush family in part because it's damaged goods, in part because the Bushes had started to catch on: George W. began to reconnect with foreign-policy realists in his second term, and while Jeb may count Paul Wolfowitz among his advisers, he also consorts with James Baker, anathema to the neocons.

    Heading into 2016, neoconservative foreign policy needed a new, untainted brand and a less experienced, more malleable candidate-someone who wouldn't be as wary as an old Bush might be. In Marco Rubio, everything was ready-made. The fact that Rubio's brand isn't foreign-policy failure-the legacy the Bushes must live with-but rather that of a fresh-faced Hispanic, a new and different kind of Republican, meant that the media and public would not guess that what they were in store for was more of what was worst in the George W. Bush administration. As if to taunt the forgetful, the Rubio campaign adopted as its slogan "A New American Century"-counting on no columnist or newscaster to remember the name of the defunct Kristol-Kagan invasion factory. Rubio has been similarly blunt in his hawkish statements throughout the Republican debates.

    Conservative realists as well as libertarians are apt to be dismayed by Rand Paul's fifth-place finish in Iowa, ahead of Bush by roughly two points but behind Ben Carson by nearly five. Ron Paul had finished third in 2012, with 21 percent of the vote compared to his son's 4.5 percent this year. But anything short of the nomination is only worthwhile as a learning experience and as an opportunity for further organization, and in that regard Paul's well-wishers need not be discouraged. Though the Republican Party has reverted to a hawkish disposition since 2013, there is still a better-organized counter-neocon faction in the party today than there was in 2003, when the Iraq War began, or even 2006, when Republicans paid the political price for the war. And it's notable that the top finishers in Iowa, Trump and Cruz, while being far from realists or libertarians, are almost equally far from being neoconservatives. The party's foreign-policy attitudes are more diverse today than they were even in 2012.

    Both libertarians and conservative realists got carried away by their own hopes in the five easy years between 2006 and 2013, when the domestic political climate and world events alike took a favorable turn for realism and made things maximally difficult for neoconservatives and hawks. Today things are hard for everyone-though the hawks and neoconservatives are fortunate in having an avatar like Rubio, whose youth, looks, and race make even those who should know better yearn to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    The danger is that libertarians and traditional conservatives will learn the wrong lesson now: the problem is not exactly that Rand Paul was not more like Ron Paul in his unbending libertarianism or more like Trump in his rabble-stiring populism. To be sure, Rand came off as sometimes tentative and embarrassed about his principles, and in trying to appeal to the hawkish evangelical right he only alienated his base while failing to win much new support. But while his father did better in 2012 and Trump did better still this year, neither of them had what it takes to actually win. The insurgent right is extraordinarily bad at politics and consistently mistakes raw enthusiasm for effective electoral power. Ron Paul couldn't leverage his third-place Iowa finish in 2012 the way Rubio's allies are set to capitalize on his third-place finish this year because the extra-political as well as political organization that Rubio commands dwarfs anything that the libertarian or populist right possesses, and the neoconservatives have been much more effective at devising narratives and message-frameworks that the mainstream media and the business class can support. Trump might get second place, Ron Paul might get third, yet both remain fringe figures to the opinion-forming classes.

    Rather than face this fact, too many true believers on the right prefer to retreat into fantasy-indulging in dreams of third parties or sudden popular uprisings or the triumph of disembodied ideas over mere flesh-and-blood politics. Yet better, more far-sighted organization in politics and the media is the only way to advance worldly change. The neoconservatives have understood this better than anyone.

    And so the neoconservatives have won the civil war for the Republican establishment, beating the semi-neocon Bushes and elevating their preferred candidate, Marco Rubio, to the role of establishment savior. The unified neoconservative-establishment bloc now waits for Trump and Cruz to bleed each other dry, before Rubio finishes off whoever remains-probably Cruz. Should all proceed according to plan, the fresh-faced establishment Republican champion then goes to face the haggard old champion of the Democratic establishment, Hillary Clinton, in November. Whoever wins, the cause of peace and limited government loses. Yet even then there will come a backlash, as always before, and next time perhaps an opposition will be better prepared.

    [Feb 05, 2016] A fiercer Democratic debate: Sanders and Clinton both put on defensive

    Notable quotes:
    "... To my American friends there is a new campaign taking off from Roots Action to #DumpDebbie as in Debbie Wasserman Schultz ..."
    "... The kind of foreign policy Hillary and the Republicans believe is sort of a warlord mentality of dominance and chest-thumping. ..."
    "... Bernie stepped aside on the email controversy for HRC but she went right back into it around the transcripts of her speeches to the banks. No one cares about what the Republicans think her emails but I think all Democrats and every person who goes to work each day want to see what she said to those banks! RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS ..."
    "... However, foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and like-minded people has led to the fact that Americans no longer feel safe even when they are at home, not to mention when they go abroad. ..."
    "... If this Wall Street poodle has support among democrats , who the hell are republicans? Go Bernie! ..."
    "... 4 Feb 2016 22:37 ..."
    "... We can't be pointing fingers at our dear friends the Saudis now can we? Deflect, deflect and deflect. Notwithstanding the fact that it has been the warmongering of the likes of Hilary Clinton that have have laid waste to Iraq, Libya and now Syria. ..."
    "... The Guardian commentators are a disgrace. The Guardian bemoans that shift in its readership yet fails to recognise the level of frustration that exists out here at how far this paper has fallen. ..."
    "... she's always gung-ho about military force but has nothing to say about reconstruction+rehabilitation efforts afterwards ..."
    "... Clinton's a corrupt insider, which is what it is, and the US voters understand that. She has all the relevant job experience to be president, the right connections to direct federal funding to, and some slogans or something. ..."
    "... That not a single Wall Street executive served a day in jail for the financial crisis is, in Sanders' words, "what is what power is about, that is what corruption is about, and that is what has to change in the United States of America." ..."
    "... Hillary lies/parrots/says anything that will get her through the moment...now she is a progressive ....hahaha...NOT.... ..."
    "... She quickly changed the topic when asked about the transcripts. ..."
    "... Of course he would. It doesn't matter if Hillary is more effective or whatever - the more effective, the worse. Why would I want a more effective dismantler of welfare? A more effective deregulator of Wall Street? A more effective pusher of what passes for free trade ? A more effective warmonger? The truth is, she is an incrementalist - she moves things incrementally in the wrong direction. ..."
    "... Hillary has a great sense of entitlement. She thinks she is royalty while Sanders is some commoner. ..."
    "... It can't be said too many times: If Clinton becomes president, she, like her husband and Obama before her, will carry water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus from day one of her presidency. ..."
    "... And--again just like her husband and Obama--she will occasionally punctuate her abject service to the exploiting class and its surveillance-state empire with sweet words justice and human rights--just enough of them to keep gullible liberals on her side. ..."
    "... Hillary still won't apologize for her foolish and ill considered support for the Iraq War. George W Bush was a President who never admitted he was wrong about anything, and Clinton is exactly the same way. If she becomes President and makes a foolish decision, she won't change course, she'll be like Bush, just doubling down over and over on bad decisions. ..."
    "... So NOW Clinton is saying she's a progressive, but in September of 2015 she was vehemently insisting she was a moderate. ..."
    "... The remnants of the Democratic Leadership Council were folded into the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation bought the archives of the DLC. Welfare reform , trade, charter schooling -- all of this is Clintonism. DLC embraced moderate as a word and slammed progressives and liberals for years. HRC can have it both ways in newspeak but the record is what the record is. She's no progressive. Progressives don't have 'Walmart Board of Directors' on their resume. ..."
    "... If this shameful spectacle isn't enough to finally nail the coffin on the democratic party in the minds of honest liberals and progressives then I don't know what will. ..."
    "... Hillary is a disease... and the corporate media is doing everything they can to spread her malicious agenda. ..."
    "... Clinton doesn't score many points on sincerity, in my opinion. ..."
    "... Chuck Todd asks Hillary Clinton whether she is willing to release the full transcripts of every one of her paid speeches. Her response: they're classified....upper upper class. ..."
    "... Mrs Clinton has and Ivy education, a Yale law degree, has been First Lady, a senator and secretary of state. Her fortune is estimated to be at least $30M, earned mostly from speaking fees paid by banks and other corporate interests. For her to claim that she is not a member of the establishment shows degrees of mendacity and arrogance that are truly rare. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Mohammerhead 4 Feb 2016 22:59

    Surely if more than half of American voters have more than half a brain they only have one choice; Sanders.
    Cruz the effing evangelist has threatened to carpet bomb part of the MIddle East until 'the sand glows'. Trump will be a non event.
    Clintons claim to fame is that she is the wife of Bill who was responsible for de-regulating the banking system to give the world the GFC. Bill was the laziest President the US has had, spending a good deal of his time playing golf or on the receiving end of extra marital head jobs.

    DogsLivesMatter 4 Feb 2016 22:58

    To my American friends there is a new campaign taking off from Roots Action to #DumpDebbie as in Debbie Wasserman Schultz
    http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=11885

    IanB52 -> nnedjo 4 Feb 2016 22:56

    The kind of foreign policy Hillary and the Republicans believe is sort of a warlord mentality of dominance and chest-thumping.

    Sam3456 4 Feb 2016 22:55

    Bernie stepped aside on the email controversy for HRC but she went right back into it around the transcripts of her speeches to the banks.
    No one cares about what the Republicans think her emails but I think all Democrats and every person who goes to work each day want to see what she said to those banks! RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS

    renardbleu -> nnedjo 4 Feb 2016 22:53

    Imagine how non-Americans feel. You know, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

    nnedjo 4 Feb 2016 22:48

    What is the purpose of foreign policy?
    In my opinion, foreign policy should ensure that when you go abroad you feel safe as if you're at home, and to be welcomed in any part of the world.

    However, foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and like-minded people has led to the fact that Americans no longer feel safe even when they are at home, not to mention when they go abroad.

    So, whoever thinks that this world has become too peaceful, he would certainly have to vote for Hillary to be the next president of the United States.:-)


    Gman13 4 Feb 2016 22:45

    If this Wall Street poodle has support among "democrats", who the hell are republicans? Go Bernie!

    IanB52 -> WarlockScott 4 Feb 2016 22:41

    Personally, I wish he'd just say "Fuck war. We're all humans, everyone is entitled to human rights, we're all in this together, and there is nothing noble about killing people, not the least collateral damage of children and non-combatants, or terrorizing populations on the other side of the world with drones, and stoking hatred against people who look different or speak another language than us. Humanity won't survive as long as we fetishize and glamorize killing people."

    That would satisfy me, rather than beating around the bush and saying that you'll crush Isis because you think that's what people want to hear. I'm a dreamer.


    renardbleu -> Christian Haesemeyer 4 Feb 2016 22:37

    That's the wrong question. Can Bernie win the presidency? Lovely, decent man though he is, the GOP clowns will have a field day spreading disinformation about the token "socialist" (if he's a socialist, UK's David Cameron would be a marijuana-smoking Leftie). Bernie would gift the presidency to whomever the GOP nominate and that's the real scary outcome.


    NotWithoutMyMonkey 4 Feb 2016 22:33

    Richard Wolff points believes that Sanders should've singled out Russia as the greatest threat because Ash Carter says so but lets Hilary pass with a mendacious howler that Iran is the greatest sponsor of terror (Shia Iran sponsoring Sunni extremism, oh really)?

    We can't be pointing fingers at our dear friends the Saudis now can we? Deflect, deflect and deflect. Notwithstanding the fact that it has been the warmongering of the likes of Hilary Clinton that have have laid waste to Iraq, Libya and now Syria.

    The Guardian commentators are a disgrace. The Guardian bemoans that shift in its readership yet fails to recognise the level of frustration that exists out here at how far this paper has fallen.

    WarlockScott -> CriticAtLarge 4 Feb 2016 22:36

    Bernie could hammer her hard on this, when she talks about Iran the problem is not her engaging with Iranians (she has) but that she always coaches it in incredibly hostile language. Like the first debate she was asked who are you most glad to have made enemies of and she answered "The Iranians" and the GOP. Also she's always gung-ho about military force but has nothing to say about reconstruction+rehabilitation efforts afterwards


    BaldwinP -> BlackAbbott 4 Feb 2016 22:31

    I would vote for Matt Taibbi just for coming up with the vampire squid description of Goldman Sachs, I'm not sure that that quote from Sanders is in the same class. Bashing the banks is easy, you do it, I do it. What is he actually going to do about it?

    Rumfoord 4 Feb 2016 22:31

    Clinton's a corrupt insider, which is what it is, and the US voters understand that. She has all the relevant job experience to be president, the right connections to direct federal funding to, and some slogans or something.

    Sanders is a populist calling his milquetoast 'socialist' agenda as some sort of leftist revolution.

    I'm a social democrat, and they're both rightists so far as I'm concerned.


    MyTakeOnIt 4 Feb 2016 22:30

    Foreign policy in the first four years of Obama's presidency has been a disaster. All the mess in the middle east is first due to the Bush 's Iraq invasion, and secondly regime change binge in the first term of Obama administration. Foreign policy, in the first term of Obama administration, by agreement, was given to Hillary in order for her not to challenged Obama in 2012. So Hillary voted for Iraq invasion, in addition to forcing bombing of Libya, among other disasters.


    BlackAbbott 4 Feb 2016 22:28

    Goldman Sachs was one of those companies whose illegal activity helped destroy our economy and ruin the lives of millions of Americans. This is what a rigged economy and a corrupt campaign finance system system and a broken justice system do."

    That not a single Wall Street executive served a day in jail for the financial crisis is, in Sanders' words, "what is what power is about, that is what corruption is about, and that is what has to change in the United States of America."

    I would almost (almost) become an American just to vote for this guy.


    Beowullf 4 Feb 2016 22:24

    Hillary lies/parrots/says anything that will get her through the moment...now she is a "progressive"....hahaha...NOT....

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/04/progressives-clinton-pledge-never-cut-social-security-now

    CriticAtLarge -> CorporalClegg 4 Feb 2016 22:23

    She quickly changed the topic when asked about the transcripts.

    Christian Haesemeyer -> sursiques 4 Feb 2016 22:19

    Of course he would. It doesn't matter if Hillary is more effective or whatever - the more effective, the worse. Why would I want a more effective dismantler of welfare? A more effective deregulator of Wall Street? A more effective pusher of what passes for "free trade"? A more effective warmonger? The truth is, she is an incrementalist - she moves things incrementally in the wrong direction.

    CriticAtLarge -> sursiques 4 Feb 2016 22:17

    Hillary has a great sense of entitlement. She thinks she is royalty while Sanders is some commoner. Hillary is tough as nails though. Sanders is too mild mannered. He will get chewed in a general.

    CorporalClegg 4 Feb 2016 22:16

    Wall street paid Hillary $675,000 for no other reason than they wanted to hear about her experiences in politics. Now, anyone who believes that should head straight to the rubber room. Please go straight there and do not vote.

    eastbayradical 4 Feb 2016 22:16

    It can't be said too many times: If Clinton becomes president, she, like her husband and Obama before her, will carry water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus from day one of her presidency.

    And--again just like her husband and Obama--she will occasionally punctuate her abject service to the exploiting class and its surveillance-state empire with sweet words justice and human rights--just enough of them to keep gullible liberals on her side.

    ID0020237 -> Marcedward 4 Feb 2016 22:13

    She was duped just like the rest of the 99% of Americans for supporting the war in Iraq. The propaganda machinery (media) worked overtime for the Neocons success. None of the reasons given to justify the war were ever proven to be real. Peace is apparently not a prime objective of American policies, just check our track record. Doesn't really matter which party gets in, the same misguided policies and government borrowing activities will probably prevail.

    PeregrineSlim 4 Feb 2016 22:12

    What about the following question:

    Do you support the current Turkish-Saudi plans for a joint war in Syria?

    seneca32 4 Feb 2016 22:09

    I don't think Obama named her Sec. of State because of her judgment -- I think he did it to neutralize her and the Clinton gang.

    WarlockScott 4 Feb 2016 22:09

    Bernie do more debate-prep and if you do know this, HIT HER ON THIS

    Many of those FP "experts" that criticised your foreign policy on Clinton's behalf had multiple links to the Defence lobby

    JoePomegranate 4 Feb 2016 22:05

    Sanders' integrity and commitment to a happy-clappy issues-only campaign is counter-productive. He could have buried Clinton in this debate already if he would only go for the jugular.

    Marcedward 4 Feb 2016 22:01

    Hillary still won't apologize for her foolish and ill considered support for the Iraq War. George W Bush was a President who never admitted he was wrong about anything, and Clinton is exactly the same way. If she becomes President and makes a foolish decision, she won't change course, she'll be like Bush, just doubling down over and over on bad decisions.

    Marcedward 4 Feb 2016 21:56

    So NOW Clinton is saying she's a progressive, but in September of 2015 she was vehemently insisting she was a moderate.
    Question:
    Was they lying then, or is she lying now, or is she simply a habitual liar?

    If Hillary gets the nomination, the Republicans will use her own words against her
    FLIP FLOP
    FLIP FLOP
    Just like they did with John Kerry.

    Joseph Musco 4 Feb 2016 21:55

    The remnants of the Democratic Leadership Council were folded into the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation bought the archives of the DLC. "Welfare reform", trade, charter schooling -- all of this is Clintonism. DLC embraced moderate as a word and slammed progressives and liberals for years. HRC can have it both ways in newspeak but the record is what the record is. She's no progressive. Progressives don't have 'Walmart Board of Directors' on their resume.

    JuliusSqueezer 4 Feb 2016 21:52

    If this shameful spectacle isn't enough to finally nail the coffin on the democratic party in the minds of honest liberals and progressives then I don't know what will. I'm an anarchist though.... and just laugh along till both parties are dead.... but still this is very sad to me. Hillary is a disease... and the corporate media is doing everything they can to spread her malicious agenda.

    Jezreel2 -> wisedup 4 Feb 2016 21:50

    I agree. They should. But today, Playboy magazine published an article in which Rachel Maddow is quoted saying she finds it "hard to believe" that Sanders can win the Democratic nomination. And Chuck Todd, wouldn't even poll Sanders standing against Republicans in the general election because the narrative on MSNBC and NBC was focused on the inevitability of Clinton winning the nomination.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/new-hampshire-primary-2016-live-updates/2016/02/rachel-maddow-bernie-sanders-2016-218778?lo=ap_b1

    TyroneBHorneigh 4 Feb 2016 21:50

    Clinton doesn't score many points on sincerity, in my opinion.

    bloggod 4 Feb 2016 21:51

    Chuck Todd asks Hillary Clinton whether she is willing to release the full transcripts of every one of her paid speeches. Her response: they're classified....upper upper class.


    Christian Haesemeyer 4 Feb 2016 21:44

    Well I'm sure Clinton isn't lying when she says she has never changed a position because of donations. I just fail to see how that's a good thing - she has always supported policies favouring Wall Street, ever since Bill and her and the gang set out to transform the Democratic Party into the party of big money.

    mrmetrowest 4 Feb 2016 21:38

    Mrs Clinton has and Ivy education, a Yale law degree, has been First Lady, a senator and secretary of state. Her fortune is estimated to be at least $30M, earned mostly from speaking fees paid by banks and other corporate interests. For her to claim that she is not a member of the establishment shows degrees of mendacity and arrogance that are truly rare.

    [Feb 04, 2016] Did Cruz Steal Iowa Trump, Carson Slam Dirty... Disgraceful Tricks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump called Cruz dirty, adding what he did to Ben Carson was a disgrace. ..."
    "... Sorry Donald, you lost Iowa because youre NOT a religious nutjob...Iowa is 24% White Evangelical Protestants (WEPS) and theyre all Republicans...Cruz won because he ran around praising God and quoting Jesus...normally, thats not enough to win..but it gets you at least 2nd or 3rd in Iowa..but the televangelist ACT handed Cruz the prize because of so many names to choose from... ..."
    "... When it comes to picking the Republican nominee, Iowa is an embarrassing joke ..."
    "... Cruz is a Goldman Sachs plant and NWO stooge. Not to mention being another political dirtball from Texas (like the Bushs, LBJ, Phil Gramm, Tom Delay, etc...) ..."
    "... crooz is the goldman saks and cfr canditate -- shocker that he won the non election in iowa ..."
    "... Goldmans got both sides covered- Cruz and HiLiary. Makes satan look like a piker. ..."
    "... My guess is that The Donald is reasonably strait on his positions, etc. (Relatively). ..."
    "... My guess is that Ted is a shill, playing outside rebel against the system, financed by GS et al, and would wind up with Total Establishment Policies. Might as well be led by Hillary, Rubio, et al. ..."
    "... Remember how Ron Paul was always portrayed? How his supporters were portrayed? (Crazy old man, Constitutional purist that doesnt understand modern life, Id vote for him but I know we need things like, roads. etc.) Thats whats coming for Trump and Sanders. ..."
    "... In a nutshell, the entire hope is that Trump, or someone like him, can somehow wake the public up and make us all look under the covers. For all those who say that Trump, or even Sanders, would be unable to do anything if elected, I say bullshit. The President has the biggest soapbox in the world. Unfortunately, it has been used to keep us all in line and headed in a direction that benefits only a small percentage of us. ..."
    "... We apparently have a lot of dummies here at the Hedge who only follow the MSM bullshit narrative. Typical Murikan zombies who cant drill down moar than a half inch. ..."
    "... So Ted is running on thousands of small donations from true believers ??? I think not. He is owned by big money. And Goldman is one of them. Youre doing a shitty job as Goldmans apologist. ..."
    "... I live down here in Houston where Tedlevangelists headquarters are. Many of his top advisors are Bush neocons. ..."
    "... . There is no fuckan way Cruz polled that high and Trump dropped 14 points in a week. ..."
    "... Iowa voters like to lie to poll takers. It gives them a sense of being in control of SOMETHING!. (And to them its funny as hell... I mean this is IOWA were talking about here. Humor is in tight supply!) ..."
    "... polls and votes are two entirely different things. Its bad to confuse the two. The people that are asked questions before the elections are the polled. the people who VOTE in the elections are the deciders (allowing for instant recounts in the back seat of the car on the way to the counting room.) ..."
    "... Repub party establishment is starting to get desperate. Or its all part of the plan. No real middle ground here. ..."
    "... Why should the Repubs be in any panic greater than the Dems is the kind of thing a troll would post. The Dems, a Socialist against a known liar, thief and murderder. Seriously? ..."
    "... Exactly. I think this is a great thing. Cruz has peaked...in Iowa, lol. Hes done ..."
    "... Lets hope Trump has some good bodyguards. Cheating is a sacred right of the Elite. ..."
    "... Cruz later apologized ... and thus admitted to the act. In a reasonable world, that would be the end of his campaign as well as his career and his public life. ..."
    "... I was attracted to Trumps angry outbursts just as I would cheer anyone pounding on the DC crowd, but Ive come to believe he is playing a role and his anger is staged to appeal to the masses....and its working so you cant fault him for that. ..."
    "... Cruz won Iowa for about a day LOL. All we need now is Jimmy Carters grandson and the hidden camera revealing that Goldman Sachs employees found stack of mailers in their breakrooms with instructions to place mail labels on them. ..."
    "... Based on the prior polls, the result was not legit. Cruz barely broke 20% on his best day. Shows up with 28%? Rubio polled in the low teens. 23% a day later? ..."
    "... Trump polled *consistently* at (just the numbers from a wide variety of sources, MSM, and off beat sources) at ~25%. Sure enough, DT get his 25%, but Cruz and Rubio blow up by 10% apiece. I would call that either luck, or a statistical anomaly. ..."
    "... What was reported, fwiw, is that there was a substantial, massive influx of new republican registration. Further, the democrats have officially shown only 1400 votes cast total through the entire state. There was likely more, but party policy is *not* to report the #s of voters. ..."
    "... Fact finding: As far as I know, voter registration is a *matter of public record*. If I were Trump, I would request the voter registration records of all the people for both parties that turned in a ballot. Then, I would request voter registration records in the last 5 years. Then, I would compare the *party affiliation* of each *present* voter with the most recent prior registration. ..."
    "... Mark Twain once said...... If voting meant anything, then we would not be allowed to do it .... ..."
    Zero Hedge
    Donald Trump was surprised at how well Ted Cruz did in Iowa...

    Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!

    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

    It appears he has a reason to be...

    During primetime of the Iowa Caucus, Cruz put out a release that @RealBenCarson was quitting the race, and to caucus (or vote) for Cruz.

    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

    Many people voted for Cruz over Carson because of this Cruz fraud. Also, Cruz sent out a VOTER VIOLATION certificate to thousands of voters.

    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

    As The Hill reports , Donald Trump is accusing Republican presidential rival Ted Cruz of committing fraud ahead of Monday night's Iowa caucuses, and he is calling for a "new election."

    "Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified," Trump tweeted on Wednesday.

    Cruz came under fire in the days leading up to the Iowa caucuses for distributing a misleading mailer that attempted to shame recipients into turning out to vote for the Texas senator .

    Following his decisive win over the GOP field, Cruz was accused by fellow presidential candidate Ben Carson of spreading a false rumor that Carson was dropping out of the race in order to sabotage the retired neurosurgeon's campaign .

    Cruz later apologized ... and thus admitted to the act.

    At his first post-Iowa rally in Milford, N.H., Trump called Cruz "dirty," adding "what he did to Ben Carson was a disgrace."

    Finally, with a huge 24 point lead over Cruz heading into New Hampshire , one wonder what "tricks" Ted will pull out of his bag this time...

    J S Bach

    It's not Cruz... it's his monied-handlers that pull the strings. Hillary, Ted, Rand, Marco... they're just soulless puppets. When the "tricks" occur and the Diebold machines begin to sputter again, blame TPTB, not they're useful idiots.

    Miss Expectations

    PROOF THAT some of Winston Churchill's most famous radio speeches of the war were delivered by a stand-in has emerged with the discovery of a 78rpm record.

    The revelation ends years of controversy over claims - repeatedly denied - that an actor had been officially asked to impersonate the Prime Minister on air.

    The record makes it clear for the first time that Norman Shelley's voice was used to broadcast some of the most important words in modern British history - including 'We shall fight them on the beaches'. It is marked 'BBC, Churchill: Speech. Artist Norman Shelley' and stamped 'September 7, 1942'.

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2000/oct/29/uknews.theobserver

    Volkodav

    Churchill was a war criminal

    FireBrander

    Sorry Donald, you lost Iowa because you're NOT a religious nutjob...Iowa is 24% White Evangelical Protestants (WEPS) and they're all Republicans...Cruz won because he ran around praising God and quoting Jesus...normally, that's not enough to win..but it gets you at least 2nd or 3rd in Iowa..but the televangelist ACT handed Cruz the prize because of so many names to choose from...

    You know it Donald, you even courted the WEPS until it was obvious you weren't crazy enough for them...lol...turned out Carson was TOO Crazy for them...that's pathetic.

    Look at the people standing behind Cruz while he gives his victory speech; they're the "who's who" of religious nutjobs in Iowa.

    "Donald Trump loses Iowa to Ted Cruz and his evangelical "prayer team""

    "As Quartz's Tim Fernholz reported in December , winning Iowa was always going to be difficult for Trump, given that deeply religious protestant Christans make up 56% of the state's voters, and a much higher percentage of Republican caucus-goers:"

    http://qz.com/607640/donald-trump-loses-iowa-to-ted-cruz-and-his-evangel...

    When it comes to picking the Republican nominee, Iowa is an embarrassing joke

    BorisTheBlade

    Whatever. You got to hand it to him, he won't let it go and unlike most "contenders" in Democratic camp won't let go of his claim over the title. Sanders is ok, but geriatric more than Hillary and that's his main value to her. Trump maybe an asshole and I guess he wouldn't even object to that, but al least he puts up some fight even seemingly after the fight. The battle is lost, but the war still continues. I like him being there even only for the fact he keeps it entertaining and that's even considering I understand mainstream politics are little more than a shit show.

    FireBrander

    I think Hillary's "win" in Iowa was actually damaging...Bernie supporters, DEMOCRATS, feel cheated...and they didn't really like Hillary to begin with...it will definately dampen turn-out come election day.

    I have a feeling, that when Bernie finally gives up, Hillary will have spent a FORTUNE taking him down...and even more important, will have a HUGE pile of disgruntled DEMOCRATS she'll need to win over...she's going to spend a LOT of time and money just securing that ~35% of the vote that is Democrat..then she has to bring in the Independents...I still say this election is for the Republicans to lose...

    11b40

    Maybe for the 'right' Republican to lose. If the nominee were Cruz, for example, Dems would turn out in droves to vote against him, and his chances for Independent voters would be slim.

    Supernova Born

    Does this man look like a crooked slimeball?

    Cruz with his young daughter.

    https://twitter.com/VaraBBC/status/693833111583350784/video/1

    t0mmyBerg

    Wow that was a horrifying piece. Cruz strikes me as Nixonian. Brilliant in his way but something dark underneath.

    Jeez, it's hard to believe--Cruz doesn't look like a crooked slimeball . . .

    Bay of Pigs

    Cruz is a Goldman Sachs plant and NWO stooge. Not to mention being another political dirtball from Texas (like the Bush's, LBJ, Phil Gramm, Tom Delay, etc...)

    Fuck him and his Squid wife and kids.

    cheka

    crooz is the goldman saks and cfr canditate -- shocker that he 'won' the non election in iowa

    Freddie

    The GOP-e plan now is to run Rubio and Cruz to steal it from Trump. Rubio and Cruz are CFR, billionaire, PNAC, AIPAC toadies.

    Elections are fake but the GOP-e and Dems do not want Trump.

    In the end, the GOP-e will kneecap Cruz and Rubio will be Jeb II.

    Voting is pointless but if it came down to Rubio and Bernie - I might actually for the bigger communist and not baby Fidel.

    cheka

    crooz and rubio voters are same -- and will readily back whichever one is announced as the leader by nyc

    CRUBIO voters = neocon dolts

    Ignatius

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-p...

    http://www.heritage.org/constitution/# !/articles/2/essays/82/presidential-eligibility

    Kayman

    "Cruz doesn't look like a crooked slimeball . . ."

    Now THAT was funny.

    Goldman's got both sides covered- Cruz and HiLiary. Makes satan look like a piker.

    cheka

    vote fraud likely too -

    when looking at the numbers it's most useful to combine cruz and rubio -- those voters are same neocon dolts - and will readily jump from one to the other

    i coined a new phrase for them -- CRUBIO voters

    nofluer

    Isn't Cruz's spouse on leave from her position as a high level exec for the Vampire Squid? Looks pretty slimy to me!

    buyingsterling

    Cruz's eligibility issue isn't going anywhere because it's STRATEGIC GOLD. I'm borderline retarded and I have at least 17 unanswered questions about it.

    The 'established law' answer is ALL Cruz has, and it's a lie. In any case, Alan Grayson doesn't care what Cruz thinks, he'll sue, and if the DNC gets desperate they will sue and have standing. Cruz is a selfish, power-hungry POS to put his party in position to lose because he prefers the presidency over the Prime-Ministership (for which he DID qualify, until 15 months ago, when he finally renounced his Canadian citizenship - which he claims he didn't know about (lie #X of X to the tenth power).

    He legally changed his name from 'Rafael' to 'Ted' when he was 13. He's had his eye on power for over 30 years.

    blindfaith

    On NPR today, it was said that just under 50,000 out of 6 million voted. So how did Teddy get 51,666. There is that 666 ting again.

    Remember the more they say God in their speaches the less you can trust them. He said " thank God I won"...really, and " God was on my side" really?

    If God had ANYTHING to do with politics, none of these creeps would have a chance and the world would not be in the mess it is in and run by the criminals. That is the truth.

    cheka

    this was a caucus - the great majority got no vote

    BarkingCat

    Unlike Dr. Paul, Trump will not take being cheated quietly.

    That is the major reason why people are behind him.

    He will come at them like a raging bull.

    These guys are really dumb. They have tried their usual political tricks on him and nothing has worked. Yet they continue with their tired and and worn out playbook.

    Trump made a promise not to run as independent...... however if they screw with him like this then he will be under no obligation to keep that promise.

    True Blue

    Gresham's Law as applied to politics.

    Bad politicians drive good politicians out of circulation.

    dogster

    Rand was hardly a good candidate. Never spoke of 9/11 investigation for fear of being called a conspiracy theorist. Too timid to be a leader,

    True Blue

    Two problems with Rand.

    1) He's NOT his father, by a wide margin. The apple fell too far from the tree.

    2) Political dynasties should be resisted on principal if nothing else; and he has proven the lack of character necessary to violate that axiom.

    TuPhat

    Look at where Ted's money comes from and you will say he is owned.

    knukles

    My guess is that The Donald is reasonably strait on his positions, etc. (Relatively).

    My guess is that Ted is a shill, playing outside rebel against the system, financed by GS et al, and would wind up with Total Establishment Policies. Might as well be led by Hillary, Rubio, et al.

    And that doesn't even get into interactions amongst El Presidente (or Presidentette) with the Deep State, etc.

    Countrybunkererd

    I don't think the establishment L/R politicos understand how unbelievably pissed off and angry the people are. If voter fraud starts popping up it won't go well no matter who they plant in the shit house.

    Countrybunkererd

    It probably doesn't matter, as well, who the people want in the same shit house. The times ahead are going to be difficult and painful for most people and all in the middle class of the Peoples Republic of the United States.

    KCMLO

    I think they understand exactly how pissed off the people are. That's why you're seeing Trump and Sanders. They're the release valve. The most angry can caucus for them, rally for them, beat the street for votes for them, but they certainly won't be allowed to win. I honestly still think Trump is a plant for Clinton, he's just too cartoonish awful to be a real candidate. Even if he makes it to the general she's going to stomp him a new mudhole, and I think that's by design.

    In the coming months each of the "mavericks" are going to be portrayed as more and more insane in the media. Their followers insane by proxy. Those that are the most angry aren't consolable so they're a lost cause, those closer to the middle will see the insanity of the fringe and stop identifying with them because they look just too fucking out there to stay with any longer. The idea being that the public gets to express their anger... in the primaries, but by the time the general election rolls around, you'll be back to your two standard choices again: a douche and a shit sandwich.

    Publicus_Reanimated

    No, sweetie, you are mistaken. Hillary stomps nobody a mudhole in the general. She is an opportunist, not a leader, and her followers are opportunists as well who will drop her like a hot potato if they think her coattails are short.

    Did you see the Iowa turnout? Blew out the old record on the GOP side, off by one-third on the Dem side. Any questions?

    KCMLO

    Remember how Ron Paul was always portrayed? How his supporters were portrayed? (Crazy old man, Constitutional purist that doesn't understand modern life, "I'd vote for him but I know we need things like, roads." etc.) That's what's coming for Trump and Sanders.

    11b40

    In a nutshell, the entire hope is that Trump, or someone like him, can somehow wake the public up and make us all look under the covers. For all those who say that Trump, or even Sanders, would be unable to do anything if elected, I say bullshit. The President has the biggest soapbox in the world. Unfortunately, it has been used to keep us all in line and headed in a direction that benefits only a small percentage of us.

    Just imagine Trump as President and focused on an issue he wanted changed or passed. It crosses some powerful interest group, they crank up their lobbyists, and Congress balks. Does Trump roll over and give up? Of course not. The next day, he is on TV telling the public exactly who is obstructing his plans and who they have been bought off by. He also picks up the phone and calls key opposition members of Congress to let them know that if they don't get their asses in line he will personally be in their States or districts looking for their replacements for the next election cycle. He would name names and kick ass all in broad daylight. The press could try to stop him, but it would be impossible. He is better at it than they are, and can MAKE the spotlight shine where he wants it.

    Sunshine is the greatest disinfectant, and the fear of the status quo is that anyone not beholden to the shadows get control and pull back the curtains. A true reformer could capture the public's attention and bring about real change, but it will never happen as long as we keep electing insider politicians dependent on their wealthy sponsors.

    Remember - a special interest is by definition something that is against the general interests.

    nofluer

    lobbyists?

    How about a big word for yaz...

    Delusional.

    The only way for a President to run roughshod over the rest of the govt is if the rest of the govt decides to let them do what they want to do... like look at Obummer, for instance. If the congress and the supreme court didn't want Obummer to bankrupt the USA, there would be a quick squeal of brakes on the govt checkbook.

    As for the pubic interest... is this what ZHers refer to as the "free shit army? Yeah... they're going to get upset at the paper money flying around in the wind and settling on their hand.

    A Lunatic

    Yep, a closet Globalist through and through.....

    City_Of_Champyinz

    "financed by GS".

    Give me a break, he took out a godamn margin loan against his stock portfolio. Are you saying any candidate that takes out a simple loan from a bank is now disqualified? Candidates take out loans to finance campaigns all the time. This is just getting incredibly stupid.

    gimme soma dat

    His wife works for GS, Chimpy.

    Bay of Pigs

    We apparently have a lot of dummies here at the Hedge who only follow the MSM bullshit narrative. Typical Murikan zombies who cant drill down moar than a half inch.

    City_Of_Champyinz

    So please explain how Goldman Sachs is financing the campaign. Other than the SMALL loans, are they paying for anything directly? Nope, they are not.

    So in your mind, GS is financing the Cruz campaign via his wife's salary, which is PEANUTS compared to how much money he has raised from donors & how much cash it takes to run these days.

    Absolutely hilarious.

    Kayman

    City Chimp

    So Ted is running on thousands of small donations from true believers ??? I think not. He is owned by big money. And Goldman is one of them. You're doing a shitty job as Goldman's apologist.

    City_Of_Champyinz

    LOL I am nobody's apologist your ignorant fuck. The very simple fact is that GS is not funding his campaign. You are either an outright moron, or just another delusional sycophantic Trump supporter.

    And Mrs. Cruz has been on an unpaid leave of absence from GS for almost a full year at this point dumb ass. If he wins she will not be going back.

    countryboy42

    Guess you missed this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-01/even-goldman-has-bailed-bush

    Rancho Texican

    I live down here in Houston where Tedlevangelist's headquarters are. Many of his top advisors are Bush neocons.

    Trump 2016!

    Bay of Pigs

    Maybe take your head out of your ass. There is no fuckan way Cruz polled that high and Trump dropped 14 points in a week.

    Callz d Ballz

    You might want to check out "polling data" for the last few IA races. It's all there, you just have to look for yourself.

    nofluer

    two quick points...

    1. Iowa "voters" like to lie to poll takers. It gives them a sense of being in control of SOMETHING!. (And to them it's funny as hell... I mean this is IOWA we're talking about here. Humor is in tight supply!)

    2. polls and votes are two entirely different things. It's bad to confuse the two. The people that are asked questions before the elections are the polled. the people who VOTE in the elections are the "deciders" (allowing for "instant recounts" in the back seat of the car on the way to the counting room.)

    Mark Mywords

    Now come on! Ted the Mountie is a sincere, God-fearing Christian! He would NEVER do anything so vile and heinous. Pure and clean as the wind-driven snow, he is.

    Unless...nah!

    centerline

    Repub party establishment is starting to get desperate. Or it's all part of the "plan." No real middle ground here.

    Baa baa

    Why should the Repubs be in any panic greater than the Dems is the kind of thing a troll would post. The Dems, a Socialist against a known liar, thief and murderder. Seriously?

    How devoid of information you must be... Oh, you're a troll

    centerline

    The subject at hand was the R's. Geeze. Switch to decaf.

    Yeah, the Dems are a massive joke. Completely with you there. A socialist and criminal. Sad state of affairs. But, the Dems are ramming them home, aren't they? As opposed to what "appears" like chaos on the Repub side. That says something interesting in itself.

    NuYawkFrankie

    As soon as I laid eyes on Cruz, I thought " What a sleazy-looking grease-ball "

    My gut-instinct was, as usual, 101% correct.

    Bastiat

    Funny, I made a very similar post above at the same time. Cheers.

    NuYawkFrankie

    ;)

    Bob

    Great minds! My dentist finished my sentence about Cruz for me yesterday in those exact same words . . .

    Free bonus was when I told him between teeth that the gun I was most interested in was the NAA five shot .22 magnum revolver; he paused, left the room for a second and returned with a "you mean this?" before pressing it into my palm with a "careful, it's loaded." Lovely little weapon.

    One of my better dental check-ups for sure.

    Cruz's Campaign manager was on Bloomberg last night and, though better looking, it's remarkable how similar his face and hair is, and it's jarringly eerie how similar his expressions and mannerisms are. Dressed in black with blood-red trim . . . I swear to God, if I'd put everything I had into creating a character to represent Lucifer himself I couldn't have done better. Scary shit.

    NuYawkFrankie

    re My dentist finished my sentence about Cruz for me yesterday in those exact same words . . .

    Helllooo..... I AM YOUR DENTIST!!!

    ( LOL!!! ;)

    NuYawkFrankie

    And Mrs Cruz's work address is The Squid .

    It figures...

    Dicey

    So much for Cruz and his deep religious convictions, and so much for those in Iowa that fell for it.

    indaknow

    Exactly. I think this is a great thing. Cruz has peaked...in Iowa, lol. He's done

    Wed, 02/03/2016 - 13:25 | 7135682 Yen Cross

    Cruz is a fucking dirtbag.

    knukles

    Come on Yen. Give us your deepest thoughts. We know you need to share.

    EndlessSummer

    Is this really the best America has to offer ?

    knukles

    No. The best wouldn't touch the political arena with another's 10 foot pole

    LawsofPhysics

    LOL!!! Theft and FRAUD is in fact the status quo !!!!!!!

    What is Trump's point? Fuck em.

    semperfi

    don't forget treason

    BeerMe

    Cruz seems like the type. He showed where he stands by not showing up for the Fed vote.

    This is just Trump trying to get Carson voters after Carson drops.

    swamp

    Ted CRUZ TOTAL VOTES =

    51,666

    NWO stamp in our face

    Bill GATES' software counted the votes.

    IOWA TOTAL FOR ILLEGAL ALIEN ANCHOR BABY GOLDMAN SUCKS PUPPET CANADIAN CITIZEN CRUZ = 51,666

    666

    fatlibertarian

    I was just telling my brother that, on paper Cruz should be my guy, but then I see him and he opens his mouth and I just did not like him.

    Guess I was picking up on his slimbaggery.

    Wed, 02/03/2016 - 13:32 | 7135734 Salzburg1756

    You Canadians are all alike!

    This means war!

    Wed, 02/03/2016 - 14:02 | 7135903 cheech_wizard

    54-40 or fight, bitchez!

    Standard Disclaimer: For outspending the next 25 countries in terms of the military, the US sucks at "EMPIRE". Like sucks donkey balls.

    Make me fucking god emperor of this country, and the Mexicans would be living in South America, and I'd ship the Canadians back to England. Now that's how you run a god-damned empire. And that's just in the first month.

    Now if you don't mind I need to thank God, praise the Lord, and quote some scripture to you... and it's on to New Hampshire for me...

    Sincerely,

    Ted Cruz

    Baa baa

    Any questions about who the Establishment's boy is now???

    Infinite QE

    His daughter knows who Cruz is and what he is. Most likely another political pedophile.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feALLLFdj7Y

    Global Hunter

    That is very disturbing. I really feel for that girl.

    Infinite QE

    Yeah, what's up with that hand signal she is flashing? Bizarro.

    Global Hunter

    Trying to force him away in a non violent way because she is worried about him getting mad. Too scared of him to slap him so she is flicking him away. She is trying to defend herself but in a way that she is hoping he will realize and stop hurting her or making her uncomfortable.

    That is what it looked like to me. I could be off, but they are very dysfunctional family for sure.

    replaceme

    I heard Rubio was the one spreading that Carson was 'heading home to FLA for some R&R...prayer breakfast in DC...' Not sure it's time to dogpile Cruz yet. I'm sure that time is close, but Marco may have had a hand here - he certainly had something to gain from the Carson votes.

    yogafan

    Don't matter. Americans are fuked no matter who wins the elections.

    Atomizer

    Ring, ring

    Hello Jeb

    Mom, what should I do?

    Honey, I already went public.

    Barbara Bush On Jeb Running For President: 'We ...

    california chrome

    Cruz didn't steal Iowa - MS did!

    papaswamp

    Pretty sure CNN and Rubio camp released the info first. Trump is mad because the voters didn't go to him but went to Cruz and Rubio.

    pine_marten

    Yep, neither Crusty or the Hilda beast won. It was Sanders and Trump.

    lakecity55

    Cruiser is just another slimy, gooey, tentacle of THE SQUID tm --

    o r c k

    Let's hope Trump has some good bodyguards. Cheating is a sacred right of the Elite.

    the grateful un...

    cruz isnt elite, if it was bush then you have a point

    Totentänzerlied

    " Cruz later apologized ... and thus admitted to the act." In a reasonable world, that would be the end of his campaign as well as his career and his public life.

    thinkmoretalkless

    I was attracted to Trump's angry outbursts just as I would cheer anyone pounding on the DC crowd, but I've come to believe he is playing a role and his anger is staged to appeal to the masses....and it's working so you can't fault him for that.

    When I saw Trump and his family on stage after the caucuses Monday night it looked like a curtain call for Housewives of Manhattan. And what's with the Gordon Gecko hair cuts....seem kinda dated or are they back. Anyway Matt Damon ain't Jason Bourne and Trump ain't Howard Beale in the film "Network".

    directaction

    Cruz is a Five Star Dirtbag.
    I'd love to see Carson soundly defeat Cruz from now on.

    JamaicaJim

    Jesus Fucking CHRIST!

    ALL thse motherfuckers are dirty as dog shit.

    Every single damn last one of them.

    It is a pain to even post shit on here, "commenting" on this collection of slime and shit.

    Kabuki Theater.

    Fucking ABSURD

    PS ; You Iowa shitheads that voted for Cuntlary Cankles Clinton - especially if you're a woman, and voted for her simply because "she's a woman"

    FUCK YOU

    Sanity Bear

    Kind of feeling that with Rand out, rooting for Trump to bring down the pillars Samson-like is the only thing left to hold my interest.

    inosent

    "PS ; You Iowa shitheads that voted for Cuntlary Cankles Clinton - especially if you're a woman, and voted for her simply because "she's a woman"

    FUCK YOU"

    haha, yeah, seriously

    Heroic Couplet

    Cruz won Iowa for about a day LOL. All we need now is Jimmy Carter's grandson and the hidden camera revealing that Goldman Sachs employees found stack of mailers in their breakrooms with instructions to place mail labels on them.

    11b40

    So a rigged election proces doesn't matter? I'm sure Trump appreciates your advice to quit & give up. What could he be thinking to focus on such a trivial issue?

    Actually, what I think Trump is about to do is nail Cruz's sleezy ass to the wall, and make him slink back to the rock he crawled out from under.

    Arthur Schopenhauer

    What's the big deal? This was on television YESTERDAY MORNING.

    I guess since Trump says it... now it must true?

    Dr. Ben Carson slams Ted Cruz's Iowa victory

    22winmag

    It's like the 1824 election, on crack.

    Jstanley011

    I sure hope The Donald wins the election. Yeah he may be the US's answer to Hitler/Stalin/Your-Favorite-Tyrant, but dang. Talk about something fun to watch on TV! If he proves too much for too many lowly Republi-can't school marms and has to drop out, going back the the boring same-old-same-old of the last seven election cycles is going to be a real let down.

    And think of having this much fun through an entire presidency! TRUMP 2016!!!

    V for ...

    Cynical bitch.

    NoWayJose

    Cruz has been lying about the positions of the other candidates, and as Trump said - he's a mean guy who lies. Let's see if he still thumps a bible after fooling the Iowa voters.

    James TraffiCan't

    Message to Trump and Carson...."Are you really surprised!"

    Fucking Political Establishment! Dirt Bags!

    Beam me up!

    inosent

    Based on the prior polls, the result was not legit. Cruz barely broke 20% on his best day. Shows up with 28%? Rubio polled in the low teens. 23% a day later?

    Trump polled *consistently* at (just the numbers from a wide variety of sources, MSM, and off beat sources) at ~25%. Sure enough, DT get his 25%, but Cruz and Rubio blow up by 10% apiece. I would call that either luck, or a statistical anomaly.

    What was reported, fwiw, is that there was a substantial, massive influx of new republican registration. Further, the democrats have officially shown only 1400 votes cast total through the entire state. There was likely more, but 'party policy' is *not* to report the #s of voters.

    Theory: A lot of Democrats registered as Republican and voted for the candidates they thought had the best chance to beat Trump.

    Fact finding: As far as I know, voter registration is a *matter of public record*. If I were Trump, I would request the voter registration records of all the people for both parties that turned in a ballot. Then, I would request voter registration records in the last 5 years. Then, I would compare the *party affiliation* of each *present* voter with the most recent prior registration.

    What this analysis will show is how many formerly registered democrats switched to republican for this IA caucus. Further, it would also show how many first time registrations with no prior history in the state. For first time registrations, the thing to focus on is *how long has that person been living in the state*.

    I suspect that once the data is analyzed, it will show a considerable number of democrats registered as republicans, and people came into the state to do the same thing, to cast a 'vote' for either Cruz or Rubio.

    One might argue, for something like this to happen on a large scale would require a lot of organization. But that isn't necessarily true. All it would have taken is to float the idea, and as the democrats consider their primary to be pointless (hillary the guaranteed nominee), a far better use of their 'vote' is to game the system, register as republican, and vote for anybody else to do their part to get rid of Trump.

    This is what Trump should be doing. He has $10BB. If he starts the legal process to get the data, I would be happy to analyze it, and publish the results.

    This is an objective, factual measure. Whether or not Cruz 'stole' the vote because Cruz said Carson dropped out is highly speculative. Let's say Carson did drop out. Could they not have just as easily have voted for Trump?

    I think DT has the right idea, but he is barking up the wrong tree. I strongly think Cruz 'won' via fraud, but not the type Trump is saying.

    surf@jm

    Mark Twain once said......"If voting meant anything, then we would not be allowed to do it"....

    [Feb 04, 2016] Pitchfork Time Elites Have Lost Their Healthy Fear Of The Masses

    An interesting, but not a deep, discussion about the possibility of uprising against the neoliberal elite in the current circumstances...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet? ..."
    "... With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spread of global capitalism, today's elites have lost the sense of fear that inspired a healthy respect for the masses among their predecessors . Now they can despise them as losers, as the aristocracy of ancien régime France despised the peasants who would soon be burning their châteaux. Surely today's elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of wealth and power. ..."
    "... will goldman sucks n shitty bank loan me money to purchase a pitchfork? http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/03/update-fec-informs-ted-cr... ..."
    "... It really doesn't matter what *ism society embraces. What matters more is is the power elite greedy enough to sell out their own kind? ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    The following reader comment, posted originally in the FT is a must read, both for the world's lower and endangered middle classes but especially the members of the 1% elite because what may be coming next could be very unpleasant for them.

    Elites have lost their healthy fear of the masses

    Sir, Martin Wolf (" The losers are in revolt against the elite ", Comment, January 27) and Andrew Cichocki ("Elites are listening to the wrong people ", Letters, January 29) skirt the key issue: global elites have lost a healthy sense of fear.

    From the time of the French Revolution until the collapse of communism, what successive generations of elites had in common was a sense of fear of what the aggrieved masses might do . In the first half of the 19th century they worried about a new Jacobin Terror, then they worried about socialist revolution on the model of the Paris Commune of 1871. One reason for the first world war was a growing sense of complacency among European elites. Afterwards they had plenty to worry about in the form of international communism, which remained a bogey until the 1980s.

    With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spread of global capitalism, today's elites have lost the sense of fear that inspired a healthy respect for the masses among their predecessors . Now they can despise them as losers, as the aristocracy of ancien régime France despised the peasants who would soon be burning their châteaux. Surely today's elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of wealth and power.

    Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet?

    h/t @ WallStCynic

    Looney

    Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet?

    Oh, honey, I thought you'd never ask… ;-)

    Goliath Slayer

    How they turned us into Pavlov Dogs >> http://wp.me/p4OZ4v-1zD

    Stuck on Zero

    It's hard to get rid of most of the elites because they have tenure.

    tarabel

    And most people wouldn't have the faintest idea of where to buy, or more probably rent, a pitchfork anyhow. As for torches? What, are you crazy? Those things are dangerous and would void our insurance policy.

    bamawatson

    will goldman sucks n shitty bank loan me money to purchase a pitchfork? http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/03/update-fec-informs-ted-cr...

    AldousHuxley

    It really doesn't matter what *ism society embraces. What matters more is is the power elite greedy enough to sell out their own kind?

    Future Jim

    If you think that freedom is just another ism, then you have been played.

    It is not about greed. It is about power and control. Money is just a means to that end.

    Their own kind? You mean their own race ... their own nation ... their own religion ... ?

    Cadavre

    And a roasting spit and rope to tie em by the ankle to the cherry trees lining the national mall, Musollini style. Urinals hanging from cherry trees. Only in America.

    One does wonder how inbreds surrounded by expensive advisors so easily lost any shred of fight-o-flight survival skills. Guess the extra bling allows them to dream false dreams.

    eforc

    The ones who think they are 'top dog' are about to find out the hard way, there is something much bigger at work...

    "6. The people, under our guidance, have annihilated the aristocracy, who were their one and only defense and foster-mother for the sake of their own advantage which is inseparably bound up with the well-being of the people. Nowadays, with the destruction of the aristocracy, the people have fallen into the grips of merciless money-grinding scoundrels who have laid a pitiless and cruel yoke upon the necks of the workers.

    7. We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces - socialists, anarchists, communists - to whom we always give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule (of the solidarity of all humanity) of our social masonry. The aristocracy, which enjoyed by law the labor of the workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy, and strong. We are interested in just the opposite - in the diminution, the killing out of the goyim. Our power is in the chronic shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker because by all that this implies he is made the slave of our will, and he will not find in his own authorities either strength or energy to set against our will. Hunger creates the right of capital to rule the worker more surely than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal authority of kings.

    8. By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way."

    --The Protocols

    freak of nature

    Fear might be masked, but it's still there.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/30/angela-merkel-caught-on-...

    Memedada

    http://www.rense.com/general45/proto.htm - they're fake.

    Mr. Universe

    The thing is that there are going to be a LOT of folks who thought they were elites. Instead they will be thrown under the bus of the approaching hoards to slow them down while the real elites make sure no one escapes that shouldn't be.

    They no longer fear the masses as they control the cops and the narrative. What will really work and is almost unstoppable is the ghost in the machine. Seemingly random acts of sabotage, just think if the internet went down for even 2 or 3 days. Who would it hurt most, average folk or ? I have a dream...

    wildbad

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USk-ECjYEhI

    Lorca's Novena

    Lol those guys are so blackwater.... It is illegal to have a standing "army" on 'murrican soil. Private for hire jagoffs arent. And no, it wasnt the national guard.

    Chris Dakota

    60% of the people who live in Burns work for the BLM.

    Looney

    Oops! ;-)

    alexcojones

    I think Pitchforks are way too tame. If this patriot lived today he would be decalared a TERRORIST

    The First Hero of the American Revolution

    Mark Mywords

    " Surely today's elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of wealth and power."

    Surely, you jest. The proles won't attack the elites. They won't be able to find them, or get to where they live.

    Tyler(s), you need to stop posting such meaningless tripe. When the serfs rise up, they will attack what is around them. As always.

    bbq on whitehou...

    The internet doesnt forget or forgive transgressions. Sins of the father shall be paid for by their sons.
    "Where are you going to run, where are you going to hide; no where because there is no where left to run to." - Body snatchers

    tarabel

    I think you are correct so far as you take your argument. Yes, they will START on their own neighborhoods. The depth of the fall can be graphed against how far they will go afterwards.

    El Vaquero

    Then we just cut their supply lines.

    knotjammin2

    It is our son's and daughter's who protect the elitist assholes. We know where they built their bugouts and landing strips. We built them. We know where the air vents are for their underground bunkers. We built them. We know where the diesel tanks are to power their generators and you can't hide solar panels. No, we know where there going and how to get to them. Soon!!

    Mr. Universe

    Now you know why the hawaiian's, when they sent a worker down the side of a cliff to bury the chiefs bones in that space reserved for the Ali'i, they "accidently" let go of the rope while he was climbing back up...oopppps, sorry bout 'dat brah.

    indygo55

    "The proles won't attack the elites. They won't be able to find them, or get to where they live."

    Oh you mean like the French Revolution or the Chinese Revolution? Like that?

    HardAssets

    No, the proles do little of substance. But, the time is reached when even their paid off guard dogs will be tired of the insanity that destroys their own extended families. (The psychopaths can't help but push it to the extremes. That is their egotistical nature. Theyve been indulged since they were infants.) When that day of reckoning comes, the criminals will be very afraid.

    The EU 'leadership' bringing in massive outside foreign populations to destroy the existing culture and nation-state is a potential match for the fuse of anger. We see police carrying out orders, but what do they really think ? How bad will they let it get ? Even the Red Army troops refused to go along with it all when the grandmas scolded them for taking part in rolling the tanks toward their own people. And those troops said "Nyet, no more of this." And the USSR was no more.

    conraddobler

    Maybe they haven't played a lot of sims?

    I used to love the old sims of feudal japan where you could set your tax rate at whatever you wanted but the higher you set it the more likely you would get a peasant revolt.

    What's going on is precisely this:.....

    They have learned how to set the tax rate at whatever percentage won't cause utter chaos and then absolve themselves from said taxes through loopholes AND THEN add on top stealth taxes in the form of currency debasement AND THEN on top of all this they've built a ponzi scheme debt based fiasco that is entirely unsustainable.

    I gotta hand it to them they have managed so far to avoid the ire of the peasant class, however methinks that once this shit show rolls into town and starts playing nightly as in reality comes a callin then these same folks are going to need to hide off planet.

    Seriously I'd advise them to look into space travel.

    DipshitMiddleCl...

    The elites today were related to the elites of yesterdays revolutions. They have learned and are keeping track of everything and with the advent of big data and lots of computing power, they know how much time they have before SHTF. They have quants assessing risk daily, and not just market risk..geopolitical and other stuff.

    They dont fear us because they know they can keep ramping up poisoning of our food and other stupid social media gimmicks.

    If all else fails, the jackboots will come out in full force.

    They've been testing and training these detention methods for close to 100 years. From the gulags of Russia to the West Bank / Gaza strip today of Israel.....its being tried and trued.

    And we're next!

    ~DipshitMiddleClassWhiteKId

    carlnpa

    The past nine months have set record monthly background checks. I believe we as a "group" know and feel our existence is in danger, and are responding accordingly.

    alexcojones

    Certainly a patriot CANNOT do it through the ballot box,

    Iowa: Days before the Iowa caucuses in 2012, Ron Paul held a commanding lead in the polls and all the momentum, with every other candidate having peaked from favorable media coverage and then collapsed under the ensuing scrutiny. Establishment Republicans, like Iowa's Representative Steve King (R), attempted to sabotage Paul's campaign by spreading rumors he would lose to Obama if nominated. . . Iowa Governor Terry Barnstad told Politico , "[If Paul wins] people are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire". The message from the Iowa Governor to voters of his state was: a vote for Ron Paul was a wasted vote.

    How t he Republican Party Stole the Nomination from Ron

    August

    The RNC and their minions would have prevented a Ron Paul presidential nomination, by any means necessary - up to and including a terrible, just terrible, plane crash. All those lives lost....

    pipes

    They DID prevent the nomination by any means necessary...and did so, short of crashing a plane. The underhanded shit they pulled in '12 sealed their fate.

    Kirk2NCC1701

    In that case, the Libertarian Party needs to go "full Zio-mode": Take no BS and no prisoners.

    Problem is, they are too "individualistic" (divided, heterogenous), and too 'Christian' (raised in "Religion of Serfs") to create another American or French Revolution, or bring about real change.

    Note that in the American Revolution, its Founders realized that the influence of Clerics needed to be curtailed, and so they invented the "Seperation of Church and State". The French, OTOH, called a spade a spade, and got rid of the Church completely.

    Amerika: Where kids are taught by their parents to believe in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa Claus -- all the while they believe in "Santa for Grownups", i.e. Winged Nordic Humans (Angels) and a Sky God.

    I have ZERO faith that Libertarians will do anyting, other than talk, blog, hold meetings, conventions, have weekend warrior games, or buy any number of Doomsday Products and Services. IOW.. they'll do anything and everything, but March or Protest en mass. They won't even do TV program, much less do a leveraged buyout of a TV channel.

    Like I said: "Too individualistic, to truly matter to TPTB". I WISH it were not to, but I'm just calling it as I see it. Alas. If I'm wrong, I'll jump for joy and click my heels.

    alexcojones

    BTW - Fuck Iowa

    And thank you Stanford for Stomping them in the Rose Bowl

    Pitchfork Voting Machines

    all-priced-in

    Do they have to get off the sofa or can they just send it in on Instagram?

    [Feb 02, 2016] Former Massachusetts senator and would-be New Hampshire senator Scott Brown will endorse Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is more of a moderate nationalist, and if he takes on our most critical problem of illegal immigration and border security ..."
    "... Moderate Nationalist is better than the beholden to open borders donor cash GLOBALIST Republicans ..."
    www.thegatewaypundit.com

    Former Massachusetts senator and would-be New Hampshire senator Scott Brown, a moderate Republican who once graced the pages of Cosmopolitan, will endorse Donald Trump at rally on Tuesday night, one week before the state's presidential primary, according to the Washington Post.

    Brown will appear onstage with the real estate mogul/reality star/billionaire Republican semi-frontrunner at a rally in Milford, Hew Hampshire, barely 24 hours after Trump was handed an embarrassing second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses.

    Trump's commanding lead in the New Hampshire polls - combined with the demographic benefits of a less-religious Northeastern state - have already put the Granite State primary victory well within his reach. Whether the endorsement of a carpet-bagging senate candidate who lost his own race in New Hampshire two years ago will do much to boost the Donald's campaign remains to be seen.

    The Guardian's Ben Jacobs files from New Hampshire:

    The endorsement had long been expected - the only question was whether it would come before Iowa or after the caucuses. It serves to compliment the Iowa endorsement of Sarah Palin. While the former vice presidential nominee had long been beloved by conservatives with the Republican Party, Brown was considered a star among the GOP's moderate wing after a shock win in a 2010 special election. While Brown was never known for his policy chops, he serves a well-liked figure in the Republican party who can serve as a validator for Trump among New Hampshire's notoriously flinty, moderate electorate.

    calmly_observing > ridgerunner

    I find that since Trump announced and starting to get traction there is almost unprecedented zeal by a lot of his followers and his detractors to push away "the other." There must be at least a dozen factions that were once all uniformly conservative or GOP or whatever label that are now trying to push others away. Now Rush. Already Coulter. Next Mark Levin. Heck, there may be two dozen factions all fighting each other before the election even arrives!

    ridgerunner > calmly_observing

    Befuddled thinking. There are only two factions: Establishment and "We the People"

    Skutch > donh

    Trump also does himself no favors by pandering to conservative Christians. He would be much better off stating flatly that he is an unobservant believer who doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about his faith, than trying to fake his way through it as he has been. He's not fooling anyone. That will NOT play well outside of New England.

    Skutch

    Folks, I love THAT Donald Trump is running. I love HOW he's shaking up the campaigns. I love WHAT he is talking about and how that's changed the dialogue this election cycle. But I don't love Donald. His positions are not conservative - tea party, establishment, libertarian or otherwise. He's basically a one issue (immigration) candidate with a very big microphone, enormous ego, and the benefit of a fierce cult of personality. This can only end badly for us.

    dave0987 > Skutch

    Who's calling Trump a conservative? I've yet to see anyone call him one. Trump is more of a moderate nationalist, and if he takes on our most critical problem of illegal immigration and border security finally, and we get even 65-75% of his promises that's a-okay and better than 100% of nothing with the others and the status quo of OPEN BORDERS and the soon to follow UNBEATABLE NUMBERS OF NEW DEMOCRAT VOTERS which results in a DEMOCRAT DICTATORSHIP.

    Think ahead. Look at the big picture. Right now it's about living to fight another day. The priority of PRESERVATION.

    Moderate Nationalist is better than the beholden to open borders donor cash GLOBALIST Republicans, and CERTAINLY better than open borders communist Democrats. Sadly as super-ultra-mega-deluxe-king-of-all-conservatives as Cruz (praise his holy name) may be, he's still beholden to Robert Mercer and all the other open-borders donors, which means, as in decades past, NOTHING WILL CHANGE on our country's most critical issue of illegal immigration and border security.

    Let's not forget what all the so-called Conservatives have done for us-including all the Tea Party landslides we were so excited about. Hint: Google GOP CAVES and you can see in the results, pretty much right down the list of issues they have been the party of surrender and the party of DEMOCRAT ENABLERS.

    TRUMP 2016..

    Guest

    Scott also wrote an op-Ed in 2012 socking Warren over "you didn't build that" standing up for entrepreneurs and business owners. If true, it makes sense he'd value Trump's unsurpassed business success among the candidates and his decades in an executive role.


    [Feb 02, 2016] Bernie Sanders wants raw vote count released after tight finish in Iowa caucuses

    The Guardian

    "Tonight is a wonderful start to the national campaign," Sanders said in a packed gangway on the late-night flight heading east to beat an incoming snowstorm. "Tonight shows the American people that this is a campaign that can win."

    He threw little light on an unfolding controversy over certain Iowa precincts that did not have enough Democratic party volunteers to report delegate totals for each candidate but did call on officials to take the unusual step of revealing underlying voter totals. Delegates are awarded in the Iowa Democratic contest on a precinct-by-precinct basis, irrespective of the state-wide vote for each candidate.

    "I honestly don't know what happened. I know there are some precincts that have still not reported. I can only hope and expect that the count will be honest," he said. "I have no idea. Did we win the popular vote? I don't know, but as much information as possible should be made available."

    Sanders' campaign director, Jeff Weaver, told reporters he did not "anticipate we are going to contest" specific results but hoped there would be an investigation into what happened.

    He also claimed the tight result, in a state where Sanders had once trailed by Clinton in polling by 50 percentage points, was a sign of a dramatic surge of popularity for his agenda to reduce income inequality and "seize back democracy from the billionaire class".

    "People said we had an inferior ground game, that we didn't have as good an understanding of the state," said Weaver. "I think we certainly demonstrated that we had at least as good a ground game and I would argue that we had a better one because we started out [as underdogs]."

    [Feb 02, 2016] Iowa caucus results: Sanders and Clinton 'in virtual tie' as Cruz beats Trump - as it happened

    Notable quotes:
    "... Keep in mind Iowa is a strictly for registered party members, Independents can't participate there. That is why Trump didn't perform well (he depends on the loosely termed Tea Party , that draws it's popularity OUTSIDE the party via the Libertarians and Independents). ..."
    "... Reagan used the South in his bid for presidency because they don't require party registration nor force them to choose what they chose in the primaries. So they can vote either way they chose ... and with a secret ballot. This helps when win fever erupts and join the bandwagon and it's hooping and hollering collects more votes, and not alienate your friends and family. ..."
    "... Iowa had no secret ballot nor Independents. So hold onto your hats until after March Primaries (that has some of the most populated states voting) to pick the winning horse, either by conscious or win fever . ..."
    "... True, but by the same token - look how well Carson did. That almost certainly came out of Trump's supporters, since they're very similar candidates. If Carson bows out, those people probably go straight to Trump, giving him an easy edge against Cruz, who spent a LOT of time working Iowa, and hasn't done much elsewhere. Then again, that depends upon 'loser' Trump being able to explain why he's still a winner. ..."
    "... Iowa is basically a chance for underdogs to attract a bit more attention and get a bit more funding from folks who would pull their money out otherwise. But it's not indicative of much more than that. And New Hampshire is in a similar position - good for politics and momentum, but not actually very predictive. ..."
    "... MPs in the UK have been expressing relief at Donald Trump's failure in Iowa. Well they shouldn't be relieved. Trump had poor numbers against Hilary and (especially) Bernie for the general. Cruz is more competitive. And Trump was most probably a harmless blowhard, whilst Cruz is just as poisonous and is driven by ideology rather than ego. ..."
    "... ..."
    The Guardian

    kattw RecantedYank 2 Feb 2016 11:39

    Eh... Iowa really doesn't prove electability, though. It's got a roughly 50% rate of caucusing for the candidate eventually chosen - the coinflip was, oddly, about as accurate as getting votes. And it is a swing state lately, but a small one - if he wins Ohio or Florida, it's time to be proud.

    That being said, it DOES give him momentum, and was a good showing - he could have lost by 10% and still called it a clear sign that people liked him. His only real problem is his own words - he predicted a clear victory if turnout was high. And turnout WAS high - higher than it's ever been, yet he still (very narrowly) lost. So he's golden... so long as his supporters don't actually hold him accountable for what he says.

    Clinton, meanwhile, has acted like it was going to be a tough fight, and clearly got a tough fight. Since she lost Iowa last time, this will energize HER base too - and it's not super likely that a bigger win would have helped her much more.

    Marcedward -> starlingnl 2 Feb 2016 11:13

    Clinton did not crack 50% in a state where she used to be ahead by 40points in the polls. Clinton suffered a big setback - the base is against her.


    SandyK -> ezyian 2 Feb 2016 10:59

    Trump's in trouble though, as Iowa is a closed election for only party loyalists. It shows who the party likes and dislikes, especially to White Christian voters.

    Trump is not what HE think's he is, as the vote is fairly evenly divided in the GOP. None are clear winners in ideology.

    IF Trump pulls ahead in the March Primaries it's the Independents driving his campaign ... and oh, the GOP is going to cannibalize itself IF Trump gets the nomination from support outside the party.

    That's how voters leave the party, just like in 1980 (when the choice was Carter or Kennedy). ^-^


    SandyK 2 Feb 2016 10:50

    Keep in mind Iowa is a strictly for registered party members, Independents can't participate there. That is why Trump didn't perform well (he depends on the loosely termed "Tea Party", that draws it's popularity OUTSIDE the party via the Libertarians and Independents).

    It shows what the parties itself thinks of their candidates.

    March with the huge primaries will show what the cross section of the USA thinks about them.

    Reagan used the South in his bid for presidency because they don't require party registration nor force them to choose what they chose in the primaries. So they can vote either way they chose ... and with a secret ballot. This helps when "win fever" erupts and "join the bandwagon and it's hooping and hollering" collects more votes, and not alienate your friends and family.

    Iowa had no secret ballot nor Independents. So hold onto your hats until after March Primaries (that has some of the most populated states voting) to pick the winning horse, either by conscious or "win fever".


    kattw -> Majentah 2 Feb 2016 10:40

    True, but by the same token - look how well Carson did. That almost certainly came out of Trump's supporters, since they're very similar candidates. If Carson bows out, those people probably go straight to Trump, giving him an easy edge against Cruz, who spent a LOT of time working Iowa, and hasn't done much elsewhere. Then again, that depends upon 'loser' Trump being able to explain why he's still a winner.


    kattw Mr0011011 2 Feb 2016 09:29

    That's not even correct. For democrats, in the last 11 caucuses not counting yesterday, they picked wrong 3 times (four if you count that more people didn't know who to vote for than voted for Carter), and 2 times were uncontested - ie: basically a 50% chance of picking right when there's an actual contest to decide. For republicans, they were wrong 4 times, and choosing uncontested spots three times - ie: again a roughly 50% chance of choosing correctly when there was actually a contest.

    Iowa is basically a chance for underdogs to attract a bit more attention and get a bit more funding from folks who would pull their money out otherwise. But it's not indicative of much more than that. And New Hampshire is in a similar position - good for politics and momentum, but not actually very predictive.

    Which really makes the coin-flip seem logical in retrospect, since it's about a 50% chance the Iowa delegates will be voting for the eventual winner either way.

    confettifoot -> confettifoot 2 Feb 2016 08:55

    I'll follow Sanders' lead on this one. I've watched and listened closely when he addresses Hillary. He respectfully and emphatically disagrees on actual issues (and agrees on others, and says so), and never stoops to flinging dubious half-truths, rightwing-generated smear soundbytes or dishonest construction of fact. It's one of the reasons why I love and respect him. Bernie supporters who do otherwise only do him great harm and don't deserve him. Save your spleen for the Republicans, know the difference, and support Bernie.

    Lafeyette 2 Feb 2016 08:34

    "This is not the end, this is not even the beginning of the end, this is just perhaps the end of the beginning."

    -Sir Winston Churchill

    Vermouth Brilliantine 2 Feb 2016 08:31

    God help us if this trend continues and we end up with a Cruz vs. Clinton presidential election. Righteous evil vs. the crypto-Wall Street hawk-in-leftist clothing. Not a race I'd like to see.

    furiouspurpose 2 Feb 2016 08:30

    MPs in the UK have been expressing relief at Donald Trump's failure in Iowa. Well they shouldn't be relieved. Trump had poor numbers against Hilary and (especially) Bernie for the general. Cruz is more competitive. And Trump was most probably a harmless blowhard, whilst Cruz is just as poisonous and is driven by ideology rather than ego.


    kambge Faranelli 2 Feb 2016 07:57

    To be honest we've had G.W bush who was basically as nearly as bad as trump, the fake hope of Obama who probably is a decent guy but is controlled by other forces, the problem is that if Bernie gets elected, there is not much her or any US president can do to stop the inevitable decline of the US economy, and people will blame socialism and public spending again for the ills of really stupid financialization of the economy, greed and short-sigthedness from our political and financial leaders.

    US debt is unsustainable in the long run. The only reason countries bought it in the past was gunboat diplomacy, the only reason the chinese buy it now is to prop up a broken system - their own financial system is equally bubbalicious although I'm not so clued up on the Chinese economy. We need a big market re-adjustment to sort all of this shit out and then rebuild from the ashes.


    [Feb 02, 2016] I like Bernie Sanders. His supporters? Not so much

    Notable quotes:
    "... Its not just economics; its excessive competitiveness. Racial and gender prejudices are competitive group strategies. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Luna Ante Sol 2 Feb 2016 11:24

    So stale. This is the same old tired messaging coming out of the Clinton camp for months on end. Declaring one's candidate the presumptive winner while claiming victimhood is more than a tad disingenuous. This oft repeated routine to rally the troops in protection of Ms. Clinton, makes one wonder how she can be expected to lead. For shame.

    erpiu 2 Feb 2016 10:58

    the bottom-line question about hillary is:

    can she be trusted with the hopes and the vote of impoverished usa voters of any race...

    i) given the ~140 million in *personal-wealth* bribes she&he have already received, and keep receiving, from WS, the "sweatshops for america!" council, and the "private prisons R us" trade group?

    ii) given that her demonstrated appetite for money and for the lifestyles of the rich and famous requires her getting further bribes from WS and the plutocrats?

    iii) given her record of opportunism with only one constant: advancing her career and hubby's (or were the race-baiting prison and welfare bills idealistic? was it slick willie's boasting after DOMA?).

    iv) given her mixed ideological upbringing, exposures, and moderate "likes" that span from the openly racist rightwing reactionary world (campaigning for "southern-strategists" b.goldwater and r.nixon), to "realistic" by-bribe-only anything-for-WS race-baiting, gay-baiting, welfare-baiting "progressivism"?


    Cafael 2 Feb 2016 10:49

    it's self-evident to any true leftist that all issues should come back to economics.

    It's not just economics; it's excessive competitiveness. Racial and gender prejudices are competitive group strategies. If you want a more competitive society with liberal values, you can't achieve that holistically, you can only do it through draconian censure of the outward expressions of prejudice, by attacking, even criminalising dissent, creating totalitarian liberalism. Making people fear to publicly express racial prejudice while keeping all the money and power in white hands, thus ultimately sanctifying and reinforcing the power of white elites. Perhaps that is the agenda, and actually ending racial prejudice or sexism or homophobia isn't really the point.

    A more compassionate, less competitive society on the other hand, not uniformly conformist, tall poppy cutting or happy clappy but recognising from our experience, from our human perspective that winning or being 'better than' having 'more than' isn't an ulimately fulfilling imperative; recognising that the society's basis and symbiosis is more than merely transactional, would more fundamentally change the way people consider minorities and gender, because such a society wouldn't be running on rivalry and hatred.

    I'm not saying Western society does run on those emotions, far from it, but the modern, ever more extreme capitalist ideology may be, with the best of intentions, sleepwalking that way, because it doesn't understand its own philosophy.

    voxjubilante 2 Feb 2016 10:42

    This "BernieBros" narrative has already been eviscerated at The Intercept:

    https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the-bernie-bros-narrative-a-cheap-false-campaign-tactic-masquerading-as-journalism-and-social-activism/

    Perhaps you can come up with something new?

    [Feb 01, 2016] Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right

    www.politico.com
    ... ... ...

    But just because Trump is an imperfect candidate doesn't mean his candidacy can't be instructive. Trump could teach Republicans in Washington a lot if only they stopped posturing long enough to watch carefully. Here's some of what they might learn:

    He Exists Because You Failed

    American presidential elections usually amount to a series of overcorrections: Clinton begat Bush, who produced Obama, whose lax border policies fueled the rise of Trump. In the case of Trump, though, the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their ad buys or waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption of the Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn't.

    Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you'd have to consider it wasted.

    Pretty embarrassing. And yet they're not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents "an existential threat to conservatism."

    Let that sink in. Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding? They're the ones who've been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change. Now they're telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don't, they're liberal.

    It turns out the GOP wasn't simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too.

    On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like Ted Cruz didn't appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it's hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don't go to public school. You don't take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It's all good.

    Apart from his line about Mexican rapists early in the campaign, Trump hasn't said anything especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals - these are the ravings of a Nazi? This is the "ghost of George Wallace" that a Politico piece described last August? A lot of Republican leaders think so. No wonder their voters are rebelling.

    Truth Is Not Only A Defense, It's Thrilling

    When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for fear of being punished or criticized for saying it? If you live in America, it probably hasn't been long. That's not just a talking point about political correctness. It's the central problem with our national conversation, the main reason our debates are so stilted and useless. You can't fix a problem if you don't have the words to describe it. You can't even think about it clearly.

    This depressing fact made Trump's political career. In a country where almost everyone in public life lies reflexively, it's thrilling to hear someone say what he really thinks, even if you believe he's wrong. It's especially exciting when you suspect he's right.

    A temporary ban on Muslim immigration? That sounds a little extreme (meaning nobody else has said it recently in public). But is it? Millions of Muslims have moved to Western Europe over the past 50 years, and a sizable number of them still haven't assimilated. Instead, they remain hostile and sometimes dangerous to the cultures that welcomed them. By any measure, that experiment has failed. What's our strategy for not repeating it here, especially after San Bernardino-attacks that seemed to come out of nowhere? Invoke American exceptionalism and hope for the best? Before Trump, that was the plan.

    Republican primary voters should be forgiven for wondering who exactly is on the reckless side of this debate. At the very least, Trump seems like he wants to protect the country.

    Evangelicals understand this better than most. You read surveys that indicate the majority of Christian conservatives support Trump, and then you see the video: Trump on stage with pastors, looking pained as they pray over him, misidentifying key books in the New Testament, and in general doing a ludicrous imitation of a faithful Christian, the least holy roller ever. You wonder as you watch this: How could they be that dumb? He's so obviously faking it.

    They know that already. I doubt there are many Christian voters who think Trump could recite the Nicene Creed, or even identify it. Evangelicals have given up trying to elect one of their own. What they're looking for is a bodyguard, someone to shield them from mounting (and real) threats to their freedom of speech and worship. Trump fits that role nicely, better in fact than many church-going Republicans. For eight years, there was a born-again in the White House. How'd that work out for Christians, here and in Iraq?

    [Feb 01, 2016] Gaius Publius A Non-Neoliberal Woman President Is Not One of the Choices

    Notable quotes:
    "... Most of the rank and file who still fervently support her never made it as far up the ladder as a Joan Walsh, but they identify with Walsh, because werent they all together and equals once, not so long ago? Except it was long ago. The passage of 30-35 years matters, and the utter divergence of their stature and economic safety matters even more. They want a vicarious win for themselves via Hillary. Because theyre fools. ..."
    "... The lame gender justification for voting for Hillary Clinton reminds me of what my late mother used to call yellow dog Republicans in South Dakota. They would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for any Democrat. ..."
    "... Put in context, Sanders was responding to requests by the Saudis for U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS. He saw through it, saying that what they really wanted was U.S. troops to protect the billionaire Saudi royal family. ..."
    "... Those who are on board with neoliberalism and the American Imperial Project can vote for Hilary on points–I have no problem with that so long as they are honest about it. ..."
    "... It also seems that to some extent Hillary is benefiting from the fact that she is such a toxic monster that its hard to even process, it seems unreal and hard to believe in. I mean, here is a person who has pushed to waste trillions of dollars devastating middle eastern countries that dont threaten us, has de-facto allied the United States with Al Qaeda (!), has pushed to spend trillions of dollars bailing out Wall Street while starving main street of capital, intends to gut social security to help pay for all this largesse to the 1% (because deficits are bad, you know), wants us to sign a trade agreement that is effectively a corporate coup, making our domestic laws subservient to a bunch of foreign corporate lawyers meeting in secret, used her tenure as secretary of state to sell out the national interest for personal cash while she was still in office… And people say that Trump is dangerous? Or that Bernie is unelectable? Really? ..."
    "... If Hillary Clinton, neoliberal and neoconservative warmonger, is elected the first woman president, it will be appropriate for this nation, given its system of predatory global capitalism enforced by military brutality and violence. Appropriate, but not at all beneficial, for most of us and the planet. ..."
    "... Wall St bankers were worried about angry populism coming for their hides in 2008. Knowing that identity politics trumps issue politics for most Democrat voters, they inserted Obama into the mix, and the Democrats lapped it up like the identity-card simpletons that they are. This shifted the focus of the 08 Democrat primaries from Wall St and Iraq to a tacit identity battle based on race and gender. ..."
    "... I also think Clinton is the Candidate Most Likely to Start WW3, and that includes all ..."
    naked capitalism
    From a recent Guardian article , this from long-time Wall Street trader Chris Arnade. This is worth reading in full. He starts:

    I owe almost my entire Wall Street career to the Clintons. I am not alone; most bankers owe their careers, and their wealth, to them. Over the last 25 years they – with the Clintons it is never just Bill or Hillary – implemented policies that placed Wall Street at the center of the Democratic economic agenda, turning it from a party against Wall Street to a party of Wall Street.

    That is why when I recently went to see Hillary Clinton campaign for president and speak about reforming Wall Street I was skeptical. What I heard hasn't changed that skepticism. The policies she offers are mid-course corrections. In the Clintons' world, Wall Street stays at the center, economically and politically. Given Wall Street's power and influence, that is a dangerous place to leave them.

    Now some of his story:

    Salomon Brothers hired me in 1993, seven months after President Bill Clinton's inauguration. Getting a job had been easy, Wall Street was booming from deregulation that had begun under Reagan and was continuing under Clinton.

    When Bill Clinton ran for office, he offered up him and Hillary ("Two for the price of one") as New Democrats, embracing an image of being tough on crime, but not on business. Despite the campaign rhetoric, nobody on the trading floor I joined had voted for the Clintons or trusted them.

    Few traders on the floor were even Democrats, who as long as anyone could remember were Wall Street's natural enemy. That view was summarized in the words of my boss: "Republicans let you make money and let you keep it. Democrats don't let you make money, but if you do, they take it."

    Despite Wall Street's reticence, key appointments were swinging their way. Robert Rubin, who had been CEO of Goldman Sachs, was appointed to a senior White House job as director of the National Economic Council. The Treasury Department was also being filled with banking friendly economists who saw the markets as a solution, not as a problem.

    The administration's economic policy took shape as trickle down, Democratic style. They championed free trade, pushing Nafta. They reformed welfare, buying into the conservative view that poverty was about dependency, not about situation. They threw the old left a few bones, repealing prior tax cuts on the rich, but used the increased revenues mostly on Wall Street's favorite issue: cutting the debt.

    But when Clinton bailed out Mexico to make Wall Street debt-holders whole, Wall Street knew that administration was theirs:

    Most importantly, when faced with their first financial crisis, they [the Clinton administration] bailed out Wall Street.

    That crisis came in January 1995, halfway through the administration's first term. Mexico, after having boomed from the optimism surrounding Nafta, went bust. It was a huge embarrassment for the administration, given the push they had made for Nafta against a cynical Democratic party.

    Money was fleeing Mexico, and much of it was coming back through me and my firm. Selling investors' Mexican bonds was my first job on Wall Street, and now they were trying to sell them back to us. But we hadn't just sold Mexican bonds to clients, instead we did it using new derivatives product to get around regulatory issues and take advantages of tax rules, and lend the clients money. Given how aggressive we were, and how profitable it was for us, older traders kept expecting to be stopped by regulators from the new administration, but that didn't happen.

    When Mexico started to collapse, the shudders began….

    Those shudders were entirely unnecessary. The Clinton administration saved the banks by bailing out their debtors. They pushed for "a $50bn global bail-out of Mexico, arguing that to not do so would devastate the US and world economy. Unmentioned was that it would have also devastated Wall Street banks " (my emphasis). The success of that bailout became a template that's with us today. It was "used it as an economic blueprint that emphasized Wall Street. It also emphasized bailouts".

    As a result, "Wall Street now had both political parties working for them, and really nobody holding them accountable. Now, no trade was too aggressive, no risk too crazy, no behavior to unethical and no loss too painful. It unleashed a boom that produced plenty of smaller crisis (Russia, Dotcom), before culminating in the housing and financial crisis of 2008."

    This was not just Bill and his actions. It was his administration. As Arnade notes above, when Bill Clinton ran for office he offered himself and Hillary as "Two for the price of one," as "New Democrats, embracing an image of being tough on crime, but not on business." Is Hillary still of this mind? She was in 2008. As a senator, according to Arnade, "Hillary Clinton voted to bail-out the banks, a vote she still defends. " A vote opposite to the vote of Bernie Sanders .

    Where's Is Wall Street's Money Going Today?

    And now just one of the reasons the story told above is still the story today, and is still a Hillary Clinton story. The following graphic show data through October, 2015:

    2015-10-27-1445913198-8500119-SecuritiesInvestmentChartUpdated
    Campaign donations from individuals who work in the securities and investments industry ( source ; click to enlarge)

    This is an awful lot of money for an individual to give to someone who's going to jail them for fraud. Again, this and the previous bulleted piece don't comprise two stories, an older one and a newer one. They are clearly one story, even without considering the recent money from Wall Street speeches .

    Clinton Goes to Pennsylvania to Reap Windfall from Pennsylvania Frackers

    One more point, this time about the climate, one of the places we started this piece. Consider the following from Brad Johnson, something from the current fundraising cycle:

    Last night, Hillary Clinton attended a gala fundraiser in Philadelphia at the headquarters of Franklin Square Capital Partners, a major investor in the fossil-fuel industry, particularly domestic fracking. The controversial fracking industry is particularly powerful in Pennsylvania, which will host the Democratic National Convention this July.

    Clinton has avoided taking any clear stand on fracking. While she has embraced the Clean Power Plan, which assumes a strong increase in natural-gas power plants, she also supports a much deeper investment in solar electricity than the baseline plan. The pro-Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record, run by David Brock, touts Clinton's aggressive pro-fracking record .

    Numerous grassroots groups have risen to oppose the toxic fracking of Pennsylvania and its labor abuses, including Marcellus Protest , No Fracking Way , Pennsylvanians Against Fracking , Keep Tap Water Safe , Stop Fracking Now , and Stop the Frack Attack .

    As reported by the Intercept's Lee Fang, "One of Franklin Square Capital's investment funds, the FS Energy & Power Fund" the Intercept's Lee Fang reports , "is heavily invested in fossil fuel companies, including offshore oil drilling and fracking." The company cautions that "changes to laws and increased regulation or restrictions on the use of hydraulic fracturing may adversely impact" the fund's performance.

    Through its fund, Franklin Square invests in private fracking and oil drilling companies across the nation, as well as Canada and the Gulf of Mexico. This includes heavy investment in Pennsylvania frackers. …

    There's much more at the link - this is just a taste.

    Will the first woman president be our "fracker in chief" and put the earth on a diet of methane, a deadly greenhouse gas, until it fries? I'm afraid, if the first woman president is Clinton, the answer will be yes. It breaks my heart that this is not a "clean election," but it's not, and it's not one of our choices to make it one.

    (Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you'd like to help out, go here ; you can adjust the split any way you like at the link. If you'd like to "phone-bank for Bernie," go here . You can volunteer in other ways by going here . And thanks!) kimsarah , January 31, 2016 at 4:52 am

    Wasn't it Lloyd Blankfein who said he'd be happy with either Hillary or Jeb?
    As illustrated here, Wall Street has been happy with the "establishment" leadership of both parties, ever since the Clintons came to Washington - even though it is still fashionable to badmouth Democrats because they are supposedly tougher regulators and less pro free market capitalism.
    Thank goodness, more and more voters are realizing that their choices should not be based on party affiliation or gender, but who can best fix the damage done by the neoliberals of both parties and stop bowing to Wall Street. That is why Sanders and Trump have been rising in the polls. Now we'll see if that momentum will translate into election results.

    Gaius Publius , January 31, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Yes, kimsarah.

    But the private consensus is similar to what Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said to POLITICO late last year when he praised both Christie - before the bridge scandal - and Clinton. "I very much was supportive of Hillary Clinton the last go-round," he said. "I held fundraisers for her."

    People close to Blankfein say the same calculus applies to a Jeb Bush-Hillary Clinton race as it would to a Christie-Clinton contest. "Those would be two very good choices and we'd be perfectly happy with them," a person close to Blankfein said. Blankfein is a self-described Democrat, but his comments about Christie and Clinton reflect the ambidextrous political approach that many Republicans and Democrats on Wall Street take.

    Wall St. Republicans' dark secret

    PlutoniumKun , January 31, 2016 at 6:11 am

    Everyone deep down is 'tribal' in the sense that they always find themselves attracted to politicians who in some sense are a reflection of who they are. So people always feel drawn for the 'local guy' above the better 'outsider', the person of similar ethnic background, similar accent, school, etc. Its a natural thing, and not altogether a bad thing. Its the same thing that makes communities work.

    I recently had an argument with a cousin who lives in a rural area. She said she was voting for a particular politician 'because he looks after the locals'. This politician is known to be corrupt and a liar – he was described as such by two different judges. To the horror of outsiders, he keeps getting elected with big majorities because people like my cousin see him as 'our guy' and the more sophisticated urban types hate him, the more they like him. My comment to my cousin was 'if you vote for him simply because he is 'local' and ignore his corruption and lies, then you lose all rights to complain about anything bad in this country, ever. Because you are the reason.' Yeah, I was a bit mad (she just laughed).

    My point is that we need to call out people who vote for people like Clinton because she is a woman (or any other such superficial reason). Yes, it is emotionally understandable for a certain generation of women to see her as 'one of us'. Entirely understandable. It is also entirely wrong. The educated woman who votes for Clinton 'because' is no different from the idiot Kansas rube who votes for tea-partier 'because dem city types hate him', just with less excuse, because education is supposed to matter. If someone votes Clinton because they agree on bombing the Middle East and bailing out Wall Street, and Fracking everywhere, well, thats fine – just say it. But playing the gender (or any other such card) is intellectually vapid and anyone who does it loses the right to complain about politicians anytime, anywhere, ever.

    James Levy , January 31, 2016 at 6:27 am

    My problem is the hypocritical way they talk about voting for a woman then turn around and lambaste a Palin or a Fiorina whom they would never vote for and hold in contempt. These people are not even for 'the tribe"–they are exclusively for Rodham Clinton. This makes their appeal to the woman angle, in my opinion, odious and false. It's "sisterhood is powerful" except I get to decide who the sisters are. And since they are selective about who is and is not worthy of being voted for as a woman, you see that deep down they really do endorse the miserable neoliberal agenda of Clinton, because they have so decisively declared her an "us" while Palin and Fiorina get to be a "them". If policies matter, and it seems in their definition of us and them they do, then you've got to believe that they are OK with Clinton's policies no matter how they may equivocate.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 31, 2016 at 10:31 am

    David Brock and Sydney Blumenthal are prominent members of the Clinton campaign. How anyone can tolerate these pigs beyond outright crooks is just saddening. The Iowa Caucus might be fun. The sight of young women explaining Hillary has these examples of human filth as attack dogs to proud older women should be quite humorous.

    Of course, please try of Hillary supporters will be astonished when they hear about Hillary's name to being connected to every fp disaster of the last 20 years. Her die hard supporters will get nasty.

    hidflect , January 31, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Hillary started nailing her own coffin lid down right from the start when she had some operative issue a missive informing the unwashed masses what terminology was deemed unacceptable and sexist. True or not, people don't like to be told what to do. And what good did such instructions serve? Apart from warning misogynists to use alternate dog-whistles?

    Norb , January 31, 2016 at 11:23 am

    For a long time now, I have been having an ongoing conversation with various coworkers concerning the imperative to confront the corruption plaguing our society thru personal and political action. While all see the hardship caused by neoliberal policies, there still exists a mental barrier that cannot be broken thru. No rational argument seems to move them beyond their current stand. Many are stuck on lesser of two evils thinking and others are entrenched in one issue voting, regardless if their candidate repudiates most issues they profess to support. Another strong force is overcoming the underlying sense of economic fear. People are trying desperately to hold onto what they have and are easily persuaded by arguments that threaten what little stability they worked out for themselves. One thing I have learned is the power of propaganda- it is no small thing to move people once they have been conditioned to believe something.

    Another distressing characteristic is the underlying sense of powerlessness to bring about change. The agency question. TINA. When discussing political issues, invariably the angry response to questions of fighting corruption turns to- this is how its always been! It is a depressing circular argument. People are against corruption but vote to elect corrupt representatives, then fail to make any connection with their actions and the predictable outcome. At this point, moving from complaining to doing is the only plausible response.

    What to do? I agree that people must be called out on their wrong headed statements and actions. This is the effort that counteracts the massive propaganda spewing out from the MSM. Learning how to do this well is important. Bringing out common cause and solidarity is a learned skill.

    This common cause must be centered on the workplace. It is at work that we labor to provide for all our needs.
    Finding ways to strengthen fair and just workplaces must rank high on the list of important activities to support. It really is about educating and demonstrating that socialism is a worthwhile goal to achieve. Selfishness and greed will be the end of us all.

    3.14e-9 , January 31, 2016 at 5:01 pm

    This is it. You can send people links to facts - and I mean primary sources, not a blog or an opinion piece masquerading as real journalism - and yet they still cling to the narrative. The human mind has an extraordinary ability to contort facts to fit into a belief system or to justify ignoring them altogether.

    Uahsenaa , January 31, 2016 at 1:37 pm

    Compromises: A Political Dialogue

    Me: So, who are you liking this go around?
    Feminist: Clinton, I think.
    Me: Why? She's a neoliberal shill, and you hate all that crap!
    Fem: It's important to me that a woman be elected to a visible position of authority.
    Me: Well, you could vote for Jill Stein. She's a woman and she agrees with your politics.
    Fem: A Green party candidate is never going to get elected.
    Me: So, you're willing to compromise politics for practical concerns.
    Fem: Somewhat, but not entirely.
    Me: So Clinton is the one, because being a woman is more important that having sound political positions?
    Fem: I didn't say that.
    Me: But Sanders is much close to Stein politically than Clinton is.
    Fem: Yes.
    Me: So, if the candidate who is not a woman but has more in common with a real progressive who is a woman does not win out over the candidate who is a woman but also a neoliberal shill, would it not stand to reason then, that, for you, gender is more important than issues of economic justice.
    Fem: I didn't say that.
    Me: You didn't have to.

    James Levy , January 31, 2016 at 6:15 am

    I don't know how Clinton became inextricable linked in the minds of so many aspiring non-reactionary women with everything right and good, but it seems to be a judgment-neutralizing given that it has. And it is very personal and tied directly to Rodham Clinton. These people ridiculed Palin and wouldn't vote for Carly Fiorina if their lives depended on it, so it's not really women, per se, that they are boosting–it is this particular woman. I am sure that Walsh, Pollitt, et al. have no problem excoriating the millionaire wannabes who flock to Trump. Well, in an act of gender equality I posit this: that they are a generation of Hilary wannabes and their identification with Hilary is no different than millions of people's identification with Trump.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 31, 2016 at 11:47 am

    I think the reactionary problem is endemic to both parties. Clinton supporters are just following their legitimate leader the way Republicans do. Virtue of being born into a Democratic linked household or being excluded by the GOP is the genuine separation.

    FluffytheObeseCat , January 31, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    Hillary Rodham Clinton is their 'Big Chill' darling. She's emblematic of their own transitions from left wing-ish college students to young professionals……. to rather sadly compromised professional class middle management, with teenagers who dislike them and mortgages.

    Most of the rank and file who still fervently support her never made it as far up the ladder as a Joan Walsh, but they identify with Walsh, because weren't they all together and equals once, not so long ago? Except it was long ago. The passage of 30-35 years matters, and the utter divergence of their stature and economic safety matters even more. They want a vicarious 'win' for themselves via Hillary. Because they're fools.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 31, 2016 at 5:04 pm

    I fall into this trap of focusing on gender breakdowns, but Democratic voters are women. When it comes to telling stories of Democratic voters, women will dominate. The key breakdown is 1996. This isn't about Hillary as much as its about Bill. Clinton Inc. has been protected and defended for years. Please try of women who have themselves been "slut shamed" applauded when Democratic elites attacked a 19 year old intern as a serial predator.

    Dolts like Lena Dunham, her show is just awful, have the resources to not have to think about tomorrow and can fret about their bucket list. Plenty of older women have semblance of plans or think they do and just want to get to social equity and Medicare. Change is less important to their planning as much as go holding steady.

    The breakdown of Hillary support is between the ages of 35 and 40. An 18 year old in 1996 will be 38 this year. Bill didn't deserve votes in 1992 or 1996. Bill and his cronies were just awful and have cashed in on their corruption since he left office. Hillary is a chance to prove Bill was not awful. Hillary can prove Nader and Nader voters were deserving of contempt, not Gore and his crummy campaign. People, especially who weren't old enough to vote in 1996 didn't vote for Clinton Inc.

    Carolinian , January 31, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    Hillary is a chance to prove Bill was not awful.

    There is the rumor that Bill is the one pushing a somewhat reluctant Hillary to run. Perhaps he hopes the honor of he Clinton name can be restored. Doubtless America is looking forward to once again being plunged into this psychodrama.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 31, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    I wouldn't be surprised. Supposedly he was depressed after leaving office with no direction. The real Dule Hill*, as corrupt as anyone around, was the driver of the Clinton Wedding Registry…I mean Global Initiative. I also remember Dick Morris recounting a story about Bill inquiring if he would ever be a great President. Morris said the great ones had wars. Of course, he Ignored FDR from 1933 to 1941. When Bill is portrayed in popular media, it's usually as a lecherous creep or a poll driven coward. The sleazy nature of the Clinton Slush Fund will never be redeemed. The Democrats roared into Congress without Bill or his cronies at the helm in 2006 and 2008.

    If Gore Vidal were alive, can you imagine email how a hypothetical Clinton biography would read? Bill was elected to earn money, but judging from youth reaction to Hillary campaigns, history won't be kind to Bill. When Dean was elected to the DNC and Obama was elected, Clinton Inc. was clearly rejected. Democrats regaining control of Congress without Bill was another rejection. Bill is smart enough to see this, but he Isn't big enough to recognize his failures and move on constructively.

    *Bill's body man not Gus.

    DakotabornKansan , January 31, 2016 at 6:45 am

    The lame gender justification for voting for Hillary Clinton reminds me of what my late mother used to call yellow dog Republicans in South Dakota. They would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for any Democrat.

    Once again many are ignoring ethical red flags and willing to make a pact with the yellow dog.

    Bob Herbert once described the Clintons as a terminally unethical and vulgar couple, who betrayed everyone whoever believed in them.

    "If anyone doubts that the mainstream media fails to tell the truth about our political system (and its true winners and losers), the spectacle of large majorities of black folks supporting Hillary Clinton in the primary races ought to be proof enough. I can't believe Hillary would be coasting into the primaries with her current margin of black support if most people knew how much damage the Clintons have done – the millions of families that were destroyed the last time they were in the White House thanks to their boastful embrace of the mass incarceration machine and their total capitulation to the right-wing narrative on race, crime, welfare and taxes. There's so much more to say on this topic and it's a shame that more people aren't saying it. I think it's time we have that conversation." – Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

    The Democratic Party can't get rid of the Clintons because they have become the Clintons.

    craazyboy , January 31, 2016 at 7:23 am

    I think the real solution is to just break off a piece of the country and make a new one. Sounds like no one is using Michigan anymore. That might be a good choice. Then all the tribal, identity politics, dominatrix and sissyboy types can move there and let women run the new country. It would serve Bill right too. Karma is sleeping on the couch in the Michigan governor's mansion.

    Msmolly , January 31, 2016 at 10:30 am

    "Karma is sleeping on the couch in the Michigan governor's mansion." …and drinking Flint's water…

    Active Listener , January 31, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Okay, I agree identity politics can be short-sighted, and would be harmful in this situation, but I don't think off-the-cuff advocacy for the banishment of people who embrace non-traditional gender roles is a progressive-minded solution. Seems to me that trumpeting the horror of non-traditional gender roles has been one of the conservatives' best weapons/Trojan Horses to rally support for neocon candidates who grovel at the feet of oligarchs pushing plutonomy-friendly policies.

    Language is important. Pushing people away who have struggled with the burden of non-normative identities helps no one but those who wish to divide, conquer, exploit, and finally abandon.

    Eclair , January 31, 2016 at 11:43 am

    "…..break off a piece of the country …." The peanut-brittle option!

    Tom Allen , January 31, 2016 at 9:27 am

    "A non-neoliberal woman president is not one of the choices." Wait, what? Has Jill Stein suddenly pulled out of the race? (And Gloria La Riva and Monica Moorehead as well?)

    PhilK , January 31, 2016 at 10:04 am

    I imagine GP is aware of Jill Stein, but he'd be banned from DailyKos if he wrote anything that was favorable to her. Not snark!

    Yves Smith Post author , January 31, 2016 at 10:39 am

    Jill Stein has 0 chance of becoming president. Gaius' post is accurate as it stands.

    And I know you Greens will take umbrage, but I would never recommend her. Her background is sorely lacking. She has no administrative experience. She never run an organization nor has she ever held an elective office. She's never written a bill or worked on getting one passed. I'm not wild about Sanders' experience, since all he's done is run a town of 40,000 people, but he's leagues ahead of Stein. You need to find more credible candidates if you want people to take the Greens seriously.

    SoCal rhino , January 31, 2016 at 11:42 am

    I voted for Jill Stein as a protest vote. Saw nothing odious in her positions, and saw value in being counted as "none of the above" as opposed to not voting. I likely wasn't the only such vote among the dozen or so she collected. Although skeptical at first, I hope Bernie is still in the mix by the time the primaries get this far. But I,m a crazy optimist, I hold out hope for one day voting for another Republican.

    Vatch , January 31, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    Regarding Sanders's executive experience: we've had a lot of Presidents with no administrative experience. Quite a few have spent their careers in legislatures, without ever having been a governor, cabinet officer, mayor, or whatever. Granted, some of them were not good Presidents, but whether they were good or bad, they had a lot less executive experience than Sanders has had.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 31, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    Reagan, Nixon, Bill, 43, and Carter aren't exactly ringing endorsements for prior executive experience.

    Gio Bruno , January 31, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    Being Governor doesn't mean one is a good executive, or even smart! Think Arnold of California. You may not believe this, but Arnold had such a limited understanding of the English language that he, himself, could not explain his administrations budget document. (He could not read it!)

    Sometimes politics and intelligence don't intersect.

    TheCatSaid , January 31, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    I understand your point. And –extensive, successful, practical legislative experience is relevant for executive positions such as POTUS. Sanders' many years in Congress (since 1990) and Senate (last 7 yrs), where he used his Independent status to good effect in getting bills passed, deserve a mention. A Rolling Stones article a few years ago highlighted this strength.

    Steve H , January 31, 2016 at 12:23 pm

    I have a falsifiable problem with her. No surprise she goes after Republicans. But from what I have seen, she has spent more time working against Sanders than speaking truth to power about Clinton. The times she could specifically address Clinton, from what I have seen, she substitutes 'Democratic Party' in the statement.

    This says to me she is more concerned about market share and Sanders is her primary competition. Paying attention to what can hurt you or take away resources from you, while not spending your own resources on what has little impact, is part of a selection process. My interpretation is that she is more concerned with pulling votes from the Democratic Party than advancing her stated agenda.

    I very much welcome the opportunity to be proved wrong here.

    Gaius Publius , January 31, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    I understand the Green Party (etc.) protest vote motivation. When there's no one really to pick from (depending on your point of view), it's an option I understand.

    But this time, for the first time in a generation, there's actually someone to pick who could win and who will bust up the insider game for real, or give it a hell of a shot. Here's one: I'm reading now that NAFTA can be abrogated by the executive branch alone, based on one of its clauses. I'm still chasing this down.

    Let's assume that's true. How about putting the one person into office who might actually execute that option? Sanders certainly hates these job-killing trade deals enough to do it. And he understands why they need to be killed.

    This year, 2016, and this primary, is our one real shot. It's like 2008 without the fake self-presentation. I say it's important we put our shoulders behind that one wheel and push.

    My thoughts, anyway.

    GP

    Cujo359 , January 31, 2016 at 2:36 pm

    Agreed. Sanders isn't perfect, but he's right on the economic issues. Like most modern politicians, he's bought into the crazy notion that a balanced federal budget is a good thing, but beyond that, he's as good as it's been in a long time.

    I supported Jill Stein and the Greens in 2012, and probably will again in the general if it turns out Clinton is the nominee of the Democrats. But Sanders is the best chance of righting the ship, as I see it, and he's worth supporting on that basis. Even with a hostile Congress, there's still a lot a modern-day President can do, and I think Sanders will do everything in his power to make things better.

    Gaius Publius , January 31, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    Re this:

    Sanders isn't perfect, but he's right on the economic issues. Like most modern politicians, he's bought into the crazy notion that a balanced federal budget is a good thing

    Keep in mind that when Sanders became Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, he hired Stephanie Kelton as the committee's economist. I'm sure they've had a lot of time to have the MMT conversation.

    There's definitely a ways to go to kill the underlying lie that keeps "austerity" viable as a policy, but there is that voice in his ear if he wants to listen to it. And again, he chose her.

    GP

    Uahsenaa , January 31, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    In the spirit of keeping things real, I'm going to be that guy, and remind everyone who's starting to get starry eyed over Sanders that Lyndon Johnson was also very good on social and economic justice–and he happened to preside over the escalation of one of the most politically divisive wars in American history. FDR did too, as it turns out, though we retroactively justify WWII as moral nowadays because of the Holocaust, even though that had nothing to do with why we went to war in the first place.

    Johnson and Sanders have a lot in common, extensive legislative experience, for one. It was Johnson who actually got Kennedy's dead in the water civil rights act passed, due in no small part to his intimate knowledge of how the Congress operates. And, of course, the Great Society, which Repubs (and their Dem allies) have been chipping away at for years now.

    Oh, and both never unequivocally repudiated the disastrous effects that American foreign policy at the muzzle of a gun or sight of drone has unleashed upon the world.

    And when it comes to leftist politics, Johnson actually tried to muzzle the more overtly socialist aspects of King's message, for fear that it might cause embarrassment with regard to the Soviets.

    Now, this is not to say that Sanders 100% = Johnson, but simply to remind us that playing up social and economic justice while waving a hand over the bellicosity of every single Democrat and Republican candidate could very well bite everyone in the butt some day. If Sanders is elected, people better not fail to hold his feet over the fire like many did with Obama.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 31, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    LBJ also had Jack's foreign policy loons everywhere and likely a pathological condition about skipping out on World War II. It's not like Johnson decided on his own to invade Vietnam. Jack had a division there on his own.

    When clowns like Hillary, Biden, and Kerry were voting for war in Iraq, Sanders opposed them.

    Uahsenaa , January 31, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    I'm glad you made that point, because it too is something to bear in mind. The Team Blue apparatchiks are not just going to disappear into the night with a Sanders presidency–they may very well wreck things within their particular executive fiefdoms. Corbyn's shadow cabinet woes have shown quite forcefully how New Labour/New Dem types can muck things up even after they've been trounced.

    If Sanders means what he says, that the real fight begins after the inauguration, then I won't regret standing under a Bernie sign tomorrow night.

    Gio Bruno , January 31, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    I think you have too brief a summary on LBJ.

    The US had been involved in Vietnam since the French were defeated at Diem Bien Phu, in 1954. It became part of our "Cold War" strategy. Our "advisers" on the ground were assassinating folks there long before LBJ decided to escalate the war after "learning" of the "attacks" on the US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. (All lies!) His trust in General McFarland was LBJ's downfall.

    As for the Voting Rights Act, LBJ gets a big hug. But the Civil Rights movement had been going on for years before he signed the Act in 1965. I lived through the era and the confrontations in the South were absolutely tragic. There was enormous political pressure to resolve the issue. (Unfortunately, it has not been resolved: abject racism has been replaced by institutional racism.)

    Vatch , January 31, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    At least one of Johnson's legislative wins, his 1948 Senate primary runoff election, was almost certainly dependent on rigged ballots. I doubt that anything remotely similar to that is true for Sanders.

    3.14e-9 , January 31, 2016 at 6:44 pm

    Sanders has said he isn't a pacifist, but that doesn't make him an imperialist warmonger, as those on the anti-war left have been painting him ever since he ran for Congress in 1990.

    This is a good example of what I wrote above about narratives. This one has been repeated over and over, and writers such as Chris Hedges, Joshua Frank, and David Swanson are cited as sources (often by each other). So, for example, when Sanders said the Saudis needed to send ground troops to fight ISIS, the keepers of that narrative started frenzied arm-waving about Imperialist Bernie and Bernie's "screwy Middle East policy," without bothering to research the origin and context (Sam Husseini seized on that one comment as the basis for an entire article about Sanders's imperialist plan to take over all the Middle East oil fields, while Swanson wrote, "Sanders insists Saudi Arabia should kill more people").

    Put in context, Sanders was responding to requests by the Saudis for U.S. ground troops to "fight ISIS." He saw through it, saying that what they really wanted was U.S. troops to protect the billionaire Saudi royal family. Essentially he was telling them to FO and use their own damn troops - and, by the way, Saudi Arabia has one of largest military budgets in the world, so they had some nerve to expect U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill. They won't use their own troops, of course, because that would create more backlash against the monarchy (they ended up convincing Pakistan to do it, evidently through an offer to pay handsomely). Contrary to the narrative, Sanders NEVER has suggested that the Saudis be given free rein to invade neighboring countries or that they should lead the fight against the Islamic State. He argues for a coalition of Muslim nations along the lines of that suggested by Jordan's King Abdullah.

    While it's true that Sanders doesn't yet have a fully formed foreign policy, he does have a lot more experience than he's given credit for, and if you take his record in its entirety, the picture that emerges is not of a neoliberal interventionist.

    Vatch , January 31, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    If Sanders succeeds in winning the Democratic nomination in July, in August, the proper thing for the Greens to do would be to endorse Sanders for President. They would still be able to run all of their candidates for other offices.

    Carolinian , January 31, 2016 at 10:43 am

    I'm not sure it's illegitimate for some people–if that's what's important to them–to vote for Hillary because she's a woman. After all lots of people voted for Obama because he was African American. But at least with Obama his lack of track record meant optimism over his claimed goals was possible. Whereas with Hillary we know exactly what we will be getting and it's not good. Her problem is the very experience she is constantly touting, the "hard choices," tells us what to expect. So unless one is on board with her hawkishness and Wall St cronyism then feminist supporters like Walsh are pushing their own agenda at the expense of everyone else. And if they are on board with those things then, really, why are we reading them anyway?

    James Levy , January 31, 2016 at 11:06 am

    My issue is that these people are not voting for her because she's a woman, because there are loads of women they would not vote for–they are voting for her because she is Hilary Rodham Clinton. They are saying, in effective, "policies count, but not in this case", or at least the supposedly Progressive/Left women are saying that. Those who are on board with neoliberalism and the American Imperial Project can vote for Hilary on points–I have no problem with that so long as they are honest about it.

    TG , January 31, 2016 at 10:55 am

    Well said! Kudos.

    It is human nature to vote for someone like yourself: Blacks for Obama, Women for Hillary Clinton, Irish for Hugh O'Brien, etc. But this "Identity politics" can be a trap, and provides cover for corrupt representatives that will not defend your interests. In particular, when a politician emphasizes their identity instead of their policies, alarm bells should go off. And we should vote our interests.

    It also seems that to some extent Hillary is benefiting from the fact that she is such a toxic monster that it's hard to even process, it seems unreal and hard to believe in. I mean, here is a person who has pushed to waste trillions of dollars devastating middle eastern countries that don't threaten us, has de-facto allied the United States with Al Qaeda (!), has pushed to spend trillions of dollars bailing out Wall Street while starving main street of capital, intends to gut social security to help pay for all this largesse to the 1% (because deficits are bad, you know), wants us to sign a trade agreement that is effectively a corporate coup, making our domestic laws subservient to a bunch of foreign corporate lawyers meeting in secret, used her tenure as secretary of state to sell out the national interest for personal cash while she was still in office… And people say that Trump is dangerous? Or that Bernie is unelectable? Really?

    REDPILLED , January 31, 2016 at 11:00 am

    There IS a woman, Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, who is truly progressive in both her domestic and foreign policies. Of course, in our rigged election system, such third party candidates have no chance at even being covered by the corporate media, let alone being elected.

    If Hillary Clinton, neoliberal and neoconservative warmonger, is elected the first woman president, it will be appropriate for this nation, given its system of predatory global capitalism enforced by military brutality and violence. Appropriate, but not at all beneficial, for most of us and the planet.

    tongorad , January 31, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Identity politics appears to trump policy for a great many people…still. I know people who are crowing and cooing about a possible Hillary/Julian Castro ticket. As if the Obama debacle never happened.

    Carla , January 31, 2016 at 1:34 pm

    The only bright spot to a Hillary Clinton nomination is that it would probably enable the Green Party to retain ballot access in Ohio (and I'm guessing in other states as well). Greens and even those who lean Green (a much larger group) are unlikely to vote for Hillary, and the GP must win 3 percent of the vote statewide to keep access to the ballot.

    Since our crisis really is systemic, I don't think we will ever make progress toward solving our problems within the duopoly that's in place now.

    roadrider , January 31, 2016 at 2:31 pm

    Yeah, I agree with that. I support (and contribute to) Jill Stein's campaign but I'm going to be seriously conflicted if Sanders is the DP nominee. I'm also supporting Margaret Flowers for Senate in my state (MD) so even if I vote for Sanders I'll still be able to support an GP candidate for a high office.

    none , January 31, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    If Bernie isn't nominated I'm supporting the non-neoliberal woman candidate, Jill Stein.

    sgt_doom , January 31, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Ditto!

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 31, 2016 at 4:38 pm

    I don't think the Democrats grasp the scale of this sentiment. Hillary was supposed to bring in "stupid," young women who are breaking for Sanders despite the nastiness out of the Clinton campaign. Obama sure among black enthusiasm in 2012 in response to GOP efforts to disenfranchise minority voters. It's likely they would have not rallied around the President. Considering blacks have never voted in record strength for Clinton or Gore (1996 and 2000 were periods low African American turnout), it's unlikely Hillary will change the course. Say goodbye to PA, Virginia, and Ohio.

    Given the despicable treatment of Hispanic immigrants by the Obama Administration, the Hispanic community at large won't be eager for Obama's third term. There goes New Mexico, Florida, and Colorado.

    Then if course, there are the down ticket races where Team Blue candidates don't have the adherents Hillary has.

    MaroonBulldog , January 31, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    A vote for Hillary is a vote to send the message that Hillary projects, to wit: a big, loud, and shrill "up yours" to people who play by rules and demand that public officials do the same.

    Next time you hear Bill or Hillary praising people to who play by the rules, remember, these two are vile, inveterate cheats who never play by any rules themselves.

    allan , January 31, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    First they came for the nurses' union, and I said nothing …

    Clinton's campaign and its supporters have pointed to the nurses' spending in support of Sanders to suggest his attacks on Clinton as the candidate of big money are disingenuous and hypocritical.

    But, according to the super PAC's FEC filing, almost all of the PAC's cash flow came in the second half of last year ― and every dime of it came from the union itself. The union did not respond immediately to an email seeking information about its super PAC finances, but the money likely came from dues that members paid to be a part of the union [the horror, the horror …], which come in much smaller increments than the seven-figure checks that fill the coffers of the super PACs that Sanders derides on the campaign trail as eroding American democracy.

    Left in Wisconsin , January 31, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    PAC contributions don't (can't) come out of regular dues. (Unions can make political contributions out of the general fund without setting up a PAC.) Those who wish pay additionally to support a union's PAC. So the NNU PAC is really just a bundling of individual members' voluntary contributions. Not "big money" in the least.

    sgt_doom , January 31, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    Hillary and the Bimbo Vote

    There are many reasons I will never vote for neocon, Hillary Clinton: her support for Obama's war on whistleblowers (Cate Jenkins, John Kiriakou, Jeffrey Sterling, Barrett Brown, Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, Carmen Segarra, et al.), her support for private prisons - dating from her support for Bill's Omnibus Crime Bill, her involvement in the overthrow of President Zelaya of Honduras - and when those Honduran kids would predictably stream across the border several years later, they would be held at prison camps run by the Geo Group, a major donor to Hillary, her support for the offshoring of American jobs and replacing American workers with foreign visa workers (Tata Consultancy of India was a major donor to her when she was a senator), her help in creating the Trans-Pacific Partnership, etc. - but when I have explained this to women over the age of 45 their eyes glaze over - but when I mention that during the Clinton Administration it was forbidden for their people to publicly utter the phrase, " corporate welfare " - they begin to pay attention!

    Reminds me of a brief discussion I had a few years back with a woman in her 70s who nonsensically believed that Bernie Madoff's wife was a victim?

    Even though I explained that if plenty of us realized he was running a scam, there was no way his two sons and wife couldn't know as well, but since they were profiting nicely from it, they kept quiet - she refused to believe me.

    Several weeks later Mrs. Madoff was caught illegaly attempting to offshore their court-frozen assets, and then she too was put on house arrest, with Bernie, and restricted from telephone and computer usage.

    A typical bimbo . . . .

    But I most certainly do believe a woman should be president in 2016.

    http://www.jill2016.com

    DJG , January 31, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    And Glenn Greenwald weighs in:

    https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the-bernie-bros-narrative-a-cheap-false-campaign-tactic-masquerading-as-journalism-and-social-activism/

    two beers , January 31, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    I get blank stares when I tell people that in 2008, I didn't vote for Obama but that I did vote for an actual progressive. That candidate happened to be a black female who had been banished from the Democrat* Party by Rahmbo for her stance on Palestine.

    I'm not especially intelligent, but I don't buy into identity politics, so even I could tell very early on in the '08 Democrat primaries that Obama was a stooge and a phony. Democrat voters demean Republican voters for the latter's ignorance, racism, and nativism. I demean Democrats because they are so easily manipulated by identity politics.

    Wall St bankers were worried about angry populism coming for their hides in 2008. Knowing that identity politics "trumps" issue politics for most Democrat voters, they inserted Obama into the mix, and the Democrats lapped it up like the identity-card simpletons that they are. This shifted the focus of the '08 Democrat primaries from Wall St and Iraq to a tacit identity battle based on race and gender.

    I also think Clinton is the Candidate Most Likely to Start WW3, and that includes all of the Republicans. Her recent ad has a shot of Scary Putin while telling us she'll "keep us safe"; she is more vehemently anti-Russian than anyone in the GOP. I honestly think there is a high probability that she will confront Russia militarily if she is elected. It'll never happen, but I'd like to see Sanders' campaign remake LBJ's famous 1964 ad, this time targeting the Goldwater Girl.

    Anyone who votes for Clinton because she is a woman deserves all the contempt we reserve for ignorant, racist, and nativist Republican voters.

    *I'll restore the "ic" if/when the Democrat Party restores itself.

    [Jan 31, 2016] Paul Krugman Plutocrats and Prejudice

    Professor Krugman is a regular (albeit gifted) neoliberal stooge. Nothing new in this column, it just more relaing from the point of of you him, being a bought up columnist.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Krugman, the accidental plutocrat ..."
    "... Krugman especially is embarrassing. Acting just like he did during the MMT Wars. What a little man hes turned out to be. ..."
    "... I only got 5 sentences down. Totally jumped the shark to the neolib owned by wall st side. ..."
    "... There are some very serious, crucial issues here that Krugman, who is my favorite blogger/columnist, is, uncharacteristically and to his great shame, is treating like a political hack: that is the decline of the white lower middle class, the decline of unionism, the political strategy of the right starting with the Southern strategy and then extending across the country to use traditional white working class precarity in a society rife with social and economic change that goes back 2 generations to rip the working and lower middle class apart politically. The strategy is as old as Reconstruction, at least - but it has been amplified economically by globalation and the boom of the plutocrats. ..."
    "... Look at American racism, and most forms of sexism, and increasingly lower-classism. They consist of three parts: contempt for the class, a willingness to use violence against the class, and a demand that the class be industrious and of service - not to themselves, but to those who exert the force and express the contempt, while experiencing neither violence or contempt in return. ..."
    "... That lower and middle class, working Americans scramble to find someone to blame is no surprise. But the controllers who have rigged the game against them, dont let any blame stick to their Teflon carapaces. However women, lower class men and people of colour dont have access to the financial Teflon. Even though they are all companions in suffering, through similar shared mechanisms, no one is handy to take the blame except themselves. ..."
    "... So they end up trying to exert the elite power of contempt and violence on each other, as drowning sailors might climb up each others shoulders to stay above water. Yet no level of status - man versus woman, native versus immigrant, working versus unemployed -- is sufficient anymore to provide more than an inch more or less above the waves. ..."
    "... I am so very sorry to see Krugman use straw man arguments and appeals to authority, two techniques which he has previously said he disapproved of, to, lets face it, attack Bernie Sanders ..."
    "... Im almost starting to feel like Krugman is using some reverse psychology tactic to turn more people against Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... BLS Wage Data by Area and Occupation, 29-1062 Family and General Practitioners, Mean Annual Wage: $186,320. ..."
    Economist's View
    anne :
    Oligarchy is a very real issue, and I was writing about the damaging rise of the 1 percent back when many of today's Sanders supporters were in elementary school....

    -- Paul Krugman

    [ Simply nutty. Paul Krugman has decided to destroy Bernie Sanders, and ridicule and intimidate any of the "kiddies" who are so lacking in maturity as to care to support Sanders. What is driving this nuttiness is beyond my understanding. ]

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman...

    Krugman, the accidental plutocrat

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ...
    Krugman, the accidental plutocrat, 19 years ago:

    http://primary.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/01/the_accidental_theorist.html

    Perhaps the biggest objection to my hot-dog parable is that final bit about the famous journalist. Surely, no respected figure would write a whole book on the world economy based on such a transparent fallacy. And even if he did, nobody would take him seriously.

    But while the hot-dog-and-bun economy is hypothetical, the journalist is not. Rolling Stone reporter William B. Greider has just published a widely heralded new book titled One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism. And his book is exactly as I have described it: a massive, panoramic description of the world economy, which piles fact upon fact (some of the crucial facts turn out to be wrong, but that is another issue) in apparent demonstration of the thesis that global supply is outrunning global demand. Alas, all the facts are irrelevant to that thesis; for they amount to no more than the demonstration that there are many industries in which growing productivity and the entry of new producers has led to a loss of traditional jobs -- that is, that hot-dog production is up, but hot-dog employment is down. Nobody, it seems, warned Greider that he needed to worry about fallacies of composition, that the logic of the economy as a whole is not the same as the logic of a single market.

    I think I know what Greider would answer: that while I am talking mere theory, his argument is based on the evidence. The fact, however, is that the U.S. economy has added 45 million jobs over the past 25 years -- far more jobs have been added in the service sector than have been lost in manufacturing. Greider's view, if I understand it, is that this is just a reprieve--that any day now, the whole economy will start looking like the steel industry. But this is a purely theoretical prediction. And Greider's theorizing is all the more speculative and simplistic because he is an accidental theorist, a theorist despite himself -- because he and his unwary readers imagine that his conclusions simply emerge from the facts, unaware that they are driven by implicit assumptions that could not survive the light of day.

    Needless to say, I have little hope that the general public, or even most intellectuals, will realize what a thoroughly silly book Greider has written. After all, it looks anything but silly--it seems knowledgeable and encyclopedic, and is written in a tone of high seriousness. It strains credibility to assert the truth, which is that the main lesson one really learns from those 473 pages is how easy it is for an intelligent, earnest man to trip over his own intellectual shoelaces.

    Why did it happen? Part of the answer is that Greider systematically cut himself off from the kind of advice and criticism that could have saved him from himself. His acknowledgements conspicuously do not include any competent economists--not a surprising thing, one supposes, for a man who describes economics as "not really a science so much as a value-laden form of prophecy." But I also suspect that Greider is the victim of his own earnestness. He clearly takes his subject (and himself) too seriously to play intellectual games. To test-drive an idea with seemingly trivial thought experiments, with hypothetical stories about simplified economies producing hot dogs and buns, would be beneath his dignity. And it is precisely because he is so serious that his ideas are so foolish.

    Sandwichman -> anne...
    BTW, anne, I found the thing I wrote earlier on cubism and econoometrics.

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/01/links-for-01-28-16.html#comment-6a00d83451b33869e201bb08b34a39970d

    anne -> Sandwichman ...
    https://rwer.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/econometrics-and-the-art-of-putting-the-rabbit-in-the-hat/

    February 8, 2014

    I think the the term "econocubism" (or "econocubisme") may be useful here. There may well be a Braque, a Picasso, a Metzinger or a Gleize of econometric analysis, but for most practitioners it is a mannerism that alludes, clumsily even, to a technique.

    The "joke" about cubist painting that circulated in popular satire in the pre-war (W.W. I) days was centred around "Maistre Cube", a pun that simultaneously referred to the painter as "cube master" and as "cubic metre."

    One problem is that econometric analysis is so "incomprehensible" that it has never been subjected to the same degree of popular suspicion and ridicule as have fashions (along with alleged hoaxes and mystifications) in modern art.

    -- Tom Walker

    anne -> anne...
    What an excellent and important analogy.
    anne -> Sandwichman ...
    Really, really excellent:

    http://www.pablopicasso.org/images/paintings/three-musicians.jpg

    Jeffrey Stewart :
    If Dr. Krugman doesn't get that political appointment in a Hillary Clinton administration, it's not because he didn't work for it.

    Benedict@Large -> Jeffrey Stewart...

    All of a sudden, Camp Hillary is accusing the opposition of nastiness. EXACTLY like Camp Hillary did in 2008. I don't think they know how to lose.

    And Krugman especially is embarrassing. Acting just like he did during the MMT Wars. What a little man he's turned out to be.

    ilsm :

    I only got 5 sentences down. Totally jumped the shark to the neolib owned by wall st side.

    His quote is important: it is "love of $$$ is the root of all evil."

    Leave inequality alone and you cannot fight racism, sexism, nativism, war mongering, enforcing obscure parts of the old testament etc.

    Like, I have stopped reading Krugman unless it is wonkish on economic then I will shut down if it is neo-lib.

    On the Krugman's side of the shark money is an important entity, don't worry what it does to societies and individuals!

    RGC -> ilsm...
    "Leave inequality alone and you cannot fight racism, sexism, nativism, war mongering, enforcing obscure parts of the old testament etc."

    A conclusion both Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X arrived at late in their lives.

    ilsm -> RGC...
    Greed is vice no matter how you wring your hands about the hardships delivered when greed is stopped.

    Julio :

    Krugman is one of my heroes, but man, is he ever having a bad patch. I think the full article is better and more nuanced than our host's abbreviated version, and I urge people to read it in full. But still...

    First, his admittedly oversimplified version of Sanders' positions is a caricature. Sanders is not a one-trick pony on inequality; and his call for "revolution" is almost entirely a call for more citizen participation in politics.

    And second, according to Krugman the fact that there is a lot of racism and xenophobia out there means that visions of significant change are "naive". Then what, the "realist" version is to appease the racists? or to wait until they change? yes, we can make common cause with them, right now, against the plutocrats, but we don't want their votes? What exactly is the strategy he espouses, other than "don't fly too high, you might burn"?

    And, very uncharacteristically for Krugman, his position seems confused. Is he saying we cannot reach the racists, so don't even try, i.e. the left-wing version of Mitt's 47% speech? Or, work slowly to change their views on race, and then they will come to our side? Or, just aim for 51% of the votes and a minority in Congress? It's hard to tell.

    Chris G -> Syaloch...
    > Definitely one of the weakest, most confused columns ever from Krugman, who's been one of my heroes as well.

    I'd only quibble in that it wasn't just today's column. He's had a run of really weak and confused columns over the past week. If they'd been as well thought out and insightful as most of his work they'd have been worth reading, even if I disagreed strongly. What bothers me is that they're sloppy and clueless. Hopefully it's just a bad week and not a trend.

    Paine -> Julio ...
    Pk seems to have little sense of frustration at the failures of the main frame Democrats

    The millions out there that have seen nothing positive in their lives since jimmy carter

    Yearn for big change
    And those that tell them it's coming it's coming
    Just in baby steps are infuriating them

    Look at krugs list of Barry Deeds

    The recovery ?
    Are u kidding

    Slight tax increases for the affluent
    Even as the top 1% gallops away from the rest of us


    People want immediate improvement after 40 yeas waiting

    Pk points to increments on
    The environment

    Healthcare

    The ACA has not transformed anything yet
    For 80% of America
    They see premiums and co pays
    Not a social commitment to universal corporate health insurance
    Dodd frank ?

    Where does that show up at the dinner table ?


    Paul simply lives mostly outside his own life politically

    And yet he does not get the urgency

    Liberals look at Ethiopia to have their heart turned on
    not queens NY
    Or Toledo Ohio

    Fine but the anger is real
    the hope postponed a scandal

    Syaloch :
    I seriously think it's time to check Krugman's basement for pods. Where did this guy go and how do we get him back?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html

    Confronting the Malefactors

    By Paul Krugman | Oct. 6, 2011

    There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.

    When the Occupy Wall Street protests began three weeks ago, most news organizations were derisive if they deigned to mention the events at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National Public Radio had provided no coverage whatsoever.

    It is, therefore, a testament to the passion of those involved that the protests not only continued but grew, eventually becoming too big to ignore. With unions and a growing number of Democrats now expressing at least qualified support for the protesters, Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

    What can we say about the protests? First things first: The protesters' indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right.

    A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will never get served, has taken over much of our political debate - and, yes, I myself have sometimes succumbed. In the process, it has been easy to forget just how outrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you've forgotten, it was a play in three acts.

    In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst - but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers' sins. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support - and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts - behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.

    Now, it's true that some of the protesters are oddly dressed or have silly-sounding slogans, which is inevitable given the open character of the events. But so what? I, at least, am a lot more offended by the sight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth to government guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things about them than I am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.

    Bear in mind, too, that experience has made it painfully clear that men in suits not only don't have any monopoly on wisdom, they have very little wisdom to offer. When talking heads on, say, CNBC mock the protesters as unserious, remember how many serious people assured us that there was no housing bubble, that Alan Greenspan was an oracle and that budget deficits would send interest rates soaring.

    A better critique of the protests is the absence of specific policy demands. It would probably be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to see enacted. But we shouldn't make too much of the lack of specifics. It's clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it's really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details.

    Rich Yeselson, a veteran organizer and historian of social movements, has suggested that debt relief for working Americans become a central plank of the protests. I'll second that, because such relief, in addition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help the economy recover. I'd suggest that protesters also demand infrastructure investment - not more tax cuts - to help create jobs. Neither proposal is going to become law in the current political climate, but the whole point of the protests is to change that political climate.

    And there are real political opportunities here. Not, of course, for today's Republicans, who instinctively side with those Theodore Roosevelt-dubbed "malefactors of great wealth." Mitt Romney, for example - who, by the way, probably pays less of his income in taxes than many middle-class Americans - was quick to condemn the protests as "class warfare."

    But Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now, however, Mr. Obama's party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is take these protests as seriously as they deserve to be taken.

    And if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along, Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.

    Fredd G. Muggs :
    I too admire Dr. Krugman, but I agree he seems to have concluded that Sect. Clinton would be the best choice for president and is letting that significantly influence his views and writing.

    I do not think $$ is the root cause of all evil, but it is like gasoline to a fire, it sure makes everything worse. I also believe that the Tea party is an authoritarian group, and is therefore not persuadable by reason.

    I am supporting Sen. Sanders for the nomination. I am not naive enough to think he will accomplish everything he campaigns on (no president ever does) but I like his passion and starting positions better than Sect. Clinton's.

    If nominated I will support Sect. Clinton, but at this stage of the race I will support the person I think is the best candidate.

    anne -> am...

    The BBC had a note today about this conflict between Sanders and Clinton. They referred to the nastiness appearing on blogs especially mentioning its direction against those that disagree with or do not support Sanders....

    [ BBC folks are wildly trying to destroy Bernie Sanders just as BBC folks want to destroy Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. ]

    anne -> am...
    https://theintercept.com/2016/01/21/the-seven-stages-of-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition/

    January 21, 2016

    The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition
    By Glenn Greenwald

    The British political and media establishment incrementally lost its collective mind over the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the country's Labour Party, and its unraveling and implosion show no signs of receding yet. Bernie Sanders is nowhere near as radical as Corbyn; they are not even in the same universe. But, especially on economic issues, Sanders is a more fundamental, systemic critic than the oligarchical power centers are willing to tolerate, and his rejection of corporate dominance over politics, and corporate support for his campaigns, is particularly menacing. He is thus regarded as America's version of a far-left extremist, threatening establishment power.

    For those who observed the unfolding of the British reaction to Corbyn's victory, it's been fascinating to watch the D.C./Democratic establishment's reaction to Sanders' emergence replicate that, reading from the same script. I personally think Clinton's nomination is extremely likely, but evidence of a growing Sanders movement is unmistakable. Because of the broader trends driving it, this is clearly unsettling to establishment Democrats - as it should be.

    A poll last week found that Sanders has a large lead with millennial voters, including young women; as Rolling Stone put it: "Young female voters support Bernie Sanders by an expansive margin." The New York Times yesterday trumpeted that, in New Hampshire, Sanders "has jumped out to a 27 percentage point lead," which is "stunning by New Hampshire standards." The Wall Street Journal yesterday, in an editorial titled "Taking Sanders Seriously," declared it is "no longer impossible to imagine the 74-year-old socialist as the Democratic nominee."

    Just as was true for Corbyn, there is a direct correlation between the strength of Sanders and the intensity of the bitter and ugly attacks unleashed at him by the D.C. and Democratic political and media establishment. There were, roughly speaking, seven stages to this [neoliberal] establishment revolt in the U.K. against Corbyn, and the U.S. reaction to Sanders is closely following the same script:

    1. STAGE 1: Polite condescension toward what is perceived to be harmless (we think it's really wonderful that your views are being aired).
    2. STAGE 2: Light, casual mockery as the self-belief among supporters grows (no, dears, a left-wing extremist will not win, but it's nice to see you excited).
    3. STAGE 3: Self-pity and angry etiquette lectures directed at supporters upon realization that they are not performing their duty of meek surrender, flavored with heavy doses of concern trolling (nobody but nobody is as rude and gauche online to journalists as these crusaders, and it's unfortunately hurting their candidate's cause!).
    4. STAGE 4: Smear the candidate and his supporters with innuendos of sexism and racism by falsely claiming only white men support them (you like this candidate because he's white and male like you, not because of ideology or policy or contempt for the party establishment's corporatist, pro-war approach).
    5. STAGE 5: Brazen invocation of right-wing attacks to marginalize and demonize, as polls prove the candidate is a credible threat (he'sweak on terrorism, will surrender to ISIS, has crazy associations, and is a clone of Mao and Stalin).
    6. STAGE 6: Issuance of grave and hysterical warnings about the pending apocalypse if the establishment candidate is rejected, as the possibility of losing becomes imminent (you are destined for decades, perhaps even generations, of powerlessness if you disobey our decrees about who to select).
    7. STAGE 7: Full-scale and unrestrained meltdown, panic, lashing-out, threats, recriminations, self-important foot-stomping, overt union with the Right, complete fury (I can no longer in good conscience support this party of misfits, terrorist-lovers, communists, and heathens).

    Britain is well into Stage 7, and may even invent a whole new level (anonymous British military officials expressly threatened a "mutiny" if Corbyn were democratically elected as prime minister). The Democratic media and political establishment has been in the heart of Stage 5 for weeks and is now entering Stage 6. The arrival of Stage 7 is guaranteed if Sanders wins Iowa....

    Julio :

    BTW, anne often links to this group (thanks anne):

    "Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org) has been advocating for single-payer national health insurance for three decades. It neither supports nor opposes any candidates for public office."

    A particularly apposite column this month:

    http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/january/doctors-group-welcomes-national-debate-on-'medicare-for-all'

    A quote from it:
    "What is truly "unrealistic" is believing that we can provide universal and affordable health care, and control costs, in a system dominated by private insurers and Big Pharma."

    Which responds to both of Krugman's accusations: being "naive" about our politics, and putting too much emphasis on big money's control of our system.

    anne -> Julio ...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-himmelstein/kenneth-thorpe-bernie-sanders-single-payer_b_9113192.html?1454092127

    January 29, 2016

    On Kenneth Thorpe's Analysis of Senator Sanders' Single-Payer Reform Plan
    By David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler

    Professor Kenneth Thorpe recently issued an analysis of Senator Bernie Sanders' single-payer national health insurance proposal. Thorpe, an Emory University professor who served in the Clinton administration, claims the single-payer plan would break the bank.

    Thorpe's analysis rests on several incorrect, and occasionally outlandish, assumptions. Moreover, it is at odds with analyses of the costs of single-payer programs that he produced in the past, which projected large savings from such reform (see this study, * for example, or this one ** ).

    We outline below the incorrect assumptions behind Thorpe's current analysis:

    1. He incorrectly assumes administrative savings of only 4.7 percent of expenditures, based on projections of administrative savings under Vermont's proposed reform.

    However, the Vermont reform did not contemplate a fully single-payer system. It would have allowed large employers to continue offering private coverage, and the continuation of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and Medicare programs. Hence, hospitals, physicians' offices, and nursing homes would still have had to contend with multiple payers, forcing them to maintain the complex cost-tracking and billing apparatus that drives up providers' administrative costs. Vermont's plan proposed continuing to pay hospitals and other institutional providers on a per-patient basis, rather than through global budgets, perpetuating the expensive hospital billing apparatus that siphons funds from care.

    The correct way to estimate administrative savings is to use actual data from real world experience with single-payer systems such as that in Canada or Scotland, rather than using projections of costs in Vermont's non-single-payer plan. In our study *** published in the New England Journal of Medicine we found that the administrative costs of insurers and providers accounted for 16.7 percent of total health care expenditures in Canada, versus. 31.0 percent in the U.S. - a difference of 14.3 percent. In subsequent studies, we have found that U.S. hospital administrative costs have continued to rise, while Canada's have not. Moreover, hospital administrative costs in Scotland's single-payer system were virtually identical those in Canada.

    In sum, Thorpe's assumptions understate the administrative savings of single-payer by 9.6 percent of total health spending. Hence he overestimates the program's cost by 9.6 percent of health spending -- $327 billion in 2016, and $3.742 trillion between 2016 and 2024. Notably, Thorpe's earlier analyses projected much larger administrative savings from single-payer reform -- closely in line with our estimates.

    2. Thorpe assumes huge increases in the utilization of care, increases far beyond those that were seen when national health insurance was implemented in Canada, and much larger than is possible given the supply of doctors and hospital beds.

    When Canada implemented universal coverage and abolished copayments and deductibles there was no change in the total number of doctor visits; doctors worked the same number of hours after the reform as before, and saw the same number of patients. However, they saw their healthy and wealthier patients slightly less often, and sicker and poorer patients somewhat more frequently. Moreover, the limited supply of hospital beds precluded the kind of big surge in hospitalizations that Thorpe predicts. In health policy parlance, "capacity constraints" precluded a big increase in system-wide utilization.

    Thorpe bases his estimates on what has happened when a small percentage of people in a community have had copayments eliminated or added. But in those cases there are no capacity constraints, so it tells us little about what would happen under a system-wide reform like single-payer.

    Thorpe does not give actual figures for how many additional doctor visits and hospital stays he predicts. However, his estimates that persons with private insurance would increase their utilization of care by 10 percent and that those with Medicare-only coverage would increase utilization by 10 to 25 percent suggest that he projects about 100 million additional doctor visits and several million more hospitalizations each year - something that's impossible given real-world capacity constraints. There just aren't enough doctors and hospital beds to deliver that much care.

    Instead of a huge surge in utilization, more realistic projections would assume that doctors and hospitals would reduce the amount of unnecessary care they're now delivering in order to deliver needed care to those who are currently not getting what they need. That's what happened in Canada.

    3. Thorpe assumes that the program would be a huge bonanza for state governments, projecting that the federal government would relieve them of 10 percent of their current spending for Medicaid and CHIP -- equivalent to about $20 billion annually.

    No one has suggested that a single-payer reform would or should do this.

    4. Thorpe's analysis also ignores the large savings that would accrue to state and local governments -- and hence taxpayers -- because they would be relieved of the costs of private coverage for public employees.

    State and local government spent $177 billion last year on employee health benefits - about $120 billion more than state and local government would pay under the 6.2 percent payroll tax that Senator Sanders has proposed. The federal government could simply allow state and local governments to keep this windfall, but it seems far more likely that it would reduce other funding streams to compensate.

    5. Thorpe's analysis also apparently ignores the huge tax subsidies that currently support private insurance, which are listed as "Tax Expenditures" in the federal government's official budget documents.

    These subsidies totaled $326.2 billion last year, and are expected to increase to $538.9 billion in 2024. Shifting these current tax expenditures from subsidizing private coverage to funding for a single-payer program would greatly lessen the amount of new revenues that would be required. Thorpe's analysis makes no mention of these current subsidies.

    6. Thorpe assumes zero cost savings under single-payer on prescription drugs and devices.

    Nations with single-payer systems have in every case used their clout as a huge purchaser to lower drug prices by about 50 percent. In fact, the U.S. Defense Department and VA system have also been able to realize such savings.

    In summary, professor Thorpe grossly underestimates the administrative savings under single-payer; posits increases in the number of doctor visits and hospitalizations that exceed the capacity of doctors and hospitals to provide this added care; assumes that the federal government would provide state and local governments with huge windfalls rather than requiring full maintenance of effort; makes no mention of the vast current tax subsidies for private coverage whose elimination would provide hundreds of billions annually to fund a single-payer program; and ignores savings on drugs and medical equipment that every other single-payer program has reaped.

    In the past, Thorpe estimated that single-payer reform would lower health spending while covering all of the uninsured and upgrading coverage for the tens of millions who are currently underinsured. The facts on which those conclusions were based have not changed.

    * http://www.mffh.org/mm/files/ShowMe3a.pdf

    ** http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Thorpe%20booklet.pdf

    *** http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033


    Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler are professors of health policy and management at the City University of New York School of Public Health and lecturers in medicine at Harvard Medical School.

    anne -> Julio ...

    http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/oecd-health-statistics-2014-frequently-requested-data.htm

    November, 2015

    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Health Data

    Total health care spending per person, 2013 *

    United States ( 8713)
    OCED average ( 3453)

    Canada ( 4351)

    Total health care spending as a share of GDP, 2013

    United States ( 16.4)
    OCED average ( 8.9)

    Canada ( 10.2)

    Pharmaceutical expenditure per person, 2013 *

    United States ( 1034)
    OECD average ( 517)

    Canada ( 761)

    Practising physicians per 1,000 population, 2013

    United States ( 2.6)
    OECD average ( 3.3)

    Canada ( 2.6)

    Practising nurses per 1,000 population, 2013

    United States ( 11.1)
    OECD average ( 9.1)

    Canada ( 9.5)

    Physician consultations per person, 2013

    United States ( 4.0)
    OECD average ( 6.7)

    Canada ( 7.7)

    Medical graduates per 100,000 population, 2013

    United States ( 7.3)
    OECD average ( 11.2)

    Canada ( 7.5)

    * Data are expressed in US dollars adjusted for purchasing power parities (PPPs), which provide a means of comparing spending between countries on a common base. PPPs are the rates of currency conversion that equalise the cost of a given "basket" of goods and services in different countries.

    Dave :
    There are some very serious, crucial issues here that Krugman, who is my favorite blogger/columnist, is, uncharacteristically and to his great shame, is treating like a political hack: that is the decline of the white lower middle class, the decline of unionism, the political strategy of the right starting with the Southern strategy and then extending across the country to use traditional white working class precarity in a society rife with social and economic change that goes back 2 generations to rip the working and lower middle class apart politically. The strategy is as old as Reconstruction, at least - but it has been amplified economically by globalation and the boom of the plutocrats.

    You cannot the divide race and class divisions as there is interplay between them, but at root is the nexus of power: money and class. Take for instance, our schools. These are supposed to be the sort of launching pad of our putative meritocracy. The critical indicator of the performance any public school by a wide margin is the property value of the surrounding area.

    I just read an article today that a lot of union members are leaning Trump. Maybe Krugman should take that up; it's not simply that union members got racist all of a sudden. Something else is happening (see the opiod epidemic, suicides, etc.).

    Paine -> Dave...
    Liberals love social progress that spreads humanist values

    This is however sometimes at the expense of basic issues to
    The job class masses

    It comes down to
    What you call for

    Vs
    what you fight for


    The system is corporate dominated
    The reform paths of least resistance will always be
    Cultural
    How does gay marriage harm corporate bottom lines
    Even civil rights for oppressed nations are negotiable
    Where full employment real full employment is not

    Jeffrey Stewart :
    Dr. Krugman must be starving. He gets his lunch eaten by commenters every time he tries to trash Senator Sanders.
    Mary L Robinson :
    Deja vu - 2004 when the democratic punditry decided to take out Howard dean. It worked very well then, but based on the experience of the repubs with Trump, I think they will fail this time. People are on to this scam.
    Noni Mausa :
    It isn't "money" versus "racism, sexism, and xenophobia." Rather, they are all shades of each other.

    Look at American racism, and most forms of sexism, and increasingly lower-classism. They consist of three parts: contempt for the class, a willingness to use violence against the class, and a demand that the class be industrious and of service - not to themselves, but to those who exert the force and express the contempt, while experiencing neither violence or contempt in return.

    That lower and middle class, working Americans scramble to find someone to blame is no surprise. But the controllers who have rigged the game against them, don't let any blame stick to their Teflon carapaces. However women, lower class men and people of colour don't have access to the financial Teflon. Even though they are all companions in suffering, through similar shared mechanisms, no one is handy to take the blame except themselves.

    So they end up trying to exert the elite power of contempt and violence on each other, as drowning sailors might climb up each other's shoulders to stay above water. Yet no level of status - man versus woman, native versus immigrant, working versus unemployed -- is sufficient anymore to provide more than an inch more or less above the waves.

    Men traditionally don't want to do women's work because women get a raw deal doing that work. Ditto native born Americans don't want immigrant jobs for the same reason. But what has happened to a great many Americans in one generation is their mass demotion to casual labour, scut jobs, "women's work," and their common experience of the violence and contempt which formerly affected "only" women and migrants and slaves. (Not that this makes any of it any better.)

    Where does cold, neutral money come into this? Money is the tool whereby one person may enlist others to do his/her bidding, when needed and without further obligation. But when all the cash is in a few hands, none of it is flowing at a grassroots level. Poor people today, lacking land and hunting and skill resources, and also lacking money, have neither personal nor impersonal claim on each other's aid.

    Anyone who could make the situation crystal clear to the populace, might bring on a revolution, but most Americans are like the giant Antaeus, helpless when held off the earth, and it's hard to see how such a revolution could be effective.

    Noni

    DeDude :
    Actually, focusing more on the economic issue and less on inequality issues may be the better election strategy. The 1%'ers are just - 1%. The racist and sexist are a lot more than that. So if you attack the 1%'ers you alienate yourself from a less voters than if you attack racism and sexism (although they also deserve being attacked). Not getting your fair share is always an easy sell to the masses.
    TA HARTMAN :
    I am so very sorry to see Krugman use straw man arguments and appeals to authority, two techniques which he has previously said he disapproved of, to, let's face it, attack Bernie Sanders.

    The latter comes from his blog on January 27.

    Neither is true at all.

    This is so sad to watch, as I really admire Prof. Krugman.

    anne -> TA HARTMAN...
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/health-wonks-and-bernie-bros/

    January 27, 2016

    Health Wonks and Bernie Bros
    By Paul Krugman

    Meanwhile, the Sanders skepticism of the wonks continues...

    Watermelonpunch :
    I'm almost starting to feel like Krugman is using some reverse psychology tactic to turn more people against Hillary Clinton.

    Because I'm envisioning the picture painted by Krugman, where Hillary Clinton is the person standing between big money and the angry mob with flaming torches & pitchforks... and Krugman is painting Hillary Clinton as the person who will, and quite naturally, turn to the big money interests, say "one moment"...

    And then Clinton will turn to the angry mob, and try to get them to pick up spoons and feather dusters instead.

    Chris G :
    Krugman's posts and columns of the past week have been awful. It's not that I disagree with his perspective that sticks in my craw so much, it's that they're so sloppy. He just turned off his critical thinking skills. He can't actually be that oblivious as to why Sanders' supporters support him, can he? He can't actually be that oblivious as to why many Democrats aren't enthusiastic about Clinton, can he? If his columns had conveyed an accurate assessment of Sanders supporters and Clinton critics then I don't think I would have found them so objectionable. It was the absence of thoughtful analysis which bothers me so much.

    Take for example his citing Thorpe's criticism of Sanders' health care proposal. He could have dug into the differences between Thorpe's and Friedman's analyses (Friedman was behind Sanders' proposal) and made arguments for finding one more plausible than the other. He did zero analysis. It kinda looked like he put his hands on the first critique he could find and sang it's praises rather than engaging in a serious analysis. Perhaps a serious analysis would call Sanders' plan into question? Perhaps it would but Krugman isn't providing it. (And I'm not sold that Thorpe's analysis is a good one - not enough supporting info provided to judge.) And what's his basis for basically doing a 180 degrees on single-payer since (roughly) 2008? Has he learned new things which have caused him to change his mind? If so then what are they? I've respected his thoughtful analyses in the past. I'd listen. Anyhow, a very disappointing series of columns from Mr. Krugman.

    Ashish :
    Yet again the reaction to Prof. Krugman here is all negative. He remembers the unnecessarily nail biting health care bill and stimulus bill (half sized to begin with).

    While Sen. Sanders would be uncompromising on such issues, he might end up a lame duck from the get go. Especially, if he restarts the healthcare debate where the Republicans have organized themselves. Or worse, that a winnable presidential election could end up with both congress and the presidency in Republican hands. Then all the other issues such as alternative energy (possible to sell as energy independence to avoid obstruction), Wall Street regulation (which the Republicans can't oppose strongly for fear of the public), minimum wage increase (again popular with the public) would not get off the ground.

    Lafayette -> Ashish...
    {Especially, if he restarts the healthcare debate where the Republicans have organized themselves.}

    Organized themselves with what? Mindless TV commercials that miss the point?

    The life-span of the average American has diminished these recent years*? Between rising obesity-rates and a healthcare system that is the most costly of any developed nation, where's the logic ... ?

    *Life expectancy and total HealthCare spending (OECD countries): https://www.flickr.com/photos/68758107@N00/14464162998/

    Lafayette -> Lafayette ...
    BLS Wage Data by Area and Occupation, 29-1062 Family and General Practitioners, Mean Annual Wage: $186,320.

    Wow!

    [Jan 30, 2016] Iowa: Des Moines Register poll sets up a mad Saturday night – campaign live

    Notable quotes:
    "... If youre relying on seeing your favorite candidates name the most times in a Google search, do keep in mind that only young low information voter relies on technology to determine whos popular. The old folks still rely on talk radio. ..."
    "... Clinton is the Democratic Party candidate of the Military Industrial Complex ..."
    "... Trump says insane things, of course every news outlet covers him, I dont really think he counts. MSNBC is by far the worst of the lot when it comes to spoon feeding. I dont like FOX any better when they bring on their Holy band of extreme right commentators either. ..."
    "... As a young female undecided voter, its hard not to be fooled by the celebrity game show host. And on the other hand, its hard not to support my fellow gender and vote Hillary (until you look at the baggage). Now, if I listen to my brain as opposed to emotions, the common sense of Bernie on the one side or Rand Paul on the other has a distinct appeal. Theyre quite interesting to listen to and they do it without invoking terror, hatred, scare tactics or even biblical quotes. How refreshing! ..."
    "... The bankruptcy argument is a bunch of bs. Hes a billionaire now. If I could become a billionaire by going bankrupt Id do it in a heartbeat. The truth is that he figured out how to rise out of bankruptcy and is now financing a presidential campaign and manhandling his opponents who have received millions in contributions. ..."
    "... Ive been a democrat all my life and hope that Sanders wins. But if it comes down to Hillary and Trump, Im voting Trump. If it comes down to Hilary and any republican not named Trump, Ill hold my nose and vote for Hilary. I really dont care for her. ..."
    "... Its heartening to see that Clinton is polling lower than Sanders when it comes to young women, perhaps indicative of the post-sexism ideal were going for; younger women are judging the candidates on their actual policies and character, as opposed to being swayed by the infantile because shes a woman appeal. ..."
    "... Given TTP and TTIP, NAFTA, the actions of the IMF and World Bank, the moves by the EU and Anglosphere away from social democracy and the continuing prescription of liberal economic policy for all states, deregulation, plans to expand recourse to investor-state dispute settlement courts, and the overall small state philosophy, often enforced by military interventionism or sanctions, it seems as if pro-capital policy, deregulation and the resulting inequality havent obtained a status quo that will be maintained under Hilary or the GOP so much as an agenda that has been pushed globally, and will go further in the direction that many voters on the left and centre of politics and even the traditional conservative right and far-right, probably the majority of Americas and the worlds population, oppose. ..."
    "... The Guardian and the rest of the UK media are giving Trump the same treatment as they gave Arthur Scargill in the 1980s. ..."
    "... The UK Establishment and media and their overseas supporters (in the other direction) and we all know who that is. are schit scared in case Trump gets in. The British establishment has been bought. British 'informed democracy', is dead. Censorship, is rife. And the British People know it. ..."
    "... Does any of this really matter? The United States is an empire and, regardless of who is anointed President by the Koch brothers and the rest of the American aristocracy, the empire will still require a military budget of at least $500,000,000,000 and American jobs will still go to China because that's profitable for the corporations and for the aristocrats who own and run those corporations. ..."
    "... The far-left attacks again, well I have to give them credit, they are really trying harder than ever. Anyway, these polls are always adulterated by special interests ..."
    "... We do not have a democracy. Freedom of speech democratic freedom of thought, yes. Democracy is an unfulfilled philosophical idea and wishful thinking. For decades, we have been under the total rule of organized business - as are many developed nations. ..."
    "... I have been a lifelong Democrat and my first choice is Bernie Sanders. With my meagre income I will continue to contribute to his campaign. My alternate choice is, anyone but Hillary Clinton. For the life of me, I cannot imagine anyone who reads the news can vote for this Wall St. puppet. ..."
    "... Be that as it may, the US average voter owes to Donald Trump for standing up to the corporate media that we always criticise for influencing elections, while other candidates of both parties bend over backwards to curry their favor. ..."
    "... Yes, the corporate media as a result are going after him, but he still gets votes. This election, the case the US Voter vs. Corporate Media, the Voter won thanks to Trump. ..."
    "... People have unfavourable opinions of politicians they actually vote for. Nearly all Repubs will vote for trump if he is the nominee and whether it's Hillary or Sanders, a fair size of one time Obama voters are switching to the Repubs because they want action taken against the rapid erosion of what they consider to be American values. ..."
    "... It appears that the Guardian continues to show it's bias toward Clinton. How about being balanced and reporting the news instead of trying to create the news and influence the outcome. If we want bias we can drift over to Fox Fake news ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton is not on the left. She is right center. ..."
    "... Cruz is genuinely dangerous. A religious zealot and a war monger, it would be a massive step back for America and the world if this man became president. ..."
    "... It's because many people who are centrist or left leaning have a sense of morality and principles.. It's not about voting for who stinks less.. It's about standing up for what you consider right and if you can't do that during the election process then what's the bloody point of democracy.. Take the case of Occupy Wall Street.. supported by most left leaning people. ..."
    "... the media wants us to frame everything into left wing or right wing. However I don't buy into that paradigm anymore. When Clinton was about to send the jobs away, I saw effectively Pat Buchanan (staunch conservative but poplulist) effectively joining forces with Ralph Nader (perhaps as far left as anyone can go but still populist). You think any democrat would be better than any republican. I think that if we don't fix something soon, this whole thing is going to collapse. For my money only 3 candidates are actually pledging to fix something (Sanders, Paul and Trump). ..."
    "... Remember that socialist is a dirtier word in much of the U.S. than neo-liberal is in Western Europe. There's also the very pertinent question of whether the U.S. is ready to elect a Jewish president. ..."
    "... Obama came in surrounded by Wall Street execs and stooges and from the outset had no intention of challenging the power of the capitalist class or affecting change that was anything other than rhetorical in nature. ..."
    "... Clinton is the one candidate who can lose to Trump, and if she win's she will govern like Bush. It's disgusting how the establishment is pushing her so hard, but it does inform us that we should reject her. Clinton is a candidate like Obama - runs on hope and change, than nothing changes - same old attitude that Government exists to protect the profits of the 1% and **** Working Class Americans ..."
    "... Sanders' mild social democratic policies - which require moderate and easily affordable sacrifices on the part of the rich - are of course very realistic and practical. Or at least they are realistic in countries that are at least reasonably politically sane. But since US politics is the very definition of insanity, Sanders policies are not realistic . ..."
    The Guardian

    sdkeller72 -> SeanThorp 30 Jan 2016 21:10

    Let's not forget Bill Clinton's brother Roger's involvement in the Iran Contra affair. Clinton's have been involved in drugs and gun running for a long time.

    skipsdad -> André De Koning 30 Jan 2016 21:03

    Putin did more damage to Isis in 6 weeks, than Obama and Nato did in six years.

    The Turkish fox, is in the Nato chicken coop. Turkey has been getting oil from Syria for years. Obama knew about it. The Russians were threatening to reveal the deceit, and that's why their plane was shot down.

    Now Turkey is claiming another Russian violation. The fox is looking to start WWIII.

    Obama has been dealing with 'moderate terrorists' for years, and Putin exposed him.

    Obama and the US - Running with the foxes, and hunting with the hounds.

    Trump will clean that cesspit of corruption out.

    johnf1 30 Jan 2016 20:58

    Who in God's name cares what anyone in Iowa thinks about who should be president. As far as I know neither Iowa nor New Hampshire has ever been important in any presidential election. Pennsylvania, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, the voters in those states are important.

    nnedjo 30 Jan 2016 20:56

    The former first lady run in the elections for the Democratic presidential candidate for the second time, and claims to have a trump cards for it; "Only she is able to defeat Trump!"

    However, the problem is that in addition to trump cards Hillary also has Trump's money. You remember that she took the money from Trump, as a fee for coming to his wedding.

    Now it raises a hypothetical question: What if in the middle of the election campaign Trump decides to pay Clinton a little more than before, as "a fee for the lost elections"?

    So, in my opinion it is not unthinkable at all that Hillary could sell elections to Trump in exchange for a certain sum of money, the only question is how much money would that be.

    And after all, Trump himself has already stated that he is looking forward to get Hillary Clinton as an opponent in the presidential race, so draw your own conclusions?

    André De Koning -> skipsdad 30 Jan 2016 20:50

    Pity we only get a silly picture of Putin via western media. Reading his speeches, especially the last one at the UN (28th Sept.), he was the clearest and summed up the issues of western caused chaos with its invasions and claim of 'being special'(US, especially hypocritical and doing the opposite of what it preaches). Putin is thoughtful, strategic and a leader, while in the US there are no leaders and even more is done by the so-called intelligence agencies' that by the Russian FSB (more control over them than over the NSA). One debate with Putin would be more interesting than any of this American waffle that has never changed their superficial, cruel foreign policies. I discovered this by reading other literature about Putin than you can ever find in the misleading demonization of any leader who is opposed to US policies. The press lied about Gadaffi too, so take some trouble to find out what these so-called enemies are actually about.

    RusticBenadar -> carson45 30 Jan 2016 20:42

    Actually, if you had done your due diligence and researched Bernie's track record you would see he is a master of bipartisan success; it was said of his mayorship that he "out republicaned the republicans" achieving all the fiscal objectives they had long sought in Butlington but failed to accomplish until Bernie came along.

    TettyBlaBla 30 Jan 2016 20:39

    I find all the predictions of who will win the General Election in November quite amusing. Primary elections haven't even started and neither major political party has declared which candidates in the present fields will represent them. The choice of Vice Presidential candidates could well change the scenarios many are now presenting.

    If you're relying on seeing your favorite candidate's name the most times in a Google search, do keep in mind that only young low information voter relies on technology to determine who's popular. The old folks still rely on talk radio.

    atkurebeach 30 Jan 2016 20:34

    if the democrats vote for Hillary, who is tight with Wall Street money, especially when there is such a clear alternative for the poor, to me that means there is no difference between the two parties. I might as well vote for Trump, at least he is less likely to start a war.

    digitalspacey -> Calvert 30 Jan 2016 20:32

    As an outsider looking in (from Australia) what you describe actually works in favour of the Democrats.

    Think about it.

    An intransigent Republican party continually blocks what the President wants to do. Now I'm assuming that if people vote in Bernie it's because they actually want what he has to sell.

    So if the Republicans keep playing this game it's really gonna start to grate on people.

    There will come a tipping point where people will say 'enough!' and the removal of the Republicans will commence.

    It may take several terms but the Republicans are in egret signing their own death warrant.

    Merveil Meok -> Logicon 30 Jan 2016 20:12


    There are very powerful forces in America that would NEVER let Bernie Sanders win the White House. He has said stuff that has disqualified him (in the eyes of those forces) for the role of president.
    You can't run against the military, cops, oil companies, Wall Street, the richest people on the planet, big pharma, and win. That only happens in movies.

    SeniorsTn9 30 Jan 2016 20:09

    The U.S. campaign is nearly over and two choices remain. Everyone knows America is broken. Candidates promoting staying the course and being politically correct have no place in America's future. They broke the America we have today. The realities are obvious; Clinton is to the past as Trump is to the future. After all the campaigning dust settles, Americans who want American back will vote for Trump. Trump will make America great again. It really is that simple.

    redwhine -> Merveil Meok 30 Jan 2016 20:01

    It's good that they have to win over people in Iowa and New Hampshire, and I say this as a Californian who only ever hears of politicians visiting my state to raise money at the homes of rich people before leaving the same day. The point is that politicians need to show that they are willing to work for their votes. They need to hit the pavement. They need to convince people to vote for them even if they know that the votes in those states don't amount to much. If politicians only campaigned in California, New York, Texas, and Florida and then skipped the rest, I'd see no evidence of grit and determination, just lazy opportunism.

    ID4352889 30 Jan 2016 19:56

    Clinton is a deeply unpleasant character, but Americans will vote for her over the decent Sanders. It's just the way they do things in the US. Clinton is the Democratic Party candidate of the Military Industrial Complex and will take the cake. Bernie is just there to make people think they have a choice. They don't.

    redwhine consumerx 30 Jan 2016 19:52

    Plenty of people have inherited millions and still ended up penniless. You can't call Trump an idiot even if you maintain that he could have become a billionaire merely by putting all his daddy's money into the bank and leaving it there (which we know he didn't, because he's built at least a dozen skyscrapers and golf courses). By the way, Fred Trump (Donald's dad) was rich but he was not astronomically rich. As for his lawyers, plenty of lawyers of rich men have done worse; in trying to denigrate Trump people are reflexively making his dad into some sort of financial wizard and everyone around Trump to magically have helped him in every step of the way like guardian angels surrounding him his whole life. It just doesn't work like that.


    Merveil Meok 30 Jan 2016 19:42

    The political system allows two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) to dictate the future the country. Some candidates are forced to quit after one or two Caucuses (as money sponsors quit on them), even if, only God knows, they could have picked up steam later.

    I would be in favor of adding three or more states in the first round of the caucuses so that most of America is represented, not states which have no real power in American daily life - economically and otherwise.

    These two states represent 1.5% of America's population and a ridiculously low percentage of national GDP.


    ChiefKeef 30 Jan 2016 19:39

    Sanders will be the best president theyve ever had. The lefts popularity is rocketing across the west in response to austerity and the endless cycle of imperialism and international crisis. A new generation of activists, unencumbered by the diminished confidence of past defeats, have risen spectacularly in defense of equality against the attacks of the right.


    Steven Wallace 30 Jan 2016 19:33

    Hillary is a devout psychopath whereas Trump is a total doughnut ,seriously who the hell would vote for these animals ?


    Pinesap -> TaiChiMinh 30 Jan 2016 19:31

    Trump says insane things, of course every news outlet covers him, I don't really think he counts. MSNBC is by far the worst of the lot when it comes to spoon feeding. I don't like FOX any better when they bring on their Holy band of extreme right commentators either. Like I've said before when your in the middle like me, your screwed. NO news outlets and NO candidates that could win. Screwed like deck boards I tell you.


    WarlockScott -> carson45 30 Jan 2016 19:31

    Sorry who was president before Bush? Bill Clinton? and who was Bush running against? Central figure in the Clinton administration Al Gore?.... oh, woops.
    Experience as secretary of state? US foreign policy has got much better since Kerry took over. Healthcare? the woman that takes bundles of money from Big Pharma, who is now saying that UHC is fundamentally a pipe dream for the US?

    She's a poor choice compared to Sanders imo, If she was running against Biden or another centrist democrat yeah sure but against a Sanders figure? nah


    Jill McLean 30 Jan 2016 19:28

    As a young female undecided voter, it's hard not to be fooled by the celebrity game show host. And on the other hand, it's hard not to support my fellow gender and vote Hillary (until you look at the baggage). Now, if I listen to my brain as opposed to emotions, the common sense of Bernie on the one side or Rand Paul on the other has a distinct appeal. They're quite interesting to listen to and they do it without invoking terror, hatred, scare tactics or even biblical quotes. How refreshing!

    redwhine -> consumerx 30 Jan 2016 19:26

    The bankruptcy argument is a bunch of bs. He's a billionaire now. If I could become a billionaire by going bankrupt I'd do it in a heartbeat. The truth is that he figured out how to rise out of bankruptcy and is now financing a presidential campaign and manhandling his opponents who have received millions in contributions.

    redwhine 30 Jan 2016 19:19

    I've been a democrat all my life and hope that Sanders wins. But if it comes down to Hillary and Trump, I'm voting Trump. If it comes down to Hilary and any republican not named Trump, I'll hold my nose and vote for Hilary. I really don't care for her.

    JoePomegranate 30 Jan 2016 19:17

    It's heartening to see that Clinton is polling lower than Sanders when it comes to young women, perhaps indicative of the post-sexism ideal we're going for; younger women are judging the candidates on their actual policies and character, as opposed to being swayed by the infantile "because she's a woman" appeal.

    Logicon 30 Jan 2016 19:08

    Bernie has to win the ticket -- the 'best' revolutionary will win the general election:

    Trump vs Clinton = trump wins
    Trump vs bernie = bernie wins

    Cafael -> ponderwell 30 Jan 2016 19:06

    Given TTP and TTIP, NAFTA, the actions of the IMF and World Bank, the moves by the EU and Anglosphere away from social democracy and the continuing prescription of liberal economic policy for all states, deregulation, plans to expand recourse to investor-state dispute settlement courts, and the overall 'small state' philosophy, often enforced by military interventionism or sanctions, it seems as if pro-capital policy, deregulation and the resulting inequality haven't obtained a status quo that will be maintained under Hilary or the GOP so much as an agenda that has been pushed globally, and will go further in the direction that many voters on the left and centre of politics and even the traditional conservative right and far-right, probably the majority of America's and the world's population, oppose.

    Patrick Ryan 30 Jan 2016 18:58

    Most polls are shite as extrapolating from relatively small samples never tells you the true story.... We'll know better after the Caucuses.... the fear factor and the worries of a nation will play a big part in the selective process - This is not a sprint and race is only beginning... Having Trump in the mix has shaken up system and he has clearly got the super conservative media's knickers in a twist...

    skipsdad 30 Jan 2016 18:54

    The Guardian and the rest of the UK media are giving Trump the same treatment as they gave Arthur Scargill in the 1980s.

    The UK Establishment and media and their overseas supporters (in the other direction) and we all know who that is. are schit scared in case Trump gets in. The British establishment has been bought. British 'informed democracy', is dead. Censorship, is rife. And the British People know it.


    Douglas Lees 30 Jan 2016 18:53

    The is only one decent candidate and that's Bernie Sanders. The others are a collection of fruit loops and clowns (all deranged and dangerous) with the exception of Clinton who is experienced intelligent and totally corrupt. She will cause a war with Iran... Let's hope it's Bernie maybe a hope for some changes. The last 36 years have been fucked

    Canuck61 30 Jan 2016 18:45

    Does any of this really matter? The United States is an empire and, regardless of who is anointed President by the Koch brothers and the rest of the American aristocracy, the empire will still require a military budget of at least $500,000,000,000 and American jobs will still go to China because that's profitable for the corporations and for the aristocrats who own and run those corporations. Enjoy the show, but don't assume that it actually means anything.


    LeftRightParadigm 30 Jan 2016 18:35

    The far-left attacks again, well I have to give them credit, they are really trying harder than ever. Anyway, these polls are always adulterated by special interests, just look in the UK at IPSOS MORI with CEO who worked for the cabinet office - no bias there! IPSOS said the majority of British people want to remain in the EU... LOL

    Trump is the best candidate, all the others are untrustworthy to the extreme due to who's funding them, namely Goldman Sachs.

    ponderwell -> thedono 30 Jan 2016 18:35

    We do not have a democracy. Freedom of speech & democratic freedom of thought, yes. Democracy is an unfulfilled philosophical idea and wishful thinking. For decades, we have been under the total rule of organized business - as are many developed nations.

    jamesdaylight 30 Jan 2016 18:28

    i so hope trump or sanders wins. the establishment needs a new direction.

    AdrianBarr -> ID7004073 30 Jan 2016 18:26

    I have been a lifelong Democrat and my first choice is Bernie Sanders. With my meagre income I will continue to contribute to his campaign. My alternate choice is, anyone but Hillary Clinton. For the life of me, I cannot imagine anyone who reads the news can vote for this Wall St. puppet. The recent Guardian article by a Wall St. insider about Hillary's connections and the money she had received from Wall St. should make anyone shudder of her presidency. Let alone the money the Clinton Foundation had received from other countries when Hillary was the Secy. of State.

    Be that as it may, the US average voter owes to Donald Trump for standing up to the corporate media that we always criticise for influencing elections, while other candidates of both parties bend over backwards to curry their favor.

    Yes, the corporate media as a result are going after him, but he still gets votes. This election, the case the US Voter vs. Corporate Media, the Voter won thanks to Trump.

    If Bernie is cheated out of the nomination process that the DNC had worked from the beginning to crown Hillary. I will vote for Trump to save what is left (pun intended) of the Democratic party. Hillary way far right of Trump. Hillary was a Goldwater Republican, while Trump is a Rockefeller REpublican. Take your !

    elaine layabout -> sammy3110 30 Jan 2016 18:18

    He doesn't care about them so long as they are unsubstantiated allegations. When the FBI announces the result of their investigation, he will give his opinion, so long as it is relevant to the welfare of the American people.

    But using mid-investigation rumors and allegations against an opponent to distract the American people from the actual, fact-based issues is hardly a failing. I would say it demonstrates Sanders' commitment to fairness and truth and the best interests of the American people.

    elaine layabout -> Philip J Sparrow 30 Jan 2016 18:12

    That would be news to the folks in Burlington, who elected Bernie Sanders to 4 terms as mayor, during which time he cut their budget, streamlined city services, revitalized their commercial district and restored their lakefront, AND he was judged one of the top 20 mayors in the country.

    The folks in the State of Vermont would also be surprised to hear this about the man who served them in the House of Representatives for 16 years. During that time, when the extreme right wing of the Republican party ruled Congress, Bernie (an Independent) passed more legislative amendments than any other congressman, even the Republicans themselves. And this was not watered-down legislation, it was pure, progressive gold.

    Those same folks would be surprised to hear this about the Senator whom they last re-elected with 71% of their votes. I guess that they were thinking of his ability to, again, passed a series of progressive amendments in a Republican-controlled Congress, including the first-ever audit of the Federal Reserve -- you know that thing that Ron Paul had been trying to do for decades. And then there was the Veterans Administration Bill that Republican Jack Reed said would never have passed without Bernie Sanders' ability to build bi-partisan coalitions.

    Bringing 30 Jan 2016 18:12

    People have unfavourable opinions of politicians they actually vote for. Nearly all Repubs will vote for trump if he is the nominee and whether it's Hillary or Sanders, a fair size of one time Obama voters are switching to the Repubs because they want action taken against the rapid erosion of what they consider to be American values.

    OurPlanet -> eveofchange 30 Jan 2016 18:06

    "Does corporate supported Clinton, support gun/missile/bomb "control" of the Army, Police and state apparatus,or just ordinary people ?"

    Took the words out of my mouth. I wonder if those folks who are thinking of voting for her will stretch their brain capacity to think seriously about the consequences of voting for her. Do they want more of their tax $ spent on even more wars?

    peacefulmilitant 30 Jan 2016 17:50

    But it's simple enough to point out that a minority of Americans are Republicans, and that even among Republicans about 30% have a negative opinion of Trump. You can see where the 60% might come from.

    This is true but those 30% of Republicans who don't like Trump are nearly canceled by the 20% of Democrats who are considering defecting to vote for him.

    WillKnotTell -> Fentablar 30 Jan 2016 17:50

    The Kochs will forward his thoughts along to him in time.

    Harry Bhai 30 Jan 2016 17:48

    meanwhile: Iowa's long-serving senior senator, Chuck Grassley, who last weekend popped up at a Trump event

    Rats are coming out of holes to pay respect to Trump the cat.

    ID7004073 30 Jan 2016 17:46

    It appears that the Guardian continues to show it's bias toward Clinton. How about being balanced and reporting the news instead of trying to create the news and influence the outcome. If we want bias we can drift over to Fox Fake news

    Bernie has solutions that Fox feels is too boring but solutions about economic and national security are what America and our world needs. Boats that won't float right and F35 billionaire toys dressed up as the ultimate killing machine will never make America and our world strong. Economic policies that Bernie promotes that actually employ more people is the only solutions.

    TaiChiMinh -> TheAuthorities 30 Jan 2016 17:36

    Hillary Clinton is not "on the left." She is right center. Your attempt to put the debate between her advocates and those of Sanders into the realm of Stalin-Spanish Republicans-etc is delusional. Maybe, just maybe the people having this discussion are engaged in real disagreements, not dogmatic and factional maneuvering.

    nnedjo 30 Jan 2016 17:08

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, whose once-mighty lead in the Hawkeye state has narrowed to paper-thin margins, is focusing on rival Bernie Sanders' complicated history on gun control in the final days of the Iowa campaign. The former secretary of state will be joined by former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a survivor of a 2011 mass shooting that claimed the lives of six people.

    Hillary stands for a gun control in order "to disarm" Bernie, but voters say they would not vote for Hillary even if someone put a gun to their forehead.
    The reason for this is obvious, she is able to exploit even the survivors of the mass shooting, just to satisfy her own selfish political interests.

    Saltyandthepretz -> MasonInNY 30 Jan 2016 16:47

    Except a circus is funny. The anti-human, repugnant policies put forward by these two are in fact quite serious. Trump is crazy, of the A grade variety, but Cruz is genuinely dangerous. A religious zealot and a war monger, it would be a massive step back for America and the world if this man became president.

    Fentablar -> turnip2 30 Jan 2016 16:21

    Rubio is terrible, he's pandering even more than Hillary does (well, if nothing else he does it just as much) and I'm not sure anyone knows what he actually stands for, even himself.

    loljahlol -> godforbidowright 30 Jan 2016 16:15

    Yeah, the Libyan people thank her

    PlayaGiron -> SenseCir 30 Jan 2016 16:11

    aka Wall Street's "progressive" voice as opposed to the Wall Street Journal its "conservative" voice. In the end two sides of the same neo-liberal beast. "There is no alternative"! Your corporatist elites have spoken!

    elaine layabout -> greven 30 Jan 2016 16:05

    True that.

    Wall Street and it's lackey pols are playing with fire, because although many Americans had savings and assets and/or family members with savings and assets and/or access to the beneficence of local churches and charities, we are all tapped out.

    The next time we fall, we fall hard. And we will be taking Wall Street down with us.

    vishawish -> TheAuthorities 30 Jan 2016 15:53

    It's because many people who are centrist or left leaning have a sense of morality and principles.. It's not about voting for who stinks less.. It's about standing up for what you consider right and if you can't do that during the election process then what's the bloody point of democracy.. Take the case of Occupy Wall Street.. supported by most left leaning people.

    The only candidate who would support and encourage that is Sanders. So how do you expect people not to support him and go out to support someone who is basically a quasi republican?

    Principles and ideologies matter.

    marshwren -> GaryWallin 30 Jan 2016 15:19

    Uh, it's not as if Iowans haven't had at least eight months to make up their minds, even with the advantage of being able to see ALL of the candidates up close and personal, unlike those of U.S. in late states (such as NJ, where i live, on June 7th or so). Besides, when people vote in primaries on machines, they have 2-3 minutes to mull things over in the booth.

    I appreciate your disdain, but caucus season in IA is like beach season in NJ--a tiresome inconvenience, but an economic necessity given how many non-residents arrive to spend their money. And you only have to put up with it once every four years, while ours is an annual event.


    curiouswes MartinSilenus 30 Jan 2016 15:14

    Personally, I would prefer not to sit in either, wouldn't you?

    Thanks for being logical. Now, the media wants us to frame everything into left wing or right wing. However I don't buy into that paradigm anymore. When Clinton was about to send the jobs away, I saw effectively Pat Buchanan (staunch conservative but poplulist) effectively joining forces with Ralph Nader (perhaps as far left as anyone can go but still populist). You think any democrat would be better than any republican. I think that if we don't fix something soon, this whole thing is going to collapse. For my money only 3 candidates are actually pledging to fix something (Sanders, Paul and Trump). Cruz says he wants to fix everything by using that same old tired republican bs, so he isn't really planning on fixing anything. Basically he is Steve Forbes without glasses and with a face lift. Paul would actually try to fix something, but at this stage, he is a long shot and barring any 11th hour surge, I don't need to discuss him much at this time. I would classify Trump as a populist, but a loose cannon that isn't "presidential".

    Voting for Trump is sort of an act of desperation. It isn't quite like being a suicide bomber, but more like going all in just prior to drawing to an inside straight. Sanders is a populist also. Some people think we can't afford his programs. However the reason the nation is broke (financially) is because it is broke (as in broken). Sanders has vowed to fix this (it won't be easy but with the people standing behind him, it is possible). The rest of the candidates won't fix anything (just try to move the nation either to the left or the right as it continues it's downward spiral.

    We have to stop that downward motion or it won't matter whether we move to the left or right. Unfortunately everybody doesn't see stopping this downward motion as job one.

    For example: take Greece and their financial troubles. Even though our debt is higher, we aren't in as bad shape as the Greeks, however we really need to stop the bleeding. We really need to get a populist in there. I'm no economist but according to my understanding, there is this thing called the money supply which is a bit different than the money itself. While the government controls the money, it doesn't control the money supply. It needs to control both or else we are just one "bad" policy away from economic disaster because whoever controls the money supply controls the economy. If you remember in 2008 the credit dried up and that can happen again if somebody isn't happy.


    WarlockScott 30 Jan 2016 14:33

    Can any Clinton supporter cogently argue why they've plumped for her over Bernie? He's far closer to the social democracy the Democrats espouse (albeit have rarely put into action since 1992), polls show him to be more electable than Clinton, he has a far greater chance of passing his programs for numerous reasons (better bargaining position, not as hated by opposition, running a proactive rather than defensive campaign) and he has the popular touch... Which even Hillary would admit she lacks. I'm hoping perhaps vainly the first answer won't be about her gender.


    TheAuthorities -> NotYetGivenUp 30 Jan 2016 14:12

    I'm guessing you don't have a lifetime's experience observing U.S. presidential elections.

    Sanders does well in the polls you cite because, so far, the Republicans haven't even begun to attack him. In fact, they're positively giddy that Clinton looks to be faltering and that Sanders actually seems closer to the nomination today than anyone would have thought 6 months ago. Nothing will make GOP strategists sleep more soundly than the prospect of a Sanders nomination.

    In the still-unlikely event that Sanders gets the Democratic nomination, the Republicans will turn their heavy artillery on him and -- you can trust me on this -- the end result won't be pretty. Actually, I think it may not even take that much from the Republican character assassins to convince most Americans not to vote for someone with Sanders's convictions and political record. Remember that "socialist" is a dirtier word in much of the U.S. than "neo-liberal" is in Western Europe. There's also the very pertinent question of whether the U.S. is ready to elect a Jewish president.

    Again, if you're unfamiliar with the American electoral process, you've never seen anything like the Republican attack machine. ESPECIALLY if your reference point is a British election. It's like comparing a church picnic with a gang fight.

    Another factor to consider is that, just as the GOP establishment is trying to undercut Trump, so the Democratic Party leadership could possibly draft somebody else to run (Biden?) if Clinton does go down in flames.


    TaiChiMinh -> Winner_News 30 Jan 2016 14:06

    Obama came to office basically bragging that he had the key to a post-partisan, collaborative way of governing - above the issues, above parties, above rancor. During the crucial period, when he had momentum and numbers, he trimmed on issue after issue - starting with single payer. The Tea Party was perhaps an inevitable response but its strength, and the success of the intransigents in Congress, were not inevitable. But the Tea Party began with a protest of floor traders against protections for people in mortgage trouble - but its momentum really came with the movement against the ACA and in the off-year elections in 2010. A strong president reliant on a mobilized coalition of voters - rather than a pretty crappy deal maker (who liked starting close to his opponents' first offer) backed by corporate elites - would perhaps have seen different results. Obama never gave it a go. And here we are . . . I imagine that I join eastbayradical in some kind of astonishment at the extent to which "progressives" want to keep at what has shown itself a losing proposition . .

    westerndevil -> Martin Screeton 30 Jan 2016 13:50

    I spent 18 months in my twenties as a debt collector for people who defaulted on student loans...a soul crushing job. Virtually everybody who defaulted either...

    We need to encourage more young people to work as electricians, plumbers, machinists and in other blue-collar occupations.

    GaryWallin 30 Jan 2016 13:49

    April Fool's Day comes two months early here in Iowa this year. The Iowa Presidential Caucuses are one of the greatest Political Hoaxes of all time. They are filling our newspapers, radio, and neighborhoods with an all time record appeal to nonsense.

    As Iowan's we've had the endure nearly a full year of lying and misleading politicians, newspapers that give us the latest spin on the political horse-race (under the guise of journalism), phone calls from intrusive pollsters and political operatives, emails from assorted special and political interests; and we've even had to watch our mail carriers burdened with the task of delivering many oversized junk mail advertising pieces.

    Let me make it clear that I am not opposed to political parties holding caucuses. I think it is a good idea for them to get together in formal and informal settings: caucuses, parties, picnics, and civic observances. But I think the choice for our next President is too important to be left to a voter suppressing, low turn-out, media event such as the Iowa Presidential Caucuses. The goal should be to be inclusive of all Iowans; not to have a record (but suppressed) turnout.

    We've had to endure this nonsense for months, while the politicians are given multiple and varied means to get their message out. But the voters get only an hour or so to make their decisions, and even then in my party, the so-called 'Democratic' one, they don't even get the right to a secret ballot, or the right to cast an absentee ballot if they cannot attend. Instead of including all Iowans, this Circus gives special interests, establishment political operatives, and elites an unfair advantage. This is voter suppression and manipulation. Too few care if there might be a snow storm coming, or someone has to be up early the next morning for surgery at a local hospital, or if someone has to make a living by working at the time of the caucus. In this circus-like atmosphere it is all too important to our elites to bring in the millions of dollars in advertising money that this charade provides to local media. Dollars come before democratic principles.

    I certainly hope that my party, the Democrats, have the courage to reject all delegates chosen by this non-democratic process when the National Convention comes around. It is time for Party members outside of Iowa to stand up for real democracy, free and fair candidate selection with secret ballots, and inclusive party processes that expand and grow the Political Party.

    In Iowa we need to make a few changes. I suggest a few:

    Requiring every television station, radio station, and newspaper to give daily public updates on how much and who bought political advertising.

    Requiring every piece of political advertising mailed to people in Iowa to have the cost of that item listed on the mailing.

    Requiring all politicians, political parties, and PACs to honor the 'Do Not Call' list. I often tell these callers I will not vote for anyone who annoys me with a phone call, but this seems to have little deterrence value to phone centers and robo-calls.

    Requiring that all major political parties in the state give voters the right to choose candidates by secret ballot. No more forcing people to publicly declare for one candidate or another. People should have the right to make their individual choices known if they so choose; or keep them private if that is what they want.

    Gary Wallin, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 30 Jan 2016

    eastbayradical -> Winner_News 30 Jan 2016 13:16

    The capitalist system will surely attempt to "brick wall" any authentic attempt at change Sanders might try to implement.

    But to compare him to Obama is off.

    Obama came in surrounded by Wall Street execs and stooges and from the outset had no intention of challenging the power of the capitalist class or affecting change that was anything other than rhetorical in nature.

    The Republicans' "brick walling" of his agenda was made far, far easier because he didn't articulate, let alone mobilize around, one that named the enemy and communicated specific progressive changes he sought to achieve.

    This was seen vividly during the fight over health care reform, where Obama, in the face of widespread support for single-payer health care, took single-payer off the table from the outset and negotiated away the public option for nothing of substance in return. This allowed the Republicans an open field to attack his reform's unpopular and unprogressive features--the mandate and the general complexity of a system that retained the insurance cartel's power over health care.

    Marcedward 30 Jan 2016 13:11

    Clinton is the one candidate who can lose to Trump, and if she win's she will govern like Bush. It's disgusting how the establishment is pushing her so hard, but it does inform us that we should reject her. Clinton is a candidate like Obama - runs on hope and change, than nothing changes - same old attitude that "Government exists to protect the profits of the 1% and **** Working Class Americans"

    JoePomegranate 30 Jan 2016 13:09

    The feting of Clinton over a genuine, principled and subversive politician like Sanders - when subversion is exactly what is needed - reveals the complete paucity of argument behind so much "progressive" thought nowadays.

    The idea that the lying, the patronisation, the cynicism, the cronyism and the ghastly thirst for power by any means can be simply offset by the fact that she's a woman is appalling. It's retrograde, sexist bollocks.

    Sanders is the candidate people need and his nomination would put down a marker for real disenfranchised and impoverished Americans to fix their country. How anyone who purports to call themselves liberal or reformist can opt for Hillary over him, I have no idea.

    James Eaton -> CurtBrown 30 Jan 2016 13:02

    The myth of "American Exceptionalism" is cracking. Many folks are actually able to see how things work in other places around the globe and not simply react with the knee jerk "it ain't gonna work here, this is 'Murica!"


    eastbayradical 30 Jan 2016 12:49

    The NY Times' argument that Sanders' proposals for achieving change are unrealistic suggests that the differences between him and Clinton are chiefly tactical in nature.

    This is a clever dodge that relieves the Times of the need to address the fact that, far from being an agent of change, Clinton, like her husband and Obama--both of whom it supported--has a consistent record of carrying water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security/police-state apparatus, one that that she will undoubtedly carry on as president if elected.

    Madibo 30 Jan 2016 12:17

    Sanders' mild social democratic policies - which require moderate and easily affordable sacrifices on the part of the rich - are of course very realistic and practical. Or at least they are realistic in countries that are at least reasonably politically sane. But since US politics is the very definition of insanity, Sanders policies are "not realistic".

    [Jan 29, 2016] Trump just proved: its possible to win a debate you didnt attend by Richard Wolffe

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bland, clichéd, and frankly boring. ..."
    "... Spot on. The Republican party is about corporatism and the "1%". They are irrelevant to nearly all the American public apart from democrat haters. The GOP might as well be a corpse. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's always going on and on about her "Proven track record" at the State Dept....where she set Libya on fire, for example.....unlike her competitor, Bernie Sanders. ..."
    "... Dear Lord, please let the American people not vote in anyone from the GOP side as president in 2016 ..."
    "... Okay, my prayer skills are a bit rusty, I admit, but you get the idea. ..."
    "... Anyhow, Donald Trump reminds me more and more of Italy's media mogul/politician Silvio Berlusconi -- maybe it's just my eyes playing tricks on me, but he is even starting to LOOK more and more like that man, what with the many faces he makes and the populist theatricality and all. Trump offers no substance in terms of policy, but he clearly has an intuitive grasp of how the major media outlets will respond to and cover his every move. ..."
    "... I wonder if this column was written before or after the subject events. It is so trite meaningless and predictable he must have written it in his sleep. ..."
    "... Trump is a centre-right, and possibly even slightly left candidate. His grandstanding is for the core base. All candidates walk back toward the middle once they have to appeal to the national electorate. He's far more liberal than Cruz, who, I assure you, will set about undoing every last bit of progress for working people and women that managed to creep forward over the last eight years, starting with health care, Medicare, and Social Security. ..."
    "... You have to separate out Trump's grandstanding with his east coast New York roots. It's actually Trump who has brought up single-payer health care and some brutal talk about Wall Street. I would wager a month's salary that Trump and Mrs Clinton are not too far apart on how they would govern. And you forget that Congress is involved as well. ..."
    "... The hyperbole is meaningless. So far, Jeb Bush's brother and his Vice President have done more damage to the US and the world than I would guess Trump would do in 20 years. ..."
    "... And do remember on whose watch NAFTA, that infamous "ending welfare as we know it", the equally infamous DOMA, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for The Big Short were passed: dear old Bill Clinton. ..."
    "... The media is trusted by the public about as much as bankers and politicians. Trump sticking it to FOX not only didn't get him "sidelined" it probably increased his support among the Republican base. ..."
    "... Translation: Trump knows he already has the nomination locked up. Why should he give Cruz and Rubio an opportunity to attack him in a live debate? He made the smart move. Since 9/11 and the buildup to the war in Iraq, the media's only real job is political propaganda. ..."
    "... As far as I know, Trump, Sanders and Obama were equally resentful because American businessmen are moving production abroad, thus leaving American workers out of work, and the state budget deprived of taxes that go also to foreign countries instead of remaining in the US. ..."
    "... In addition, Trump also stands for a kind of economic protectionism, particularly in relation to China, bearing in mind "the urgent need to reduce the trade deficit with China", which is now about $ 500 billion a year, if I remembered well. ..."
    "... So, it is interesting that the current as well as two of the possible future US presidents are pushing for some kind of protectionism of domestic production and economic isolationism that are completely contrary to previous commitment of the United States to free markets and free flow of capital in the world.However, taking into account the current economic crisis in the world, that from acute increasingly turns into some kind of chronic phase, it is perhaps not so surprising. ..."
    "... The vast majority of the political elite, from Bush to Clinton, are there to further the agenda, as well as their own careers. In this way, you have Obama brought into to finish by proxy what Bush started by direct force. I.e the wrecking of any Nation State that opposes the neo-liberal economic system. ..."
    "... They only exist in the spotlight for as long as they are tolerated in terms of their persona, until the public wise-up. It is then they go into their background role; the cushy and lucrative 'consulting' jobs they have been promised by the special interest 'think tanks' they already belong to; be it the Council of Foreign Relations, or the Bilderberg group; all funded by international banking cartels. ..."
    "... Supposed 'right' or supposed 'left' of the mainstream media are just part and parcel of the same ultimate deception. ..."
    "... Trump, although not perfect in his persona, is certainly a problem for the agenda: thus their attack dogs in the media have been called to take him out. ..."
    "... It's amusing to see the attacks on Trump; who just for speaking his mind is starting to steadily resonate with a growing demographic, both at home and abroad. ..."
    "... You'd never hear about it here of course; but he harshly denounced the invasion of Iraq, and was a big critic of Bush. ..."
    "... He also seems to be the only one who understands that the majority of Americans needs real jobs – not some laughable concept of an 'ideas economy.' and is willing to fight for them on a trade level to ensure this. ..."
    "... He is also the least likely to drag the US into dangerous conflicts, (proxy or otherwise) with those such as Russia – Sadly I can see some Guardian commentators already gunning for that. ..."
    "... He is also not controlled by the usual financial ties to banking elites: Goldman & Sachs just gave Hillary $3 million – what's that then? Just pocket money? ..."
    "... America isn't better than this - this IS America. The land of political dynasties and limitless corporate donations. Where a movie star became the President and a body builder a Governor. It doesn't even have a one-man-one vote voting system for heavens sake. ..."
    "... It's kind of like Iranian 'democracy', where the Ayatollah picks out and approves 4-5 candidates, and then the Iranian people get to 'vote' for them. We do it a bit differently, in a society where we have freedom of speech, but the outcome always ends up the same, with 2 establishment, corporate, Wall street, military industrial complex, globalist 'free trade' choices for president. All approved by corporate America, our corporate and mainstream media and by Wall street, it always ends up like that. Like right now, there is no difference between Hillary, and establishment corporate Democrats like the Clintons, and the establishment Republicans like Rubio, Kasich or Bush, on all those really big and truly important issues. ..."
    "... That thing about Cruz labelling Trump a Democrat is interesting. I'm sure most Democrats would be understandably offended by the suggestion, and I'm pretty sure Cruz doesn't actually believe it either. I haven't been following Trump's statements on policy closely at all, but from my general impression of him over the years, I always thought that, although he was clearly a dyed in the wool capitalist, he probably wasn't a social conservative. ..."
    "... I can't help thinking he's just another wealthy, metropolitan businessman who probably didn't give a single toss about immigration, gay marriage, Islam or any of it, and if you pushed him probably would have been completely relaxed about all those issues. ..."
    "... Tough for any GOP candidate to avoid the flip flops in fairness. Pro life gun nuts, military spending addicted defecit hawks, die hard defenders of the Constitution hell bent on removing church/state separation, defenders of the squeezed middle sucking on the teat of Murdoch and the Koch brothers.... A very high and skinny tight rope.... ..."
    "... Trump won because these people have nothing people want to listen to. Nobody cares about Rubio or Bush flip flopping on immigration, because they have decided not to vote for them. ..."
    "... People care about jobs and their dwindling opportunities. Trump talks populism. He talks about tariffs on manufacturers who moved jobs overseas. People like that. He said he thinks the US should have left Saddam Hussein in power. Every rational person today agrees with that. He says the US should have left Gaddafi in power. While not too many people think about that too much, if they do, they agree with that too. Especially once they learn about the domino effect it has had, such as the attack on the coffee shop in Burkina Faso a week ago or so. ..."
    "... People have grown tired of war. All of the mainstream candidates want war because their campaigns depend on it. Bush's family has massive investment in the Carlisle Group and other players in the MIC. ..."
    "... Trump made his money in real estate, not war. ..."
    "... Not a Trump fan, but it is great to see someone with enough nous to tell Fox to go bite their bum. Good on him. We know from past experience what a sleazy old fart Rupert is and his fellow travelers in Fox are a good fit. The "moderators" are third rate journo's out to polish their image and try the bigmouth on the guy that 'may' become President. No need for Trump to take that kind of crap off of those sort of people. ..."
    "... Cruz was attacked, got flustered and blew his opportunity. Trump's judgement turned out to be vindicated in not attending. Trump is currently the front runner and bearing in mind that the entire West is moving to the right it is quite likely that by the time of the election Trump may turn out to be closer to the mainstream. If there are further Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil then this will likely be a certainty. ..."
    www.theguardian.com


    TheBorderGuard 29 Jan 2016 12:58

    You could tell the Trumpless debate was an almost normal presidential event by the nature of the closing statements.

    Bland, clichéd, and frankly boring.


    Zetenyagli -> benbache 29 Jan 2016 11:49

    Trump won because these people have nothing people want to listen to.

    Spot on. The Republican party is about corporatism and the "1%". They are irrelevant to nearly all the American public apart from democrat haters. The GOP might as well be a corpse.


    tonybillbob -> Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 11:31

    Trump is currently the front runner and bearing in mind that the entire West is moving to the right it is quite likely that by the time of the election Trump may turn out to be closer to the mainstream.

    Mainstream of what? The conservative movement? America? The globe?


    tonybillbob 29 Jan 2016 11:25

    Jeb Bush insisted several times that he had "a proven record", begging the question why he needed to mention such a proven thing quite so many times.

    Yeah!!! How come those who have a "proven track record" always have to remind folks that they have a proven track record and usually follow that claim with "unlike my competitor"?

    Hillary Clinton's always going on and on about her "Proven track record" at the State Dept....where she set Libya on fire, for example.....unlike her competitor, Bernie Sanders.

    And her "hands on experience" reforming banks....."Cut that out!!!!" ...another something she has over Bernie Sanders. Another thing Clinton can say about herself is that she's made a huge pile of 'speakin' fees' dough rubbin' elbows with bankers.....another something that Bernie can't say about himself. And don't forget: Hillary's gonna color inside the lines because she's a realist.

    She knows what Wall Street will approve of and what Wall Street won't approve of......Hillary's unique in that regard....at least she thinks so, and claims that's why we should vote for her....because she already knows what Wall Street will and won't allow a president to do.


    simpledino 29 Jan 2016 11:23

    Okay, Ted Cruz -- I'll gladly pray on the nation's decision. (Kneeling humbly): "Dear Lord, please let the American people not vote in anyone from the GOP side as president in 2016. Lord, hear my prayer -- let them choose either HIllary Clinton or Bernie Sanders (or even thy faithful and honorable servant Martin O'Malley, who doesn't have a chance in .... oh never mind, Lord...)."

    Okay, my prayer skills are a bit rusty, I admit, but you get the idea.

    Anyhow, Donald Trump reminds me more and more of Italy's media mogul/politician Silvio Berlusconi -- maybe it's just my eyes playing tricks on me, but he is even starting to LOOK more and more like that man, what with the many faces he makes and the populist theatricality and all. Trump offers no substance in terms of policy, but he clearly has an intuitive grasp of how the major media outlets will respond to and cover his every move.

    Lafcadio1944 29 Jan 2016 11:15

    I wonder if this column was written before or after the subject events. It is so trite meaningless and predictable he must have written it in his sleep.

    Cranios 29 Jan 2016 11:13

    I was never warmly disposed toward Trump, but the more I hear him annoying the news media by refusing to be frightened and dance to their tune, the more I am starting to like him.

    tklhmd 29 Jan 2016 11:11

    Managing to outfox Fox news is no mean feat, I'll give him that.


    Tearoutthehairnow -> hawkchurch 29 Jan 2016 11:11

    Trump is a centre-right, and possibly even slightly left candidate. His grandstanding is for the core base. All candidates walk back toward the middle once they have to appeal to the national electorate. He's far more liberal than Cruz, who, I assure you, will set about undoing every last bit of progress for working people and women that managed to creep forward over the last eight years, starting with health care, Medicare, and Social Security.

    You have to separate out Trump's grandstanding with his east coast New York roots. It's actually Trump who has brought up single-payer health care and some brutal talk about Wall Street. I would wager a month's salary that Trump and Mrs Clinton are not too far apart on how they would govern. And you forget that Congress is involved as well.

    The hyperbole is meaningless. So far, Jeb Bush's brother and his Vice President have done more damage to the US and the world than I would guess Trump would do in 20 years.

    And do remember on whose watch NAFTA, that infamous "ending welfare as we know it", the equally infamous DOMA, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for The Big Short were passed: dear old Bill Clinton.

    Try analysis instead of hyperbole. It works wonders.

    Tearoutthehairnow -> lefthalfback2 29 Jan 2016 11:06

    I have been nonplussed from this end of things by how lackluster J. Bush's performance has been - I can only assume that unconsciously, he really doesn't want it - because no one who really wants it and has the advantage of his experience, access, and background, could possibly be turning in this deadly a performance. It reeks of self-sabotage in the name of self-preservation. At of course a huge cost in funds . . .


    Tearoutthehairnow 29 Jan 2016 11:02

    I was able to catch some US news - Trump not only wasn't "sidelined" as the other Guardian article on last night's debate proclaimed, firstly he walked out of his own accord, and second, he cut FOX's debate audience in half. Last night's debate attracted the lowest audience ratings of all the Republican debates so far - approximately 11-12 million as opposed to the approximately 23 million the debates attracted when he participated. CNN did quite well covering the "other" event.

    And he's still leading in the polls among Republicans - including among Republican women according to CNN, so the Guardian's recent article on these parties' only audience being "angry white men" was, again, off the mark by including Trump and the US Republicans.

    The media is trusted by the public about as much as bankers and politicians. Trump sticking it to FOX not only didn't get him "sidelined" it probably increased his support among the Republican base. Jeb Bush is still pretending to be a candidate as is Ben Carson, and Cruz in the spotlight reinforced his reputation as so nasty a human being that even if he gets into the Oval Office, no one, including those on his own side of the aisle, will want to work with him.

    It would be refreshing to see the media try to report rather than shape the news to its own liking.


    JackGC -> ACJB 29 Jan 2016 10:34

    Keeping people "scared" is a full time job for the government. It would be impossible to have a war without the "scared" factor.

    "We are a nation in grave danger." George Bush.

    In 'Merica, people need their guns just in case ISIS invades their town. It's like War of the Worlds only with Muslims, not Martians. That was a REALLY scary flick back in the 30s. 'Mericans really didn't know if New Jersey had been invaded and Christie is the guv. of Jersey.

    Trump is a New Yorker, so those two are on the front lines of any potential outer space invasion. War of the Worlds II. 'Merica is ready.


    Harry Bhai 29 Jan 2016 10:27

    Be like......

    This is Ted Cruz.
    Cruz is a world-class question-dodger
    When Cruz is asked about his votes against defense budgets, he launches into an extended diatribe against Barack Obama's defense budgets.
    When Cruz is asked about his own position on issues, he talks about his idol: Ronald Reagan.
    When Cruz is asked about why he flip-flopped on his feelings towards Trump, he pretends that he was asked to insult Trump

    Cruz is a flip-flop politician.
    Be like Cruz, NOT.


    JackGC N.M. Hill 29 Jan 2016 10:22

    Translation: Trump knows he already has the nomination locked up. Why should he give Cruz and Rubio an opportunity to attack him in a live debate? He made the smart move. Since 9/11 and the buildup to the war in Iraq, the media's only real job is political propaganda.


    N.M. Hill 29 Jan 2016 09:48

    Trump just proved: it's possible to win a debate you didn't attend

    Translation: Media more obsessed with Trump than actual issues.


    MeereeneseLiberation -> LiamNSW2 29 Jan 2016 09:24

    he was chastised for saying he'd stop Muslims from entering the US

    Because Muslim immigration is really the one thing that affects ordinary Americans the most. Not affordable health care, wealth distribution, labour rights ... Muslim immigration. Especially of those few thousand Syrian refugees that are vetted over months and months. (But oh yes, "the Muslims" hate the West, each and every one. Especially if he or she is fleeing from ISIS terror, I guess.)


    Sweden, that paragon of migrant virtue

    Sweden, like all Scandinavian countries, has extremely restrictive immigration and asylum policies. Calling Sweden a "paragon of migrant virtue" is about as accurate as calling Switzerland a 'paragon of banking transparency' (or the US a 'paragon of gun control').


    nnedjo -> RusticBenadar 29 Jan 2016 08:59

    Just curious, can anyone share some actual substance concerning any of Trump's policy plans?

    As far as I know, Trump, Sanders and Obama were equally resentful because American businessmen are moving production abroad, thus leaving American workers out of work, and the state budget deprived of taxes that go also to foreign countries instead of remaining in the US.

    In addition, Trump also stands for a kind of economic protectionism, particularly in relation to China, bearing in mind "the urgent need to reduce the trade deficit with China", which is now about $ 500 billion a year, if I remembered well.

    So, it is interesting that the current as well as two of the possible future US presidents are pushing for some kind of protectionism of domestic production and economic isolationism that are completely contrary to previous commitment of the United States to free markets and free flow of capital in the world.However, taking into account the current economic crisis in the world, that from acute increasingly turns into some kind of chronic phase, it is perhaps not so surprising.


    SeniorsTn9 29 Jan 2016 08:44

    UPDATE: 2016/01/29 Trump won the debate he didn't even participate in. No surprise here.

    Which debate will you focus on, the elephant walk or Trump? If you want to hear positive messages listen to Trump. Trump stood his ground. Trump is definitely different. When we look at the options there is simply no alternative. I prefer to watch the next president of the United States of America. I was on the fence but how I am definitely a Trump supporter. Trump will make America great again.

    There is a personality conflict here and everyone knows it. This reporter definitely has a hate on for Trump. Trump was right to not participate in this debate. Replace the so called bias reporter. Fox News could have fixed this but choose not to. Call Trump's bluff and he will have no choice but to join the debate. This is not and should not be about reporters. The press, for some reason, always plays into Trump's hand. This is another Trump strategic move to force the debate to focus on him first. Seriously just look at what has already happened, All Trump's opponents and the media are talking about now is the fact that Trump is not participating in the debate. Brilliant!

    Trump has changed the debating and campaigning rules. Trump will or will not be successful based on his decisions and his alone. Trump now has the focus on him and the debates haven't even startled. Trump is now winning debates he isn't even participating in. This has got to be a first in successful political debating strategies! Amazing! A win win for Trump. Smart man! Smart like a Fox.


    ID0020237 -> NYcynic 29 Jan 2016 08:25

    Methinks all this debate and chatter are nothing but distractions for the masses so those behind and above the scene can carry out their hidden agendas. Debates are like more opium for the masses, it keeps their brains churning while other issues are burning. I see no problems being solved here with all the empty rhetoric.


    kaneandabel -> kodicek 29 Jan 2016 07:45

    Well kodi, your comments are valid in it that ALL of these candidates are part of the revolving door irrespective of the supposed 'right' or supposed 'left'. Clinton is as much a compromised candidate as the entire bunch of the republican team. Trump may appear to be a different kind but that that's only because he is a good "talker" who seems to give 2 hoots to the establishment. But thats only talk. He would turn on a cent the moment he becomes President. A perfect example of that is Barack Obama. He talked the sweet talk and made people think a new dawn is coming in American politics. But as it turned out.... zilch!

    But there is a slight ray of hope, a thin one. With Sanders. As he has walked the talk all along! Otherwise you van be sure to be in the grip of the wall street scamstars and plutocrats for the next decade.

    RusticBenadar B5610661066 29 Jan 2016 06:02

    Plutocracy; and all candidates are millionaires or billionaires being hoisted upon Americans by the establishment media/business/banks/politics- all, that is, with the single exception of Bernie Sanders, who alone has managed not to enrich himself with special interest bribery or financial exploitation during his unparalleled 45+ years of outstanding common sense public service.

    kodicek -> LazarusLong42 29 Jan 2016 05:52

    The vast majority of the political elite, from Bush to Clinton, are there to further the agenda, as well as their own careers. In this way, you have Obama brought into to finish by proxy what Bush started by direct force. I.e the wrecking of any Nation State that opposes the neo-liberal economic system.

    They only exist in the spotlight for as long as they are tolerated in terms of their persona, until the public wise-up. It is then they go into their background role; the cushy and lucrative 'consulting' jobs they have been promised by the special interest 'think tanks' they already belong to; be it the Council of Foreign Relations, or the Bilderberg group; all funded by international banking cartels.

    Supposed 'right' or supposed 'left' of the mainstream media are just part and parcel of the same ultimate deception.

    Trump, although not perfect in his persona, is certainly a problem for the agenda: thus their attack dogs in the media have been called to take him out.

    This is what first raised my suspicions: I thought for myself, rather than double clicking on a petition.

    Best Regards, K


    kodicek 29 Jan 2016 05:19

    It's amusing to see the attacks on Trump; who just for speaking his mind is starting to steadily resonate with a growing demographic, both at home and abroad.

    You'd never hear about it here of course; but he harshly denounced the invasion of Iraq, and was a big critic of Bush.

    Despite all the allegations of racism, he has the largest support amongst the Black and Latino community; and is the most popular Republican candidate with Women.

    He also seems to be the only one who understands that the majority of Americans needs real jobs – not some laughable concept of an 'ideas economy.' and is willing to fight for them on a trade level to ensure this.

    He is also the least likely to drag the US into dangerous conflicts, (proxy or otherwise) with those such as Russia – Sadly I can see some Guardian commentators already gunning for that.

    He is also not controlled by the usual financial ties to banking elites: Goldman & Sachs just gave Hillary $3 million – what's that then? Just pocket money?

    We always drone on about democracy etc, but when someone is actually popular, from Corbyn to Trump, we denounce them and ridicule their supporters.

    Funny thing is; if it wasn't for all these attacks I might never have noticed!


    TheChillZone -> SteelyDanorak 29 Jan 2016 05:05

    America isn't better than this - this IS America. The land of political dynasties and limitless corporate donations. Where a movie star became the President and a body builder a Governor. It doesn't even have a one-man-one vote voting system for heavens sake. The rise of Trump makes perfect sense - most of American culture has been relentlessly dumbed down; now it's Politics turn.


    europeangrayling -> shaftedpig 29 Jan 2016 04:40

    It's kind of like Iranian 'democracy', where the Ayatollah picks out and approves 4-5 candidates, and then the Iranian people get to 'vote' for them. We do it a bit differently, in a society where we have freedom of speech, but the outcome always ends up the same, with 2 establishment, corporate, Wall street, military industrial complex, globalist 'free trade' choices for president. All approved by corporate America, our corporate and mainstream media and by Wall street, it always ends up like that. Like right now, there is no difference between Hillary, and establishment corporate Democrats like the Clintons, and the establishment Republicans like Rubio, Kasich or Bush, on all those really big and truly important issues.


    fanfootbal65 29 Jan 2016 04:20

    At least with Trump you know where he stands unlike most politicians who just tell the voters what they want to hear. Then after getting elected, these lip service politicians just go off on their own agenda against the wishes of the people that voted for them.


    SamStone 29 Jan 2016 03:55

    Haha, Trump is tremendously astute and clever when it comes to tactics. It will be awesome if he actually becomes president.


    boldofer 29 Jan 2016 03:46

    That thing about Cruz labelling Trump a Democrat is interesting. I'm sure most Democrats would be understandably offended by the suggestion, and I'm pretty sure Cruz doesn't actually believe it either. I haven't been following Trump's statements on policy closely at all, but from my general impression of him over the years, I always thought that, although he was clearly a dyed in the wool capitalist, he probably wasn't a social conservative.

    I can't help thinking he's just another wealthy, metropolitan businessman who probably didn't give a single toss about immigration, gay marriage, Islam or any of it, and if you pushed him probably would have been completely relaxed about all those issues. But I guess what he is above all else is a power hungry narcissist and a showman, and if he feels he needs to push certain buttons to get elected...


    SGT123 29 Jan 2016 03:29

    "Megyn Kelly, the Fox News anchor whose participation in the debate led to Trump's boycott, referred to him as "the elephant not in the room".

    Which is both quite funny and accurate. I can see why Donald was so frightened of her!


    Blaaboy 29 Jan 2016 03:03

    Tough for any GOP candidate to avoid the flip flops in fairness. Pro life gun nuts, military spending addicted defecit hawks, die hard defenders of the Constitution hell bent on removing church/state separation, defenders of the squeezed middle sucking on the teat of Murdoch and the Koch brothers.... A very high and skinny tight rope....


    benbache 29 Jan 2016 02:22

    Trump won because these people have nothing people want to listen to. Nobody cares about Rubio or Bush flip flopping on immigration, because they have decided not to vote for them. And despite the press, no one I know cares about terrorism in the US. No one ever brings it up in any conversation, despite constant fear mongering.

    People care about jobs and their dwindling opportunities. Trump talks populism. He talks about tariffs on manufacturers who moved jobs overseas. People like that. He said he thinks the US should have left Saddam Hussein in power. Every rational person today agrees with that. He says the US should have left Gaddafi in power. While not too many people think about that too much, if they do, they agree with that too. Especially once they learn about the domino effect it has had, such as the attack on the coffee shop in Burkina Faso a week ago or so.

    People have grown tired of war. All of the mainstream candidates want war because their campaigns depend on it. Bush's family has massive investment in the Carlisle Group and other players in the MIC.

    Trump made his money in real estate, not war.

    ID1569355 29 Jan 2016 01:53

    I have no vote in the U.S.A. I greatly respect it's people and achievements. President Obama has been a big disappointment to me. I really thought he could make some good changes for his citizens. Should Mr Trump actually win the Presidency life for many will be very, very interesting, perhaps not in a good way. Then again perhaps his leadership might be just what America needs.

    A few years of Mr Trump as leader of the world's greatest super-power may give us all a new outlook on life as we know it, help us adjust our personal and National priorities. Give him the power as the Supreme Commander of Military Forces and we can all learn some lessons about the consequences of Americans votes on everyone else's lives. Americans may learn a thing or two also........Go Trump !

    Oboy1963 29 Jan 2016 01:37

    Not a Trump fan, but it is great to see someone with enough nous to tell Fox to go bite their bum. Good on him. We know from past experience what a sleazy old fart Rupert is and his fellow travelers in Fox are a good fit. The "moderators" are third rate journo's out to polish their image and try the bigmouth on the guy that 'may' become President. No need for Trump to take that kind of crap off of those sort of people.

    Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 01:32

    Cruz was attacked, got flustered and blew his opportunity. Trump's judgement turned out to be vindicated in not attending. Trump is currently the front runner and bearing in mind that the entire West is moving to the right it is quite likely that by the time of the election Trump may turn out to be closer to the mainstream. If there are further Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil then this will likely be a certainty.

    [Jan 29, 2016] financing Koch brothers convene donor retreat as dark money spending set to soar

    Notable quotes:
    "... For sale, cheap, one POTUS puppet, strings firmly attached. Keep the kiddies entertained, good for four years worth of distraction. ..."
    "... Where does most of the money, dark or obvious, go? Answer: The Main Stream Media (I include the Guardian in this). Do you now understand why they're all having a bob-each-way? Morals, journalistic integrity, decency or the welfare of the public be damned, it's raining wads of cash. ..."
    "... Because of the SCOTUS Citizens united decision, it is just fine to bribe politicians IN PUBLIC. How could SCOTUS and the GOP do this to the United States. It is destroying our Democracy. ..."
    "... Let the ass-kissing and groveling begin ..."
    "... The undue influence of the rich over American politics is an absolute disgrace. How can those who claim to be conservatives justify their destruction of democratic processes? They conserve nothing but their own power. Traitors! ..."
    "... I'm afraid that the soul of America was lost with the scotus ruling. Corporations are just that, corporations. They are not people. They already had a disproportionate say in politics because of lobbying money. ..."
    "... Now the princes of darkness have descended on the land like perpetual night. Leaving the populace longing for the light! The Kochs and their ilk are slaves to their ideology which is to destroy the federal government, destroy all social safety net's, even privatize our military. All this for the ideology of the extreme right wing corporate fascism. ..."
    "... All Hail the Deep State! ..."
    "... Check this out...It will blow you away: 'Dark Money: Jane Mayer on How the Koch Bros. & Billionaire Allies Funded the Rise of the Far Right' http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/dark_money_jane_mayer_on_how ..."
    "... "Dred Scott turned people into property....Citizens United turned property into people." ..."
    "... One of the great sources of Trump's appeal has been the perception of his independence from the Kochs and other corporate manipulators. If he gets the nomination, they will of course attempt to co-opt him just as they did the tea party. It will be interesting to see how he responds. ..."
    "... The Kochs didn't co-opt the Tea Party--they created it. They brainstormed it, branded it, funded it, propped it up, bought positive news coverage for it, and pulled its strings to keep the GOP voting base at a full boil for the fall elections in 2010. ..."
    "... This was tactically necessary to enable them to take full advantage of the gorgeous opportunity John Roberts had created for them earlier that spring with Citizens United, rushed through precisely to help the oligarchs buy themselves Congress and as many state houses and governor's mansions as they could reap. ..."
    "... The best government money can buy...... Since the Supreme Court ruled unlimited corporate bribes to politicians would be considered "free speech" in the eyes of the law, people lost any chance they had of representation based on what's best for average citizen. It's -ALL- about big money now, a literal Corporatocracy. The idea that government should be "Of the people, by the people and for the people" is long lost, RIP. ..."
    "... Dark money = Corruption.....period..!! Just because its not illegal doesn't make it right. What it is, is the continual demolition of democracy in the US where whoever has the biggest cheque-book has an advantage over everyone else. Totally wrong and the slippery slope to an end of 'government by the people'... ..."
    "... And the theft of the Presidency is underway. Does anyone not think that allowing millions, even a billion dollars to be donated to campaigns with the donor kept secret is a problem? Heck, foreign government can contribute to get the candidate that they want. So.......Who will be the one to kiss Koch butt? ..."
    "... Hey look, they're trying to buy the elections again. No surprises there... ..."
    "... Not trying. Succeeding. The Koch brothers own many, many politicians who are beholding to Koch and will vote any way Koch wants. ..."
    "... Their intentions are now plain: they aim the overthrow of democracy and the establishment of a modern feudal state/oligarchy. ..."
    "... If money didn't work, people would not be spending over a billon dollars on the election. Of course money works. Think of it this way: The Koch brothers give almost a billion dollars to support most of the GOP candidates. Regardless of who wins, they will be completely owned by the Koch brothers. It doesn't matter who you vote for if they are all owned by Koch. ..."
    "... Moneylenders own the temple. ..."
    "... Not to mention that in their own minds and mirrors, the money-lenders are the temple. ..."
    "... "The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." ..."
    "... The pendulum has swung too far - the rich are too rich, and the poor are too poor. The Emperor we have been told has beautiful clothes will soon be found to have none. ..."
    "... Or that famous Apalachin, NY, meeting of the five families in 1957. One difference: I bet the FBI won't be raiding the Koch compound, forcing all the big dogs to flee into the woods. More likely, the feds will be providing protection, writing down the license plate numbers of everyone who might object to billionaires dividing up their 'turf' in America. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Dark money is the name for cash given to nonprofit organizations that can receive unlimited donations from corporations, individuals and unions without disclosing their donors. Under IRS regulations these tax-exempt groups are supposed to be promoting "social welfare" and are not allowed to have politics as their primary purpose – so generally they have to spend less than half their funds directly promoting candidates. Other so-called "issue ads" paid for by these groups often look like thinly veiled campaign ads.

    The boom in dark money spending in recent elections came in the wake of the supreme court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which held that the first amendment allowed unlimited political spending by corporations and unions. That decision and other court rulings opened the floodgates to individuals, corporations and unions writing unlimited checks to outside groups, both Super Pacs and dark money outfits, which can directly promote federal candidates. Dark money spending rose from just under $6m in 2006 to $131m in 2010 following the decision, according to the CRP.

    kus art , 2016-01-30 01:11:10
    Well, there you have it. In the USA you can actually buy yourself a president. But for Real! No underhanded bribes, but openly buying. Would you like fries with that...? And here's the kicker - Everyone, from media outlets all the way down to the 'person on the street' just accepts it as is without any real protestations...
    GeorgiaTeacher , 2016-01-30 00:22:27
    Why is the left so afraid of these guys?

    Look at the Billary Wall Street fund raisers. http://freebeacon.com/politics/all-hillary-clinton-wall-street-fundraisers /

    I am sure all this money is legit, right?

    (I know, I know feel the bern. He doesn't accept it. And unless there is an indictment he won't win)

    Suga , 2016-01-30 00:08:59
    Learn how Citizens United has allowed Billionaires like the Koch's to rabble-rouse, whip into a frenzy and influence one-half of America to vote against their own best interest!

    The Billionaires' Created Tea Party : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKH2gRDkC5s

    Itsrainingtin , 2016-01-30 00:01:51
    For sale, cheap, one POTUS puppet, strings firmly attached. Keep the kiddies entertained, good for four years worth of distraction.

    ps

    Where does most of the money, dark or obvious, go? Answer: The Main Stream Media (I include the Guardian in this). Do you now understand why they're all having a bob-each-way? Morals, journalistic integrity, decency or the welfare of the public be damned, it's raining wads of cash.

    babymamaboy , 2016-01-29 23:52:10
    Until we have a system that makes sense, I guess we can only hope someone realizes that if they just paid a reasonable tax rate it would cost them less than funding Super PACs. Then again, money doesn't make you smart -- they just might spend a billion to save a million. Can we give crowd sourcing political decisions a chance?
    MtnClimber , 2016-01-29 23:10:59
    Because of the SCOTUS Citizens united decision, it is just fine to bribe politicians IN PUBLIC. How could SCOTUS and the GOP do this to the United States. It is destroying our Democracy.
    woodyTX , 2016-01-29 22:36:47
    Let the ass-kissing and groveling begin
    kriss669 , 2016-01-29 22:30:41
    The undue influence of the rich over American politics is an absolute disgrace. How can those who claim to be conservatives justify their destruction of democratic processes? They conserve nothing but their own power. Traitors!
    blueterrace , 2016-01-29 22:09:26
    America, get a good look at your "democracy" in action.
    woodyTX blueterrace , 2016-01-29 23:30:44
    Need infra-red night vision goggles to see it.
    Washington1776 , 2016-01-29 21:55:40
    Waste your blood money. This is a revolution.
    Siki Georgevic , 2016-01-29 21:53:15
    I'm afraid that the soul of America was lost with the scotus ruling. Corporations are just that, corporations. They are not people. They already had a disproportionate say in politics because of lobbying money.

    Now the princes of darkness have descended on the land like perpetual night. Leaving the populace longing for the light! The Kochs and their ilk are slaves to their ideology which is to destroy the federal government, destroy all social safety net's, even privatize our military. All this for the ideology of the extreme right wing corporate fascism.

    kevink , 2016-01-29 21:45:09
    All Hail the Deep State!
    Suga , 2016-01-29 21:30:47
    Thank you, Peter Stone! So few Americans even know this is happening.
    Check this out...It will blow you away: 'Dark Money: Jane Mayer on How the Koch Bros. & Billionaire Allies Funded the Rise of the Far Right'
    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/dark_money_jane_mayer_on_how

    Please Wake Up America.....Citizens United is the Mirror Image of Dred Scott.

    "Dred Scott turned people into property....Citizens United turned property into people."

    hardlyeverclever , 2016-01-29 21:27:13
    Give Karl Rove the money: http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/08/15007504-karl-roves-election-debacle-super-pacs-spending-was-nearly-for-naught
    Stafford Smith , 2016-01-29 21:25:14
    One of the great sources of Trump's appeal has been the perception of his independence from the Kochs and other corporate manipulators. If he gets the nomination, they will of course attempt to co-opt him just as they did the tea party. It will be interesting to see how he responds.
    oldamericanlady Stafford Smith , 2016-01-29 21:41:28
    The Kochs didn't co-opt the Tea Party--they created it. They brainstormed it, branded it, funded it, propped it up, bought positive news coverage for it, and pulled its strings to keep the GOP voting base at a full boil for the fall elections in 2010.

    This was tactically necessary to enable them to take full advantage of the gorgeous opportunity John Roberts had created for them earlier that spring with Citizens United, rushed through precisely to help the oligarchs buy themselves Congress and as many state houses and governor's mansions as they could reap.

    Trump is a different matter. They can't invent Trump the same way they invented the so-called Tea Party.

    What they can do is flatter him and wheedle him and beguile him in hopes of making him more receptive to little things like, for instance, their nominations to the federal bench.

    This, given Trump's pathetic grasp of reality and his monumental ego, shouldn't actually prove too complicated a feat for the Kochs and their worker bees to pull off.

    After all, all Marla Maples had to do was say "Donald Trump--best sex I ever had" on Page 6 at the Post and she got to marry the schlub: the Kochs will surely be equally adept at figuring out the wizened, soulless old billionaire version of this time-honored tactic.

    woodyTX Stafford Smith , 2016-01-29 23:37:23
    The Donald is one of the oligarchs but with an immense ego. Instead of playing the political puppets from behind the curtain as the Koch's do, he thought he'd become the puppet show himself.

    An oligarch in politician's clothing attempting to persuade America that he's on our side. How very Putinesque.

    revelationnow Stafford Smith , 2016-01-30 00:31:06
    They won't be able to co-opt Trump because he is only guided by his ego.
    str8vision , 2016-01-29 20:56:28
    The best government money can buy...... Since the Supreme Court ruled unlimited corporate bribes to politicians would be considered "free speech" in the eyes of the law, people lost any chance they had of representation based on what's best for average citizen. It's -ALL- about big money now, a literal Corporatocracy. The idea that government should be "Of the people, by the people and for the people" is long lost, RIP.
    Christopher Aaron Jones , 2016-01-29 20:45:39
    "How can we override the people's needs with money and influence?"
    UzzDontSay Christopher Aaron Jones , 2016-01-30 01:42:36
    Help pol get registered, informed & get you & those you have influenced to vote in EVERY ELECTION!!!
    Totoro08 , 2016-01-29 20:37:46
    Dark money = Corruption.....period..!! Just because its not illegal doesn't make it right. What it is, is the continual demolition of democracy in the US where whoever has the biggest cheque-book has an advantage over everyone else. Totally wrong and the slippery slope to an end of 'government by the people'...
    MtnClimber , 2016-01-29 20:35:03
    And the theft of the Presidency is underway. Does anyone not think that allowing millions, even a billion dollars to be donated to campaigns with the donor kept secret is a problem? Heck, foreign government can contribute to get the candidate that they want. So.......Who will be the one to kiss Koch butt?
    Whatsup12 , 2016-01-29 20:29:52
    Hey look, they're trying to buy the elections again. No surprises there...
    MtnClimber Whatsup12 , 2016-01-29 20:54:23
    Not trying. Succeeding. The Koch brothers own many, many politicians who are beholding to Koch and will vote any way Koch wants.
    catch18 , 2016-01-29 20:27:51
    Coming on pitchfork time.
    Anthony Caudill , 2016-01-29 20:25:43
    Their intentions are now plain: they aim the overthrow of democracy and the establishment of a modern feudal state/oligarchy.
    UzzDontSay Anthony Caudill , 2016-01-30 01:45:53
    Question is are we going to let them?
    centerlane , 2016-01-29 20:11:43
    Dark money cannot compete with the elephant on the block, the electorate. If any one has the finances to buy the oval office and or Congress it is "citizens united" ten dollars ahead should do it.
    Anthony Caudill centerlane , 2016-01-29 20:30:12
    What you are failing to reckon with is the scale of their organization and its capacity. This retreat probably has a trillion dollars backing it. That's a lot of high paying jobs...
    MtnClimber centerlane , 2016-01-29 20:37:53
    If money didn't work, people would not be spending over a billon dollars on the election. Of course money works. Think of it this way: The Koch brothers give almost a billion dollars to support most of the GOP candidates. Regardless of who wins, they will be completely owned by the Koch brothers. It doesn't matter who you vote for if they are all owned by Koch.

    So, no, the power does NOT lie with the voters. SCOTUS has stolen our democracy and has given it to the richest 100 people in the US.

    marshwren Anthony Caudill , 2016-01-29 20:46:05
    And what you're failing to recognize is the scale and capacity of the internet--the people's MSM and Super PAC. Whatever the outcome of this year's election, the Sanders' campaign is creating the template by which guerrilla/insurgent campaigns will be modeled for the next 20 years or longer...depending on if and when the Kochs et al finally get to end net neutrality.
    SiriErieott , 2016-01-29 20:05:00
    Dark money - it's the undetectable dark matter of politics that bends and motivates political stars to the black hole of government. Ordinary people can't detect it or see it, but it's effect is to control the movement of money to the star clusters (otherwise known as tax havens).
    groovebox1 , 2016-01-29 19:58:12
    The Koch Brothers heads belong on a stick.
    MtnClimber groovebox1 , 2016-01-29 20:38:32
    I believe that would be a pike. It's also a great idea.
    mikedow , 2016-01-29 19:53:45
    Moneylenders own the temple.
    marshwren mikedow , 2016-01-29 20:42:48
    Not to mention that in their own minds and mirrors, the money-lenders are the temple.
    onevote , 2016-01-29 19:48:14
    Citizen's United, the gift that keeps on giving...

    Sanders, 2016
    One Person : One Vote

    Gramercy , 2016-01-29 19:38:31
    The Kochs are concentrating on State legislatures, the key to amending the Constitution.
    By the time they're finished, the President will have less power than the Queen.
    mikedow Gramercy , 2016-01-29 19:56:57
    Hand in hand with ALEC.
    Anthony Caudill Gramercy , 2016-01-29 20:31:42
    Looks like Roberts is gonna have to decide whether or not he wants to endure the humiliation of having the next majority overturn his ruling.
    JulianTurnbull , 2016-01-29 19:28:16
    These people laugh in the face of democracy. I like particularly this quote - if I remember it correctly - by Lily Tomlin:

    "The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat."

    The pendulum has swung too far - the rich are too rich, and the poor are too poor. The Emperor we have been told has beautiful clothes will soon be found to have none.

    RedPanda JulianTurnbull , 2016-01-30 01:57:06
    The Republicans moan, the Republicans bitch: The rich are too poor and the poor are too rich.
    pconl , 2016-01-29 19:27:20
    A genuine, and possibly naive, question. Is this reported in the States? If so, does anyone notice?
    widdak pconl , 2016-01-29 19:42:35
    Not really and definitely not.
    sour_mash pconl , 2016-01-29 19:55:10
    "A genuine, and possibly naive, question. Is this reported in the States?"

    Yes. With few exceptions, the only bad question is the one not asked.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/01/29/koch-brothers-push-poverty-education-societal-change--initiative-republican/79468744 /

    Voltairine pconl , 2016-01-29 19:58:19
    I'm a U.S. citizen, and I don't know because I stopped watching U.S. "news" although I'm not sure how much better The Guardian is the people in comments seem a tad nicer better grammar and spelling did I answer the questions? Oh, a butterfly!
    lefthalfback2 , 2016-01-29 19:22:03
    They are already spending their money on negative ads against- wait for it- Hillary Clinton. They know who that have to beat- and it ain't Bernie.
    marshwren lefthalfback2 , 2016-01-29 20:40:59
    Good--let them blow billions (more) attacking Clinton; it'll only be more delicious when they find out they should have spent it against Sanders. You better hope Clinton wins IA big, because if she doesn't, she just might jump-start the process by which she loses the nomination. Like last time.
    lefthalfback2 marshwren , 2016-01-29 20:49:48
    could happen. I could live with Bernie as the nominee. Krugman had an interesting slant on it today in NYT.
    callaspodeaspode , 2016-01-29 19:20:59
    Several Koch network donors have voiced strong concerns about the rise of Trump, raising doubts about his conservative bona fides and his angry anti-immigrant rhetoric, which they fear could hurt efforts by the Koch network and the Republican party to appeal to Hispanics and minorities.

    I wonder if they also worry about their lavishly-funded support of theocratic loudmouth Republican lunatics such as Tom Cotton, Sam Brownback and Joni Ernst potentially alienating moderate Christians or, heaven (literally) forbid, non-believers?

    Only joking. No.

    Apollo_11 , 2016-01-29 19:06:22
    Don't let nobody give your guns to shoot down your own brother
    Don't let nobody give your bombs to blow down my sweet mother
    Tell me are you really feeling sweet when you sit down to eat
    You eating blood money you spending blood money
    You think you're funny living off blood money
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anjkSBQDRjc
    snakeatzoes , 2016-01-29 19:01:31
    Its funny to see them without Trump. You are so mesmerised by Trump and his hair that you haven't noticed what an incredibly weird looking bunch the rest are. Not that it matters given Bernie will *ump them all anyway -- :)
    Whitt , 2016-01-29 18:56:52
    "Several Republican congressional incumbents and candidates facing tough races are slated to attend the Koch retreat this weekend, and, if recent history is a guide, are expecting to gain support from Koch-backed dark money groups."
    *
    For some reason I'm reminded of the opening scene of The Godfather where supplicants meet with Don Corleone and present their requests on the occasion of his daughter's wedding, kissing his hand at the end.

    Can't imagine why.

    lefthalfback2 Whitt , 2016-01-29 19:23:02
    "...Give this to Clemenza. Tell him to send responsible people. We don't want things to get out of hand...".
    MtnClimber Whitt , 2016-01-29 20:45:10
    That's exactly what it is. The Koch Brothers will own most of the GOP politicians. It doesn't matter which one you vote for because that person will likely be owned by Koch and will do their bidding.
    NYbill13 Whitt , 2016-01-29 20:46:55
    Or that famous Apalachin, NY, meeting of the five families in 1957. One difference: I bet the FBI won't be raiding the Koch compound, forcing all the big dogs to flee into the woods. More likely, the feds will be providing protection, writing down the license plate numbers of everyone who might object to billionaires dividing up their 'turf' in America.

    [Jan 27, 2016] Does Mike Bloomberg Know Something We Don't About the Clinton FBI Probe

    finance.yahoo.com

    Another explanation is that he sees trouble ahead for Hillary Clinton. Because of his close relationship with former NYC police Chief Ray Kelly and others in the law enforcement community, he might have the inside track on the FBI investigation into the former Secretary of State's handling of classified documents and questionable foundation-related activities. Democrats have done a fine job of completely dismissing the FBI inquiry, but the possibility that Clinton could face serious legal hurdles may be encouraging Bloomberg's ambitions.

    ... ... ...

    The inquiry began by looking into whether Clinton's use of a personal email server violated security standards; it has since been expanded twice. As reported by Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News, Clinton signed an oath promising to comply with the laws protecting national security information, violations that the Obama administration has aggressively prosecuted.

    As Napolitano says, "The Obama Department of Justice prosecuted a young sailor for espionage for sending a selfie to his girlfriend, because in the background of the photo was a view of a sonar screen on a submarine…. It also prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for espionage for keeping secret and top-secret documents in an unlocked drawer in his desk inside his guarded home. It alleged that he shared those secrets with a friend who also had a security clearance, but it dropped those charges."

    Napolitano contends that the bar for prosecution is low, and can be based on negligence. That is, the government need not prove that Clinton intended to reveal state secrets – only that she did so through carelessness.

    Charles McCullough, the intelligence community's inspector general, recently stirred the pot when he wrote to the chairmen of the Senate intelligence and foreign affairs committees that he has received sworn declarations from an intelligence agency he declined to name identifying "several dozen" classified emails, including several marked as "special access programs" – the highest security level possible. SAP information can include the names of intelligence assets, for instance, and other highly sensitive information. To date, some 1,340 "classified" emails have been discovered amongst those stored on Clinton's server.

    Clinton argues that those communications were not so designated at the time. Undermining her defense is a series of emails exchanged with aide Jake Sullivan in which she appears to order him to get around security protocol and simply cut and paste sensitive information to be faxed to her. The compromising communication was amongst those released in a recent Friday night "dump." In the exchange, Sullivan reports that staffers have "had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton answers, "If they can't, turn into non-paper w no identifying heading and send non-secure." The intent is clear.

    [Jan 26, 2016] You Say You Want a Revolution?

    Notable quotes:
    "... In November, if you dont live in a battleground state, your vote will not tip the outcome...better to vote your conscience and register your disgust with the corrupt duopoly. ..."
    "... Any president will need a staff and mostly, that will come from people working in the Obama administration. Bernie talks about Stiglitz, but he is 72, almost as old as Bernie. He mentioned Reich who was part of the same Clinton administration that Bernie constantly bashes. ..."
    "... Much of the dereg came about in trade for other policies. I dont know that a Bernie administration would be much different. Bernie would need to swallow hard and take a heavy dose of GOP poison to get a budget, much less pass reform legislation. ..."
    "... Dont say the Tea Party changed nothing - they changed themselves. Remember that they were created in disgust over Wall Street. After they got elected you would be hard pressed to find more ardent supporters of any and all legislation that support the rich. ..."
    "... Bernie is settling for social democracy. That is still better than neoliberal theocracy. ..."
    "... Exactly. Its all political posturing for the primaries. Like Obama, shell revert to a neoliberal stooge the moment she takes office. ..."
    "... Her first action will be to find some hapless, third world country to intervene in to prove that she has cojones. Libya redux. ..."
    "... Paleoconservatives oppose military interventionism. Boots on the ground would be neoconservative. ..."
    "... Neoconservative is just neoliberal with a more aggressive boots on the ground foreign policy or imperialism ..."
    "... Paleoconservatives are more isolationist than free traders. They still love their corporations and rich people, but they dont like crony capitalism as a principle even if as a reality they are open to setting a price. Trump is leaning paleoconservative, at least in his campaign rhetoric. ..."
    "... Whatever it takes to prove that she the toughest warrior since Catherine the Great... ..."
    "... Exactly. She is yet another neocon, masking as a Democrat. She is more jingoistic then probably half of Republican candidates. ..."
    "... What to do when a candidate is called unelectable because of their support for the policies that you yourself support? ..."
    "... Well you have to decide whether you want to be a heroic loser or get half a loaf. I agree that it is a very difficult question. ..."
    "... You nailed it. No one ever said democracy would be easy. ..."
    "... And he cautionary tale is that the heroic losers got us 8 years of Bush II - and all the disasters he managed to create in that time. ..."
    "... No What is means is that there are a lot of people who realize that public opinion polls mean absolutely nothing. ..."
    "... What is ironic about this election cycle more than others is that Republicans dominate the elected offices, so they have essentially total control of government, especially in the poorest States, but they blame Obama for things that are local to these States like teen pregnancy, school drop outs, poverty, high unemployment, crime, felons, unemployed felons, no health providers, no corporations who will setup in the State because of the lack of health probiders, educated workers, and too much crime. Nothing was better when Bush-Cheney or Reagan-Bush were where Obama-Biden are. And the increasing number of elected Republicans seems to me to be quantifiably worse. ..."
    "... I would call them a Third Way turncoats within Dems. Neolibs moved party into Wall Street hands and Wall Street donors became the key contributors. Clinton successfully sold Democratic Party (like Tony Blair sold Labour) and got rich in the process. ..."
    "... Instead of boycotting, which conveys apathy, why not vote third party, which conveys disgust? ..."
    "... ...Nader won enough votes in two states - Florida and New Hampshire - to put either of them in Gore's column. Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida, which easily could have swung the election to give Gore the state's 25 electoral votes, and there would have been no need for a recount. Even without Florida, adding Nader's 4 percent of the New Hampshire vote to Gore's 47 percent would have given Gore a 270 to 267 victory in the electoral college... ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has had persistently high negatives and a habit of generating and attractive scandal. She cant even generate trust within her own party, and performs particularly badly among independents. I dont understand why anyone would view her as the electable alternative . ..."
    "... HRC is not calling for a political revolution. If you like oligarchy then she is your gal. If one is comfortably placed in the existing establishment then it is a scary thing to risk rocking the boat. ..."
    "... Yep, the Clinton Foundation should be rebranded: Scandals R Us! ..."
    "... When presented with the choice between a corrupt capitalist and an honest socialist, it should be an easy choice for most of us. Actually, for the Wall Street Democrats here, its also any easy choice--you look for the most corrupt candidate, the one who lists Wall Street banks as her top donors. ..."
    "... By November, all but the most fervent Clinton partisans -- who can always be driven into a frenzy of paranoid persecution mania by talk of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and whatnot - is in an anybody but Clinton mood. ..."
    "... Not BS. You are wearing partisan blinders. Clinton has been dogged by scandal at every stage of her public life: some pumped up out of relatively small stuff, but several serious big deals. There will be more. Why? Because the Clintons are both compulsive liars. Thats why young people, who are very good at sniffing out fakes and liars, dont like her. ..."
    "... The Republicans have gone nuts and are much more of danger than they appeared to be back in 2000 before 9-11. ..."
    "... The definitions of Democratic Socialism by B Sanders are in the context of Scandinavian countries which is really a more progressive form of social democracy, e.g. higher tax rates on higher earners than other social democratic countries but still allowing private property. ..."
    "... The protesters' indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right. ..."
    "... Bingo. Bernie does what Obama did in his early speeches: speak to the moral, emotional underpinnings of Progressive beliefs. ..."
    "... This is a kind of excitement that Hillary is never going to be able to inspire. ..."
    "... And you somehow think that this enthusiasm will not be curbed after the attacks on Sanders begin? And I am not talking about these stupid little so called attacks by PK, Chait, Klein, etc. I'm talking big boy attacks backed by huge money and no reason whatsoever to pay attention to any facts at all. ..."
    "... Yeah, I do. I think we're ready for another, And I welcome their hatred, moment in history. ..."
    "... But what we need now is someone with genuine moral outrage who will say what so many of us feel: the system has been distorted beyond its ability to snap back. It works for at most 10% of the population now and catastrophically, often fatally, fails a percentage of perhaps twice that. I haven't gotten quite to the point yet myself where I would refuse to vote for Clinton if she won the primary, but many of my friends have. I think the tide has finally turned. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    New column:
    You Say You Want a Revolution?, by Mark A. Thoma : What, exactly, does Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders have in mind when he asks on his website if we are "Ready to Start a Political Revolution?" He has proclaimed unabashedly that he is a socialist, a statement that has raised eyebrows about his electability. He wants to turn us into the Soviet Union!! Is that what he has in mind?
    Far from it. He has qualified his statements to make it clear that he is a democratic socialist, but that term fails to convey what he really has in mind, or at least I think it does. ...

    Posted on Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 05:02 AM in Economics , Politics | Permalink Comments (96)

    mulp -> pgl...
    You support Sanders because he opposes any organized opposition to Republicans who run about 10,000 candidates for 10,000 offices and get out voters to vote in everyone on of those elections?

    The only organized opposition to Republicans is Democratic Parties who need to raise money to pay campaign workers because those progressives who oppose capitalism oddly won't work for the parties for free, or run for office paying their own way in getting hundreds of people to work for free getting out the vote. It isn't like Democratic party elites block them from running for office because at least a thousand elections have no opponent to the Republican candidate.

    What's Sanders' plan for filling the 10,000 elected offices currently filled with corrupt party picked and corporate bought puppets?

    ilsm -> mulp ...
    Sanders has pushed the DLC for a "southern strategy", to no avail. I worked for free in 2012 and 2014! I may not do so in 2016.
    JohnH -> pgl...
    I would vote for Sanders in November because he is strong on issues important to most Americans. Bill Curry explains the difference between the candidates, something most of the 'liberals' here fail to grasp--

    "Hillary is a living avatar of the Democratic Party in our time. What it does well–cultural issues and social programs– she does well. When she talks about child care or family leave she's passionate and sincere. What she and her party don't do well is fight to end corporate control of government. She's also weak on climate change, freedom of information, the right to privacy and, in matters of alleged national security, the rule of law.

    Bernie won [the October debate] not because he outpointed her but because he's strong on the issues on which she's weak - and because those are the issues that matter most to voters. Like our environment, our democracy and our middle class are at a tipping point. When Bernie talks about these crises, his sincerity and passion are unmistakable. For all her hard work, it isn't clear Hillary even understands them. Having spent the '90s promoting globalization, and her adult life raising money from those who profit from it, she's too wed to the system to see its fatal flaws".
    http://www.salon.com/2015/10/18/this_is_still_bernie_sanders_moment_hes_right_on_the_big_issues_now_he_must_communicate_it/

    likbez -> JohnH...
    Bill Curry is simply naďve.

    The current social system that is in place in the USA is called neoliberalism. And it presupposes complete corporate control of the state as neoliberalism is a form of corporatism.

    I doubt that you can change the elite preferences as for neoliberalism via elections. Some compromises are possible, but that's it. Any US President is controlled by "deep state" not the other way around.

    Truman said something like "You came to the office, you try to change things and nothing changes."

    JohnH -> lower middle class...
    In November, if you don't live in a battleground state, your vote will not tip the outcome...better to vote your conscience and register your disgust with the corrupt duopoly.
    JohnH -> EMichael...
    If enough people vote against the corrupt duopoly in non-battleground states, the message will be heard.

    Yes, we can!

    Sarah -> pgl...
    As usual, Mark's much more balanced on the subject than Krugman. He shows that he's thought about it carefully and listened to what Sanders has to say. Krugman, on the other hand, is sounding like he did on the housing bubble before he actually started reading, thinking and paying attention.

    Especially irritating is his claim that single payer means organizing a national health service and abolishing private health care. Surely he's traveled enough in Europe to know that it means nothing of the kind. Most European countries, including the one where I live, offer private health plans as well as a public option- just the system Krugman himself proposed when the health care debates were on.

    The other thing which Sanders is doing, and which an earlier Krugman faulted Obama for NOT doing, is pushing the political dialogue back towards the center, away from the extreme right, where it's been stuck despite massive bipartisan majorities in favor of a number of more Progressive positions, for a couple of decades now. If he's getting strong blow-back for this it's hardly surprising.

    I don't anyone will fault Thoma for worrying about Bernie's prospects. I happen to think he's mistaken, and that Sanders actually has a far stronger appeal - even on the Right (particularly among the non-political and those who have given up on politics) -- than many people suspect, but it's certainly a reasonable concern. What Krugman is doing goes considerably beyond that, however. If he's getting strong blow-back for that it's hardly surprising.

    jonny bakho :
    I think Bernie is electable. Bernie gives Hillary cover to discuss more populist positions. I think his approach is unlikely to deliver very much.

    The TeaParty went to Congress with an agenda plus grass roots support and have changed nothing. The US system is designed to block radical schemes and force a more incremental change. On health care, we solved the problem of how to pay. The most pressing challenge is improving delivery. On this, Bernie is refighting the last war. His side lost. The Dems should not respond to TeaParty votes on repealing Obamacare with votes to repeal it and replace it with single payer. The TeaParty has been a waste of time. So would the push for single payer. The majority of Americans would be loathe to trade in their employer paid health care for health care of unknown quality paid for by higher taxes. Vermont could sell it to their voters. It cannot be sold to the TeaParty who would fight it as BigBrotherGov. Sanders does not have the good judgement to see that single payer is a loser with the general public and would be a drag on the rest of the agenda. The move to single payer will involve incremental steps that are outside of Sanders plan. The whole idea that a one-sided populist revolution will occur in 2016 is near zero probability. The populists are split between a conservative camp and a liberal camp.

    Any president will need a staff and mostly, that will come from people working in the Obama administration. Bernie talks about Stiglitz, but he is 72, almost as old as Bernie. He mentioned Reich who was part of the same Clinton administration that Bernie constantly bashes. The advantage to Clinton is she is much more familiar with the players who understand how to make the agencies respond. I lived through the 90s and the legislation that was enacted was always some mix of what the GOP Congress were promoting and what Bill Clinton wanted. Much of the dereg came about in trade for other policies. I don't know that a Bernie administration would be much different. Bernie would need to swallow hard and take a heavy dose of GOP poison to get a budget, much less pass reform legislation.

    ken melvin -> jonny bakho...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
    DeDude -> jonny bakho...
    Don't say the Tea Party changed nothing - they changed themselves. Remember that they were created in disgust over Wall Street. After they got elected you would be hard pressed to find more ardent supporters of any and all legislation that support the rich.
    pgl -> DeDude...
    Same old Republican bait and switch.
    ilsm -> jonny bakho...
    Tea party support is in fly over country. And there a small minority (they win with 55% stay home) of the population.

    Bernie could excite enough.... Hillary not so.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron :
    My guess is that Bernie would be for democratic socialism if he thought that he could get it done. So, Bernie is settling for social democracy. That is still better than neoliberal theocracy.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> pgl...
    I would even give some neoliberal politicians credit for listening well to the economists whose policy prescriptions fit their political-economic agenda on a case by case basis. So, that is pretense without just pretending.
    JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    "Since Bernie she is singing a different tune."

    Exactly. It's all political posturing for the primaries. Like Obama, she'll revert to a neoliberal stooge the moment she takes office.

    Her first action will be to find some hapless, third world country to intervene in to prove that she has cojones. Libya redux.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> JohnH...
    Yeah, but no boots on the ground because that would be neoconservative.
    pgl -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    I think you mean Paleo Conservative. We need to program to keep up with all these meaningless labels.
    Syaloch -> pgl...
    Paleoconservatives oppose military interventionism. Boots on the ground would be neoconservative.


    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> pgl...

    [Neoconservative is just neoliberal with a more aggressive "boots on the ground" foreign policy or imperialism if you would rather.]

    *

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

    Irving Kristol (January 22, 1920 – September 18, 2009) was an American columnist, journalist, and writer who was dubbed the "godfather of neo-conservatism."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

    Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among Democrats who became disenchanted with the party's domestic and especially foreign policy. Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administrations of George W. Bush and George H W Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[1] Prominent neoconservatives in the Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. Senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, while not identifying themselves as neoconservatives, listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel, the promotion of democracy in the Middle East, and the buildup of American military forces to achieve these goals. The neocons have influence in the Obama White House, and neoconservatism remains a staple in both parties' arsenal.[2][3]

    The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist Left to the camp of American conservatism.[4] Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and promotion of American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force, and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism...

    *

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism

    Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleocon) is a conservative political philosophy found primarily in the United States stressing tradition, limited government and civil society, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity.[1][2]

    Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often highlight their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially regarding issues such as military interventionism, illegal immigration and high rates of legal immigration, as well as multiculturalism, affirmative action, free trade, and foreign aid.[1] They also criticize social welfare and social democracy, which some refer to as the "therapeutic managerial state",[3] the "welfare-warfare state"[4] or "polite totalitarianism".[5] They identify themselves as the legitimate heirs to the American conservative tradition.[6]

    Elizabethtown College professor Paul Gottfried is credited with coining the term in the 1980s.[7] He says the term originally referred to various Americans, such as conservative and traditionalist Catholics and agrarian Southerners, who turned to anti-communism during the Cold War.[8] Paleoconservatism is closely linked with distributism.[citation needed]

    Paleoconservative thought has been published by the Rockford Institute's Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.[9] Politician Pat Buchanan was strongly influenced by its articles[8] and helped create another paleocon publication, The American Conservative.[10] Its concerns overlap those of the Old Right that opposed the New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s...


    [There you have it. To simplify just consider archetypes neoconservative Irving Kristol (or son William) versus paleoconservative Pat Buchanan. Neocons are entirely at home with the Washington Consensus of neoliberal, but they want to project American power via militarism and have no problem whatsoever with other peoples kids dying in foreign wars. That is the beauty of an all voluntary military.

    Paleoconservatives are more isolationist than free traders. They still love their corporations and rich people, but they don't like crony capitalism as a principle even if as a reality they are open to setting a price. Trump is leaning paleoconservative, at least in his campaign rhetoric. ]

    JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    "no boots on the ground" Don't bet on it. Whatever it takes to prove that she the toughest warrior since Catherine the Great...

    likbez -> JohnH...
    >Her first action will be to find some hapless, third world country to intervene in to prove that she has cojones. Libya redux.

    Exactly. She is yet another neocon, masking as a Democrat. She is more jingoistic then probably half of Republican candidates.


    PPaine -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    Might I suggest recently Hillary is no longer bear hugging real progress

    She's back to the wooden nickel con and the " crazy left " marginalization stunt


    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> PPaine ...

    Yeah, you may suggest. I noticed that too. Neither my wife nor I are her fans. I have been in for Bernie since before he even announced. If I recall so were you although Liz Warren would have also been acceptable to us.

    Back in the 70's I wanted to Carl Sagan to run for POTUS. I have since become a full time realist and only a part time crackpot.


    DrDick -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    That is the position of many Democratic Socialists, including myself and most major European socialist parties. It is a gradualist position rather than a revolutionary one.

    PPaine said in reply to DrDick...

    And deeply in crisis. Hence the emergence of left alternatives as well as right menaces

    kthomas :
    Let's go Bernie! Make those cockroaches scurry!
    Jerry Brown :
    What to do when a candidate is called unelectable because of their support for the policies that you yourself support?
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Jerry Brown...
    LOL! That's a good one.
    Jerry Brown -> EMichael...
    True enough. Thoma says it is the label "socialist" that makes him less likely to win, not the actual policies that might be associated with the label.

    Its difficult finding out I'm a socialist after all these years. Maybe I should support Trump so nobody else finds out.

    Jerry Brown -> EMichael...
    Yes. Trump might be a type of socialist too. Nationalist Socialist might be a fit for him.
    DeDude -> Jerry Brown...
    Well you have to decide whether you want to be a heroic loser or get half a loaf. I agree that it is a very difficult question.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> DeDude...
    You nailed it. No one ever said democracy would be easy.
    DeDude -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    And he cautionary tale is that the "heroic losers" got us 8 years of Bush II - and all the disasters he managed to create in that time.
    JohnH -> Jerry Brown...
    "What to do when a candidate is called unelectable because of their support for the policies that you yourself support?"

    Actually, what to do when a candidate, i.e. Bernie, is called unelectable because they support policies that most Americans support--busting up the big banks and Medicare for all?

    The 'liberals' here fail to take into account that 1) Bernie is on the right side of public opinion, and 2) takes positions that real liberals would support. Yet they won't support Bernie...because they've become too conservative?

    EMichael -> JohnH...
    No What is means is that there are a lot of people who realize that public opinion polls mean absolutely nothing.
    mulp -> Jerry Brown...
    You form a party that can put 10,000 candidates on the ballot for 10,000 elected offices and then winning the majority of those elections.

    What is ironic about this election cycle more than others is that Republicans dominate the elected offices, so they have essentially total control of government, especially in the poorest States, but they blame Obama for things that are local to these States like teen pregnancy, school drop outs, poverty, high unemployment, crime, felons, unemployed felons, no health providers, no corporations who will setup in the State because of the lack of health probiders, educated workers, and too much crime. Nothing was better when Bush-Cheney or Reagan-Bush were where Obama-Biden are. And the increasing number of elected Republicans seems to me to be quantifiably worse.

    So, who do progressives like Sanders blame? The Democrats who have lost in elections over and over to Republicans. What actions do progressives who support Sanders take? Attack the system and boycott it.

    Hey, it's like protesting the weather requiring creating some sort of shelter from the snow by laying down and being covered with snow. They'll show mother nature and force her to change.

    likbez -> PPaine ...

    > Party cadre and those reflex rooters for the party

    I would call them a Third Way turncoats within Dems. Neolibs moved party into Wall Street hands and Wall Street donors became the key contributors. Clinton successfully sold Democratic Party (like Tony Blair sold Labour) and got rich in the process.

    JohnH -> mulp ...

    Instead of boycotting, which conveys apathy, why not vote third party, which conveys disgust?

    BTW the reason Democrats lost the mid-terms in many states in 2014 is precisely because they ran as Republican-lite: "Consider that in four "red" states - South Dakota, Arkansas, Alaska, and Nebraska - the same voters who sent Republicans to the Senate voted by wide margins to raise their state's minimum wage. Democratic candidates in these states barely mentioned the minimum wage."

    JohnH -> djb...

    What Bernie should do if he loses is build a nationwide socialist organization. Obama had that opportunity in 2008 but abandoned it as soon as he took power...he didn't want popular opposition to his neoliberal agenda.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DeDude...

    [Sorry, I forgot about Nader and since you did not explicitly mention him then your meaning was not clear.]

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-nader-cost-gore-an-election/2015/02/05/3261cc22-abd2-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html

    ...Nader won enough votes in two states - Florida and New Hampshire - to put either of them in Gore's column. Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida, which easily could have swung the election to give Gore the state's 25 electoral votes, and there would have been no need for a recount. Even without Florida, adding Nader's 4 percent of the New Hampshire vote to Gore's 47 percent would have given Gore a 270 to 267 victory in the electoral college...

    [That said, then Bernie is another thing entirely. Bernie is not a third party candidate. Now I wish voting for a third party candidate was plausibly a good decision because with a ranked voting system then a third party vote would not be a throw away, but that is not how the two party system wants things done.]

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2014/1112/The-real-reason-Democrats-lost-big-in-2014

    Why vote for this corrupt duopoly?

    Dan Kervick :
    Hillary Clinton has had persistently high negatives and a habit of generating and attractive scandal. She can't even generate trust within her own party, and performs particularly badly among independents. I don't understand why anyone would view her as the "electable alternative".
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Dan Kervick ...
    HRC is not calling for a political revolution. If you like oligarchy then she is your gal. If one is comfortably placed in the existing establishment then it is a scary thing to risk rocking the boat.
    JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    Yep, the Clinton Foundation should be rebranded: "Scandals R Us!"

    "Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors"...just the tip of the iceberg.
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

    When presented with the choice between a corrupt capitalist and an honest socialist, it should be an easy choice for most of us. Actually, for the Wall Street Democrats here, it's also any easy choice--you look for the most corrupt candidate, the one who lists Wall Street banks as her top donors.

    Dan Kervick -> EMichael...
    Great, you can predict the future. Well, so can I. Here's my prediction: Hillary Clinton gets nominated. The summer and fall campaign is dominated by a nauseating replay of every Clinton scandal, present and past. Not just the eight or so we know about, but others that haven't been let out of the opposition research box yet. By November, all but the most fervent Clinton partisans -- who can always be driven into a frenzy of paranoid persecution mania by talk of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and whatnot - is in an "anybody but Clinton" mood.
    Dan Kervick -> pgl...
    Not BS. You are wearing partisan blinders. Clinton has been dogged by scandal at every stage of her public life: some pumped up out of relatively small stuff, but several serious big deals. There will be more. Why? Because the Clintons are both compulsive liars. That's why young people, who are very good at sniffing out fakes and liars, don't like her.

    But the older, "Clinton generation" of Democrats has internalized a particularly cynical and jaded attitude toward routine public lying, having picked up the fixed habit of defending the compulsively lying Clintons for so many years.

    The Clintons could have done the Democratic Party a huge favor in 2001 by sailing off into retirement after dragging the country through their slime for years, and by dismantling their machine and handing the party off to something more wholesome and progressive.

    Syaloch -> Dan Kervick ...
    Hey, some of us older folks are pretty good at sniffing out liars and fakes too.
    Dan Kervick :
    Many commentators don't seem to understand that there is a major US organization called the Democratic Socialists of America. They have been around for a number of years, and one of the founders was Michael Harrington. This organization has published a fairly comprehensive statement entitled Where We Stand, and does not advocate a wholesale elimination of market economic institutions.

    http://www.dsausa.org/where_we_stand#dc

    Rather, they say:

    As democratic socialists we are committed to ensuring that any market is the servant of the public good and not its master. Liberty, equality, and solidarity will require not only democratic control over economic life, but also a progressively financed, decentralized, and quality public sector. Free markets or private charity cannot provide adequate public goods and services.

    So, as I read it, the two main takeaways here are:

    1. Any markets that exist should serve the public good.
    2. Free markets alone are not sufficient to provide society with adequate public goods and services.

    The statement also does not call for the elimination of all private ownership; but it clearly does call for an expansion of public ownership, worker ownership and cooperatives.

    A lot of people who are not democratic socialists seem to have very strong ideas about what democratic socialism really is, based perhaps on the ideas of people who called themselves "democratic socialists" in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But I think it's the people who use that label for themselves are entitled to determine what they intend that label to stand for.

    pgl -> Dan Kervick...

    Love this line:

    "Today powerful corporate and political elites tell us that environmental standards are too high, unemployment is too low, and workers earn too much for America to prosper in the next century."

    Most economists would say environmental standards are too low, that we are still below full employment, and the goal of economic policy should be to raise wages.

    So your group is critiquing right wing Republicans not your "neoliberal" whatever.

    likbez -> pgl...

    For those who studied Marxism neoliberalism can be defined as Trotskyism for the rich or "revolt of the elite" (against New Deal policies). http://softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/neoliberalism_as_trotskyism_for_the_rich.shtml

    Like Marxism Neoliberalism is not simply an economic theory, it is a philosophy that includes economic theory as its cornerstone.

    Like Marxism Neoliberalism is not homogenous and consists of warring factions.

    Right wing Republicans is just one faction of neoliberals. You can distinguish between soft neoliberals (Third Way neolibs) and hard neoliberals.

    see

    Peter K. :

    I'm for Bernie and believe he could beat Trump. But Dan Kervick and JohnH's arguments moved me more towards the Thoma and EMichael direction.

    The Republicans have gone nuts and are much more of danger than they appeared to be back in 2000 before 9-11.

    The parties are not the same. The danger for the Democrats is that they don't accomplish enough in moving the country towards Social Democracy (Bill Clinton did little, Obama did some) and so inequality just increases and politics gets worse.

    Obama did not get a strong recovery and so Congress is Republican. He didn't prioritize Fed nominations and turned towards deficit reduction too quickly.

    EMichael -> Peter K....
    There are two sides to that stone.

    What I am saying, and in way so is Dr. Thoma, is that Sanders' nomination may well cause much more Rep voter turnout.

    And Sanders lacks the ability to turn out the black vote at all, and he has done himself no favor so far in this cycle.

    Black votes are a lot more important and numerous than any people who are tired of "neo-liberals". Most of whom, if they had IQ above double digits, always voted for the Dem candidate anyway.

    am :
    Prof Thoma seems to have got this right. The definitions of Democratic Socialism by B Sanders are in the context of Scandinavian countries which is really a more progressive form of social democracy, e.g. higher tax rates on higher earners than other social democratic countries but still allowing private property. But he was really a bit daft calling himself a democratic socialist if he is just a more progressive social democrat. A democratic socialist does not allow private property rights but allows democracy. This means elections every four or five years when the government including themselves in power can be changed.
    But that these terms can be misunderstood you just have to look at their use in history: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Democratic Republic of Germany (East Germany).

    likbez -> am...

    Scandinavian countries are pretty small homogenous countries. What is possible for Scandinavian countries is more difficult to achieve is large states like the USA.

    > This means elections every four or five years when the government including themselves in power can be changed.

    In two party system elections is just approval of two selected by the current oligarchy candidates. And it was always this way.

    mulp -> likbez...
    "In two party system elections is just approval of two selected by the current oligarchy candidates. And it was always this ways."

    So, every candidate must independently find supporters and then use the supporters to educate every voter in the candidates' electorate of the individual candidates policies without respect to any standard like political party or any existing description of what political labels mean because the labels are derived from one of many parties using the words in the label.

    How long would it take you to explain your political position without referring to some label that covers how you would decide on responses to social problems when drafting bills or voting on them?

    Then explain how you would find other legislators to support and pass bills without assigning them labels.

    likbez -> mulp... January 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM
    I think two party system is what is called "polyarchy" -- power of a few. As Gore Vidal noted: "There is one political party in this country, and that is the party of money. It has two branches, the Republicans and the Democrats, the chief difference between which is that the Democrats are better at concealing their scorn for the average man."

    http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/index.shtml

    == quote ==
    I subscribe to Kantian idea of the dignity in human, the idea that everyone is entitles to survival as well as thriving beyond survival. But does everybody is entitled to equal participation in ruling of the state ? Or election of state leaders? Which is what democracy means. But at the same time the struggle for political equality which is often associative with the word "democracy" is a vital human struggle even if democracy itself is an unachievable and unrealistic ideal (see The Iron Law of Oligarchy). In some sense too much talk about Democracy is very suspect and just characterize the speaker as a hypocrite with probably evil intentions, who probably is trying to mask some pretty insidious plans with "democracy promotion" smokescreen. That is especially true for "export of democracy" efforts. See color revolutions for details.

    Under neoliberalism we now face a regime completely opposite to democracy: we have complete, forceful atomization of public, acute suppression of any countervailing political forces (not unlike it was the case in the USSR) including labor unions and other forms of self-organization for the lower 80% or even 99% of population. Neoliberalism tries to present any individual as a market actor within some abstract market (everything is the market under neoliberalism). Instead of fight for political and economic equality neoliberalism provides a slick slogan of "wealth maximization" which is in essence a "bait and switch" for wealth maximization for the top 1% (redistribution of wealth up - which is the stated goal of neoliberalism). It was working in tandem with "shareholder value" mantra which is a disguise of looting of the corporations to enrich its top brass via outsize bonuses (IBM is a nice example where such an approach leads) and sending thousands of white color workers to the street. Previously it was mainly blue-color workers that were affected. Times changed.

    Everything should be organized like corporation under neoliberalism, including government, medicine, education, even military. And everybody is not a citizen but a shareholder under neoliberalism (or more correctly stakeholder), so any conflict should be resolved via discussion of the main stakeholders. Naturally lower 99% are not among them.

    In any democracy, how can voters make an important decision unless they are well informed? But what percentage of US votes can be considered well informed? And what percentage is brainwashed or do not what to think about the issues involved and operate based on emotions and prejudices? And when serious discussion of issues that nation faces are deliberately and systematically replaced by "infotainment" votes became just pawn in the game of factions of elite, which sometimes leaks information to sway public opinion, but do it very selectively. Important information is suppressed or swiped under the carpet to fifth page in NYT to prevent any meaningful discussion. For example, ask several of your friends if they ever heard about Damascus, AR.

    The great propaganda mantra of neoliberal governance, "wealth maximization" for society as a whole in reality is applied very selectively and never to the bottom 60% or 80% of population. In essence, it means a form of welfare economics for financial oligarchy while at the same time a useful smokescreen for keeping debt-slaves obedient by removing any remnants of job security mechanisms that were instituted during the New Deal. As the great American jurist and Supreme Court associate justice Louis Brandeis once said: "We can have huge wealth in the hands of a relatively few people or we can have a democracy. But we can't have both." As under neoliberalism extreme wealth is the goal of the social system, there can be no democracy under neoliberalism. And this mean that pretentions of the USA elite that the USA is a bastion of democracy is plain vanilla British ruling elite style hypocrisy. Brutal suppression of any move to challenge dominance of financial oligarchy (even such feeble as Occupy movement) shows that all too well
    Politically neoliberalism. like Marxism in the past, operates with the same two classes: entrepreneurs (modern name for capitalists and financial oligarchy) and debt slaves (proletarians under Marxism) who work for them. Under neoliberalism only former considered first class citizens ("one dollar -- one vote"). Debt slaves are second class of citizens and are prevented from self-organization, which by-and-large deprives them of any form of political participation. In best Roman tradition it is substituted with the participation in political shows (see Empire of Illusion The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle by Chris Hedges) which decide nothing but provide legitimacy for ruling elite.

    The two party system invented by the elite of Great Britain proved to be perfect for neoliberal regimes, which practice what Sheldon Wolin called inverted totalitarism. The latter is the regime in which all political power belongs to the financial oligarchy which rules via the deep state mechanisms, and where traditional political institutions are downgraded to instruments of providing political legitimacy of the ruling elite. Population is discouraged from political activity. "Go shopping" as famously stated Bush II after 9/11.

    == end of quote ==

    Syaloch said...

    [Class Wars Episode VI: Return of the Occupiers]

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html

    Confronting the Malefactors

    By Paul Krugman | Oct. 6, 2011

    There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.

    When the Occupy Wall Street protests began three weeks ago, most news organizations were derisive if they deigned to mention the events at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National Public Radio had provided no coverage whatsoever.

    It is, therefore, a testament to the passion of those involved that the protests not only continued but grew, eventually becoming too big to ignore. With unions and a growing number of Democrats now expressing at least qualified support for the protesters, Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

    What can we say about the protests? First things first: The protesters' indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right.

    A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will never get served, has taken over much of our political debate - and, yes, I myself have sometimes succumbed. In the process, it has been easy to forget just how outrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you've forgotten, it was a play in three acts.

    1. In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending.
    2. In the second act, the bubbles burst - but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers' sins.
    3. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support - and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts - behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.

    Now, it's true that some of the protesters are oddly dressed or have silly-sounding slogans, which is inevitable given the open character of the events. But so what? I, at least, am a lot more offended by the sight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth to government guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things about them than I am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.

    Bear in mind, too, that experience has made it painfully clear that men in suits not only don't have any monopoly on wisdom, they have very little wisdom to offer. When talking heads on, say, CNBC mock the protesters as unserious, remember how many serious people assured us that there was no housing bubble, that Alan Greenspan was an oracle and that budget deficits would send interest rates soaring.

    A better critique of the protests is the absence of specific policy demands. It would probably be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to see enacted. But we shouldn't make too much of the lack of specifics. It's clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it's really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details.

    Rich Yeselson, a veteran organizer and historian of social movements, has suggested that debt relief for working Americans become a central plank of the protests. I'll second that, because such relief, in addition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help the economy recover. I'd suggest that protesters also demand infrastructure investment - not more tax cuts - to help create jobs. Neither proposal is going to become law in the current political climate, but the whole point of the protests is to change that political climate.

    And there are real political opportunities here. Not, of course, for today's Republicans, who instinctively side with those Theodore Roosevelt-dubbed "malefactors of great wealth." Mitt Romney, for example - who, by the way, probably pays less of his income in taxes than many middle-class Americans - was quick to condemn the protests as "class warfare."

    But Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now, however, Mr. Obama's party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is take these protests as seriously as they deserve to be taken.

    And if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along, Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.

    Sarah -> Peter K....

    Bingo. Bernie does what Obama did in his early speeches: speak to the moral, emotional underpinnings of Progressive beliefs. Despite seeing how incredibly powerful this approach has been for the Republicans, we've had years and decades of Democrats acting like cold technocrats, as if all of these policy matters were mere practicalities and politics were really just the horse race that the media treats it as- rather than a matter of life and death for many people in its outcomes.

    I think people would be less skeptical of Bernie's chances if they saw, as I have, the number of people on the Right and the completely apolitical types who've never voted in their lives who are suddenly talking enthusiastically (often to their own surprise) about a politician. This is a kind of excitement that Hillary is never going to be able to inspire.

    EMichael -> Sarah...

    And you somehow think that this enthusiasm will not be curbed after the attacks on Sanders begin? And I am not talking about these stupid little so called "attacks" by PK, Chait, Klein, etc. I'm talking big boy attacks backed by huge money and no reason whatsoever to pay attention to any facts at all.

    Sarah -> EMichael...

    Yeah, I do. I think we're ready for another, "And I welcome their hatred," moment in history.

    The fact is, on both the Left and the Right people are sick of politics as usual. It's notable that the 'big boys' with the money have been completely, totally unable to influence their supposed Republican base this election season. That's because on the Republican side Trump and Cruz- and even Carson- are tapping into real grievances and emotions. Do you really think Hillary Clinton is the right person to tap into that current? It's a pity, actually. I like her quite well, and I supported her against Obama because of Obama's relative inexperience - and the fact that he hadn't been 'tested' by the 'big boy attacks' you refer to.

    But what we need now is someone with genuine moral outrage who will say what so many of us feel: the system has been distorted beyond its ability to snap back. It works for at most 10% of the population now and catastrophically, often fatally, fails a percentage of perhaps twice that. I haven't gotten quite to the point yet myself where I would refuse to vote for Clinton if she won the primary, but many of my friends have. I think the tide has finally turned.

    EMichael -> Sarah...

    I'm with you except I think the math does not work.

    Half of the REP base are stone cold crazy, and when the smoke clears they will vote for whomever is left standing.

    This country has no such amount of people who are as far left as it does those who are far right. And what numbers there are do not got to the polls if their candidate loses the nomination.

    Sarah -> EMichael...

    The thing is, the 'math' doesn't take into account the incredibly low voter turnouts in the US. It wouldn't take a whole lot to create massive change if you could engage even a quarter of the currently unengaged. What impresses me about Bernie is that he seems to be able to do so.

    [Jan 26, 2016] Meet the new Bernie Sanders: he's now a real candidate, against Clinton's robot

    Notable quotes:
    "... What? The media has been saying for months and months and months and months that Bernie has no chance. The People vote that he wins a debate, the media says Hillary won. You clearly dont know shit. This has been an uphill battle the whole way. Last debate was the FIRST time Bernie got recognized by media as the winner. ..."
    "... Sanders may be more attractive than Clinton to the Reagan Democrats backing Trump (who never really were conservative, more like wanting a labor party that didn't delve into social issues). ..."
    "... Socializing health care and education is not radical, it is a rational reform inside the systsem, it does not go to the root (radix) and seek to replace the root, but only trim the branches (hence not radical). ..."
    "... Calling the Sanders agenda hard-left (like this article does) is idiotic - the author is economically illiterate. Keynesianism, which is what Sanders proposes in substance, isn't communism, it was the mainstream approach to administering capitalism from 1940s to 1970s, elements are still in place in Canada, and continental Europe and they at least as as developed, as free and as democratic as the US. ..."
    "... The media have completely disregarded him until his surge in Iowa, even with the New Hampshire polls out. Have you not wondered why the debates are held on weekends? Wassermann Schultz and the DNC are burying Bernie so people will vote on name recognition rather than policy. ..."
    The Guardian

    Blaine -> Elswood 26 Jan 2016 11:03

    So tired of Hillary! With Bill out there goosing the audience for money and Chelsea practically wetting herself with anticipation of her own career in politics in the wings and Mother bird with private email strip tease front and center stage with the spotlight still on her, this is one burlesque show I hope the curtain drops on sooner rather than later.


    Debbie Smith -> Pete Shoults 26 Jan 2016 11:01

    I guess you are a bit out of touch, because although the mainstream media loved to call Bernie 'unelectable' until now, the regular people LOVE him. He will win in a landslide and bring the US closer to where it SHOULD be, since it is 40-50 years behind in its policies.


    HobbesianWorld -> Cath70 26 Jan 2016 10:55

    delusional belief that he's going to get any of his policies passed in a GOP-hogtied Congress is ridiculous. And he's yet to offer substantial plans for his utopia.

    Clearly you would rather maintain the status quo--Wall Street's grip on Congress and the ever-widening income disparity gap between the workers and the wealthy. You obviously are indifferent to the less fortunate and want a war hawk in the White House.

    Just because Bernie is at a disadvantage with the corporate media trying their best to marginalize him and the DNC rigging the debates to get the fewest watchers as possible, I don't tuck my tail under me and bow to those manipulative powers.

    I am going to fight every day to spread his message and try to explain to an ignorant America what is meant by Democratic Socialism (we are all democratic socialists to some degree unless you want ALL government services privatized for profit).

    Yes, he would need the help of Congress to pass some of his policies, and yes, the childish, vengeful, self-centered oligarchic Republicans will try to block him at every turn, We the People would be needed to apply the pressure on our elected officials. Don't be afraid of a challenge. This may be our very last chance to recover our republic.


    hcm1975 -> SN1789 26 Jan 2016 10:46

    The terms used in this article are nothing compared to what Bernie Sanders will be described as by the Republicans/Fox etc. should he win the Democrat's nomination. I can only hope he is well prepared.

    Brandon King -> brummagem joe 26 Jan 2016 10:43

    What? The media has been saying for months and months and months and months that Bernie has no chance. The People vote that he wins a debate, the media says Hillary won. You clearly dont know shit. This has been an uphill battle the whole way. Last debate was the FIRST time Bernie got recognized by media as the winner.


    Jim Baker -> notmurdoch 26 Jan 2016 10:42

    In recent American Presidential elections, motivating the base to vote is paramount. A candidate that enthuses more party faithful to vote may do better, not worse. This effect could also improve the party's results in Congress. Besides, Sanders may be more attractive than Clinton to the Reagan Democrats backing Trump (who never really were conservative, more like wanting a labor party that didn't delve into social issues).


    Brandon King -> Phillyguy 26 Jan 2016 10:37

    Taxes will be raised, yes, but the average American will save over $6000/year. You will NO LONGER pay for medical insurance, instead we will pay $600/year extra in taxes. your health insurance bill is likely $300-$500/month. We will all pay a smaller piece of the pie, so yes taxes will be increased but we will be saving money. He already released his tax plan. Income tax DOES NOT raise unless you make over $500,000/year, and even then its modest raises. Most of the bumps are 3%-4%. If you make over $10 million/year its like 10%-11% bump.

    What the fuck is up with people bitching about working to give Americans a higher standard of living, what the French call Qualite de la Vie? Are you seriously content being the first 2nd World country? We are NOT a 1st World, in fact there are lots of parts of the US living in 3rd World conditions.


    SN1789 Haig 26 Jan 2016 10:34

    Nonsense. Right and Left should not be exxagerated. Sanders is excellent. But he is not radical. Where Krugman talks Keyensian up until it challenges someone in power, Sanders is genuinely committed to using the state to smooth out the hard edges of capitalism, especially when the sector is a clear case of market failure, like health care and education. Socializing health care and education is not radical, it is a rational reform inside the systsem, it does not go to the root (radix) and seek to replace the root, but only trim the branches (hence not radical).


    SN1789 26 Jan 2016 10:30

    Calling the Sanders agenda "hard-left" (like this article does) is idiotic - the author is economically illiterate. Keynesianism, which is what Sanders proposes in substance, isn't communism, it was the mainstream approach to administering capitalism from 1940s to 1970s, elements are still in place in Canada, and continental Europe and they at least as as developed, as free and as democratic as the US. The things Sanders wants to spend money on (health care and education) would actually save the US money overall. Getting the profit out of healthcare and education free's up the % of the GDP that can go to other things (like infrastructure). The US over-pays for health care between 33 and 50%. Single-payer will reduce that number, it will cost less overall. Anyone who says otherwise is a vicious liar.

    SN1789 -> atlga 26 Jan 2016 10:26

    Economically he is to the right of Nixon and far to the right of Eisenhower. Why exactly is Keynesianism as impossible as cold fusion. Neoliberalism was unpopular in 1972 and in 1982 it was the new normal. It is possible that Keynesianism was impossible in 2007 but in 2017 it will be the new normal. Things change.


    Steven Johnson -> Seamush 26 Jan 2016 10:25

    Are you stupid? All other major countries have single payer, ALL other major countries. We are the wealthiest country out of all of them and we have the worse health and live shorter lives because of it. You are an idiot if you think this should not be fought for. Health care will keep going up in cost until most people can't afford it. Bernie is the only one who isn't bought and paid for, you really think you can trust a multi millionaire who made all their millions from patting billionaires on the back? She got all most all her campaign money from them as well.

    She will serve them, not us. Bernie has a record of serving us not them, and he is not owned by any one. So tell me, why would you trust a corporate owned war hawk over Bernie who has always been on the right side of history? You would have to be a complete ignoramus to do so.

    jabharty -> brummagem joe 26 Jan 2016 10:21

    Ahead in Iowa, thrashing Clinton in New Hampshire, ahead of Trump by 9 points more than Hillary. Non-existent? Young and passionate voters will turn out like in '08 and push him over the line.

    The media have completely disregarded him until his surge in Iowa, even with the New Hampshire polls out. Have you not wondered why the debates are held on weekends? Wassermann Schultz and the DNC are burying Bernie so people will vote on name recognition rather than policy.

    hcm1975 26 Jan 2016 10:18

    Meet the new Bernie Sanders
    Rubbish. Bernie hasn't changed one iota. The MSM - the guardian's ersthile Clinton machine in particular - have finally realised he exists and are jumping on the bandwagon.

    [Jan 26, 2016] The Marketing Of The American President

    The woman is seriously out of touch with reality. But a few of her observations are not that bad...
    Zero Hedge
    Authored by Nina Khrushcheva, originally posted at Project Syndicate,

    When it comes to political entertainment, it doesn't get much better than presidential election season in the United States. Foreign observers follow the race to determine who is best equipped to lead the US – and, to some extent, the world – toward a more stable, secure, and prosperous future. But in America, entertainment is king, and Americans tend to focus on excitement above all – who looks better, has a catchier sound bite, seems most "authentic," and so on, often to the point of absurdity.

    This is not a new approach, of course. Edward Bernays, the father of modern public relations, examined it in 1928, in his book Propaganda. "Politics was the first big business in America," he declared, and political campaigns are "all side shows, all honors, all bombast, glitter, and speeches." The key to victory is the manipulation of public opinion, and that is achieved most effectively by appealing to the "mental clichés and emotional habits of the public."

    A president, in other words, is nothing more than a product to be marketed. And, as any marketer knows, the quality of the product is not necessarily what drives its success;

    ... ... ...

    In fact, it is Cruz who has made Trump squirm. In last week's Republican debate, Cruz accused Trump of having "New York values," calling the city (explicitly excluding New York State) "socially liberal" and focused on "money and media." Cruz managed not only to get a rise out of Trump, but also to enhance his own appeal to conservative voters in the Midwest and South, who view the city as a kind of modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah. (New Yorkers and many others were also offended by Cruz's statement, not because the city isn't socially liberal and the home base of America's media and financial industries, but because the pejorative use of "New York" has historically been an anti-Semitic dog whistle.)

    Appropriately plastic-looking, Cruz can, when necessary, act as brainless as Sarah Palin (who has just endorsed Trump). But Cruz, educated at Princeton and Harvard, is no fool. He is, as Bernays taught, treating his campaign as a "drive for votes, just as an Ivory Soap advertising campaign is a drive for sales."

    Trump is a showman who has captured the public's attention. But Cruz is a propagandist... The question is whether Americans will want to buy what they are selling.

    [Jan 26, 2016] The Real Donald Trump - A Fascinating Interview From 1990

    Notable quotes:
    "... think there's a very real chance Trump will be elected President within the next ten years. His chances ride on the fact that the current system is terminally corrupt, as well as socially and economically bankrupt. It will crash and burn, whether in slow motion like the past eight years, or very rapidly over the next several. Someone will likely step in to fill this void, and Trump has the personality type and understanding of human nature to possibly propel himself into the position when the timing is right. ..."
    "... I genuinely believe that as President he would do what he thinks is best for America. In that sense, hes not the typical detached, corrupt, greedy, globalist U.S. President weve become so accustomed to. This is precisely what his supporters are picking up on and why they love him. ..."
    "... As such, the establishment really is scared because Trump actually is an uncontrollable wildcard . This is certainly bad for them, but it isnt necessarily good for we the people. ..."
    "... Trump supporters see this and think this is how hes going to deal with foreign leaders and that this is a good thing. They think that hell simply outsmart them. Maybe he will and maybe he wont, who knows. Personally, Im far more concerned about how he would deal with domestic dissent. ..."
    "... Which brings me to the final point. Many of Trumps personality traits are more admirable, or at least appear less nefarious than I previously thought. ..."
    "... Tough is being mentally capable of winning battles against an opponent and doing it with a smile. Tough is winning systematically. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    In 1990, Donald Trump conducted a lengthy interview with Playboy Magazine . It provides an absolutely fascinating window into the man's mind, which I suggest everyone read in full. Unexpectedly, I came away with a more informed and nuanced perspective on the man. While it didn't change my opinion of him as President, I do have a much greater appreciation for Donald Trump as a person, specifically how his mind works and what drives him.

    I originally came across this interview after seeing a tweet referencing a 25 year old interview during which Trump expressed admiration for how strongly Chinese authorities cracked down on dissent in Tiananmen Square in 1989. I immediately thought to myself that this would be the perfect fodder to further elucidate the kind of cold, brutal, authoritarian leader Trump undoubtedly would be as President.

    While that particular quote didn't disappoint, I decided to read further and came away with many additional observations. I think these observations are worth sharing since I think there's a very real chance Trump will be elected President within the next ten years. His chances ride on the fact that the current system is terminally corrupt, as well as socially and economically bankrupt. It will crash and burn, whether in slow motion like the past eight years, or very rapidly over the next several. Someone will likely step in to fill this void, and Trump has the personality type and understanding of human nature to possibly propel himself into the position when the timing is right. Is the time right in 2016? Probably not, but a President Trump is far more likely to occur in our lifetimes than many of us want to admit.

    So with that out of the way, let me share some of the things I learned from the interview. First, I think Trump is far less materialistic than people presume , which sounds like a contradiction considering he is unquestionably one of the biggest showoffs on planet earth. While this is true, the motivation behind his ostentatious public persona is primarily to further his brand. As he says repeatedly in the interview, it's all a show . In other words, he claims it's pure marketing and I believe him.

    What motivates Trump isn't the collection of material things, rather, it's a constant need to stroke his enormous ego and stoke his narcissism. Life is merely a giant game for Trump. A game in which the winners collect lots of fame and money, and the losers don't. He doesn't simply want to win this game, coming out on top is his entire life's purpose. The idea of not winning isn't even an option.

    So with this in mind, is the Presidency just the ultimate prize for Trump? Does he want it simply because it is one of the few "wins" he has yet to collect? I think so. Deep down, I think Trump can't truly envision himself as life's ultimate winner without the Presidency. This is not to say I think Trump isn't genuine when he says America is going down the toilet. Indeed, he was hitting on many of the exact same themes back in 1990. In fact, it gives you the impression that Trump has thought America was lacking his entire life, precisely because Trump had yet to be named the country's CEO.

    Trump believes in winning, and he thinks he and America are one in the same. In that sense, I genuinely believe that as President he would do what he thinks is best for America. In that sense, he's not the typical detached, corrupt, greedy, globalist U.S. President we've become so accustomed to. This is precisely what his supporters are picking up on and why they love him.

    From this angle alone, he might actually have the chops to be a very good President. This is because for a man with his disposition, being President might still not be enough of an accomplishment. His ego will require that history remember him not just as a billionaire and President, but as the man who "Made America Great Again," the ultimate motivator for a man who never rests until he gets what he wants. So it's true that he really wouldn't be unduly influenced by billionaires and large corporations if he felt they were getting in the way of his making America great (and himself greater). Those are the positives.

    As such, the establishment really is scared because Trump actually is an uncontrollable wildcard . This is certainly bad for them, but it isn't necessarily good for "we the people." The problem arises when it comes to Trump's definition of greatness. From my chair, he doesn't seem to think liberty, freedom and the Constitution play much of a role. Indeed, you can get a pretty good sense of his definition of "great" by looking at his buildings and the sorts of accomplishments he prides himself on. He loves the shock factor and big expensive toys. He likes them because they impress others and help his brand. There's more swagger than substance to the things he prioritizes, at least publicly. Indeed, it's not surprising that the casino business would have a particular appeal to him. It's a world in which customers indulge themselves in a fantasy until they run out of money or get bored, and by the time they leave, Trump's bank account is far bigger than it was before. He wins again.

    Trump supporters see this and think this is how he's going to deal with foreign leaders and that this is a good thing. They think that he'll simply outsmart them. Maybe he will and maybe he won't, who knows. Personally, I'm far more concerned about how he would deal with domestic dissent.

    To that end, I think one thing is clear. I think he'd take George W. Bush's "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" and change it to something like "you are either with me, or you hate America." In a collapsed economy, this sort of slogan could appeal to a lot of people, and with an outraged public behind him, President Trump has the capacity to be incredibly cruel and vicious to American citizens he think stand in the way of his "Making America Great."

    Without any obvious respect for the Constitution or Bill of Rights, a President Trump could very quickly transform himself into a very dangerous strongman, all the while believing that he is merely doing what is necessary to make America great. This attitude has become painfully clear to me during the campaign as I've watched him intentionally stir up anger and hate by demonizing minorities such as Muslims and Mexicans. Do I think it's possible he doesn't really stand behind his own hateful statements and is merely telling groups of frustrated people what they want to hear to get elected? Perhaps, but such a willingness tells you a lot about the lengths he would go to win, and shines a light on the things he's capable of doing in order to solidify and expand his power once he's won.

    Which brings me to the final point. Many of Trump's personality traits are more admirable, or at least appear less nefarious than I previously thought. Nevertheless, it is extremely crucial to understand that the traits that make someone an incredible showman and billionaire are not the same traits needed in a President to restore a Constitutional Republic. Not that I think that's high on Trump's list of priorities in any event.

    Now here are some of the more interesting excerpts of the interview. Read the entire thing here .

    Then what does all this-the yacht, the bronze tower, the casinos-really mean to you?
    Props for the show.

    And what is the show?
    The show is " Trump " and it has sold out performances everywhere. I've had fun doing it and will continue to have fun, and I think most people enjoy it.

    You don't sound guilty at all.
    I do have a feeling of guilt. I'm living well and like it, I know that many other people don't live particularly well. I do have a social consciousness. I'm setting up a foundation; I give a lot of money away and I think people respect that. The fact that I built this large company by myself working people respect that; but the people who are at high levels don't like it. They'd like it for themselves.

    What do you do to stay in touch with your employees?
    I inspect the Trump Tower atrium every morning. Walk into it … it's perfect; everything shines. I go down and raise hell in a nice way all the time because I want everything to be absolutely immaculate. I'm, totally hands-on. I get along great with porters and maids at the Plaza and the Grand Hyatt. I've had bright people ask me why I talk to porters and maids. I can't even believe that question. Those are the people who make it all work …. If they like me, they will work harder … and I pay well.

    How far are you willing to push adversaries?
    I will demand anything I can get. When you're doing business, you take people to the brink of breaking them without having them break, to the maximum point their heads can handle-without breaking them. That's the sign of a good businessman: Somebody else would take them fifteen steps beyond their breaking point.

    Why?
    I am very skeptical about people; that's self-preservation at work. I believe that, unfortunately, people are out for themselves. At this point, it's to many people's advantage to like me. Would the phone stop ringing, would these people kissing ass disappear if things were not going well? I enjoy testing friendship …. Everything in life to me is a psychological game, a series of challenges you either meet or don't. I am always testing people who work for me.

    How?
    I will send people around to my buyers to test their honesty by offering them trips and other things. I've been surprised that some people least likely to accept a trip from a contractor did and some of the most likely did not. You can never tell until you test; the human species is interesting in that way. So to me, friendship can be really tested only in bad times. I instinctively mistrust many people. It is not a negative in my life but a positive. Playboy wouldn't be talking to me today if I weren't a cynic. So I learned that from Fred, and I owe him a lot. . . . He could have ultimately been a happy guy, but things just went the unhappy way.

    And the Pope?
    Absolutely. Nothing wrong with ego. People need ego, whole nations need ego. I think our country needs more ego, because it is being ripped off so badly by our so-called allies; i.e., Japan, West Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, etc. They have literally outegotized this country, because they rule the greatest money machine ever assembled and it's sitting on our backs. Their products are better because they have so much subsidy. We Americans are laughed at around the world for losing a hundred and fifty billion dollars year after year, for defending wealthy nations for nothing, nations that would be wiped off the face of the earth in about fifteen minutes if it weren't for us. Our "allies" are making billions screwing us.

    You're opposed to Japanese buying real estate in the U.S.?
    I have great respect for the Japanese people and list many of them as great friends. But, hey, if you want to open up a business in Japan, good luck. It's virtually impossible. But the Japanese can buy our buildings, our Wall Street firms, and there's virtually no.thing to stop them. In fact, bidding on a building in New York is an act of futility, because the Japanese will pay more than it's worth just to screw us. They want to own Manhattan. Of course, I shouldn't even be complaining about it, because I'm one of the big beneficiaries of it. If I ever wanted to sell any of my properties, I'd have a field day. But it's an embarrassment! I give great credit to the Japanese and their leaders, because they have made our leaders look totally second rate.

    You have taken out full-page ads in several major newspapers that not only concern U.S. foreign trade but call for the death penalty, too. Why?
    Because I hate seeing this country go to hell. We're laughed at by the rest of the world. In order to bring law and order back into our cities, we need the death penalty and authority given back to the police. I got fifteen thousand positive letters on the death-penalty ad. I got ten negative or slightly negative ones.

    You believe in an eye for an eye?
    When a man or woman cold-bloodedly murders, he or she should pay. It sets an example. Nobody can make the argument that the death penalty isn't a deterrent. Either it will be brought back swiftly or our society will rot away. It is rotting away.

    For a man so concerned about our crumbling cities, some would say you've done little for crumbling Atlantic City besides pull fifty million dollars a week out of tourists' pockets.
    Elected officials have that responsibility. I would hate to think that people blame me for the problems of the world. Yet people come to me and say, "Why do you allow homelessness in the cities?" as if I control the situation. I am not somebody seeking office.

    Wait. Doesn't it seem that with all your influence in Atlantic City you could do more to combat crime and corruption and put something back into the community?
    Well, crime and prostitution go up, and Atlantic City administrations are into very deep trouble with the law, and there are lots of problems there, no question about it. But there is a tremendous amount of money going to housing from the profits of the casinos. As somebody who runs hotels, all I can do, when you get right down to it, is run the best places, bring in as much money as possible, which in turn goes out for taxes. I contribute millions a year to various charities. Finally, by law, I'm not allowed to have Governmental influence; but if they passed legislation that allowed me to get more involved, I'd be very happy to do it. In the meantime, I have the most incredible hotels in the world in Atlantic City. The Taj Mahal will be beyond belief. And if I can awaken the government of Atlantic City, I have performed a great service.

    What were your other impressions of the Soviet Union?
    I was very unimpressed….Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That's my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand.

    You mean firm hand as in China?
    When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world-

    Besides The real-estate deal, you've met with top-level Soviet officials to negotiate potential business deals with them; how did they strike you?
    Generally, these guys are much tougher and smarter than our representatives. We have people in this country just as smart, but unfortunately, they're not elected officials. We're still suffering from a loss of respect that goes back to the Carter Administration, when helicopters were crashing into one another in Iran. That was Carter's emblem. There he was, being carried off from a race, needing oxygen. I don't want my President to be carried off a race course. I don't want my President landing on Austrian soil and falling down the stairs of his airplane. Some of our Presidents have been incredible jerk-offs. We need to be tough.

    A favorite word of yours, tough. How do you define it?
    Tough is being mentally capable of winning battles against an opponent and doing it with a smile. Tough is winning systematically.

    Sometimes you sound like a Presidential candidate stirring up the voters.
    I don't want the Presidency. I'm going to help a lot of people with my foundation-and for me, the grass isn't always greener.

    But if the grass ever did look greener, which political party do you think you'd be more comfortable with?
    Well, if I ever ran for office, I'd do better as a Democrat than as a Republican-and that's not because I'd be more Republican -and that's not because I'd be more liberal, because I'm conservative. But the working guy would elect me. He likes me. When I walk down the street, those cabbies start yelling out their windows.

    Another game: What's the first thing President Trump would do upon entering the Oval Office?
    Many things. A toughness of attitude would prevail. I'd throw a tax on every Mercedes-Benz rolling into this country and on all Japanese products, and we'd have wonderful allies again.

    And how would President Trump handle it?
    He would believe very strongly in extreme military strength. He wouldn't trust anyone. He wouldn't trust the Russians; he wouldn't trust our allies; he'd have a huge military arsenal, perfect it, understand it. Part of the problem is that we're defending some of the wealthiest countries in the world for nothing. . . . We're being laughed at around the world, defending Japan–

    You categorically don't want to be President?
    I don't want to be President. I'm one hundred percent sure. I'd change my mind only if I saw this country continue to go down the tubes.

    More locally, one of your least favorite political figures was Mayor Ed Koch of New York. You two had a great time going after each other: He called you "piggy, piggy, piggy" and you called him "a moron." Why do you suppose he lost the election?
    He lost his touch for the people. He became arrogant. He not only discarded his friends but was a fool for brutally criticizing them. The corruption was merely a symptom of what had happened to him: He had become extremely nasty, mean spirited and very vicious, an extremely disloyal human being. When his friends like Bess Myerson and others were in trouble, he seemed to automatically abandon them, almost before finding out what they'd done wrong. He could think only about his own ass-not the city's. That was dumb: The only one who didn't know his administration was crumbling around him was him. Power corrupts.

    You probably have more power than Koch did as mayor. And you're getting more of it all the time. How about power's corrupting you?
    I think power sometimes corrupts-"sometimes" has to be added.

    You're involved in so many activities, deals, promotions-in the deep of the night, after the reporters all leave your conferences, are you ever satisfied with what you've accomplished?
    I'm too superstitious to be satisfied. I don't dwell on the past. People who do that go right down the tubes. I'm never self-satisfied. Life is what you do while you're waiting to die. You know, it is all a rather sad situation.

    Life? Or death?
    Both. We're here and we live our sixty, seventy or eighty years and we're gone. You win, you win, and in the end, it doesn't mean a hell of a lot. But it is something to do-to keep you interested.

    So building that second huge yacht isn't an act of gaudy excess but another act in the show?
    Well, it draws people. It will be the eighth wonder of the world and will create an aura that seems to work. It will cost me two hundred million dollars. But I don't need it! I could be very happy living in a one-bedroom apartment. I used to live that life. In the early Seventies, I lived in a studio apartment overlooking a water tank.

    If you were starting over again, in what business would you choose to make your fortune?
    Good question …. There's something about mother earth that's awfully good, and mother earth is still real estate. With the right financing, you've essentially invested no money. Publishing, movies, broadcasting are tougher, and there aren't too many Rupert Murdochs, Si Newhouses, Robert Maxwells and Punch Sulzbergers. I'll stick to real estate.

    You seem very pleasant and charming during interviews, yet you talk constantly about toughness. Do you put on an act for us?
    I think everybody has to have some kind of filtering system. I'm very fair and I have had the same people working for me for years. Rarely does anybody leave me. But when somebody tries to sucker-punch me, when they're after my ass, I push back a hell of a lot harder than I was pushed in the first place. If somebody tries to push me around, he's going to pay a price. Those people don't come back for seconds. I don't like being pushed around or taken advantage of. And that's one of the problems with our country today. This country is being pushed around by everyone.

    About your own toughness…
    Well, as I said, I study people and in every negotiation, I weigh how tough I should appear. I can be a killer and a nice guy. You have to be everything. You have to be strong. You have to be sweet. You have to be ruthless. And I don't think any of it can be learned. Either you have it or you don't. And that is why most kids can get straight As in school but fail in life.

    As you continue to make more deals, as you accumulate more and more, there's a central question that arises about Donald Trump: How much is enough?
    As long as I enjoy what I'm doing without getting bored or tired … the sky's the limit.

    The big concern as relates to Trump as President would be his strongman type of personality coupled with a cult of personality worship amongst his followers. This worship is something that Trump himself is well aware of, and it makes him all the more dangerous. For example, he recently said the following in Iowa:

    Donald Trump boasted Saturday that support for his presidential campaign would not decline even if he shot someone in the middle of a crowded street.

    "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally here.

    The scary part is, I think he's right.

    johngaltfla

    All you need to know about Donnie Trump's management style and this election:

    What Kind of Idiots is the Trump Campaign Hiring?!?!
  • Login or register to post comments
  • Mon, 01/25/2016 - 20:53 | 7095680 Supernova Born

    He said he'd only consider the presidency if he "saw this country continue to go down the tubes".

    Man of his word.

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Mon, 01/25/2016 - 20:58 | 7095698 Goliath Slayer

    They can all do the kabuki. In the end, JEB=CIA=Next POTUS >> http://bit.ly/1NBoR7S

    Automatic Choke

    big ego? check!
    desire to get to the "top"? check!
    thinks prez is necessary for this? check!
    willing to do or say anything to get there? check!
    no real convictions, just a "show"? check!
    no compassion? check!

    ....so far, i haven't heard anything that isn't true of ANYBODY who is a serious contender for the top office.....

    Silky Johnson

    I hear many people saying, "he can't be bought, he's already got billions". My questions is, where do you think he keeps his money?

    Tall Tom

    It is not his money.It belongs to the Banks and the Banks owe him...

    But he is the one with the problem as the banks owe him hundreds of millions which he loaned to them...as deposits.

    If they go under then he ends up withnothing.

    Thus he must be loyal to the banks or lose it all.

    He believes that everyone is self interested as he said in the interview. Thus he is also self interested.

    Do not let that fact escape you,people. He will protect his investments and his wealth...at your expense when necessary.

    N2OJoe

    I was with the author until:

    as I've watched him intentionally stir up anger and hate by demonizing minorities such as Muslims and Mexicans.

    I too see Trumps disregard for the Constitution and cringe, but you can't play the Race Card™ and expect a thinking man to take you seriously.

    Tarzan

    The People are supporting Trump for one reason,

    He's the one in the crowd saying what they're thinking,

    Fuck You, you STUPID MORONS!

    overmedicatedun...

    and tommy says:

    "Do not let that fact escape you,people. He will protect his investments and his wealth...at your expense when necessary."

    so far his wealth and investments coincide with making all of Americas more wealthy and have higher living standards to spend in his hotels..

    Tom when you can point out where his interests are in conflict with the people let me know.

    PS he says he will stop illegals who are a great source of cheap labor for hotels - kinda like he sees the impact on ave joe america - and goes against his own ability to hire cheap..think about that mr tom.

    NoDebt

    There's a reason I only play politics for entertainment purposes. Trying to pick the right person is like trying to figure out who the "good guys" are in the Middle East. There aren't any.

    I'll hold my observation to the following... A guy like Trump couldn't have gained traction unless two things happened:

    1. A guy like Obama giving everything from the Constitution to traditional American values the middle finger.

    2. The opposition party failing to oppose him no matter how many seats they were given in Congress.

    So, congratulations Washington elites, you've now pissed everyone off and Americans (on both sides of the aisle) are, for the first time in my life, truly ready to vote "none of the above". Hence Trump on the right. Hence Sanders on the left.

    Reap the whirwind, Washington. You have nobody to blame but yourself.

    froze25

    Once things for certain the next 10 months will be interesting. It would be nice to have a nationalist back in the presidency. They really have done a great job pissing off everyone. EPA regulations that handcuff the States developing natural resources. Bill of rights going into the shredder. Family unit under attack. Department of Education wrecking public education. War on masculinity. War on labor via illegal immigration. War on drugs brings pills and heroin to kids at the cheapest prices ever. 1 in 3 women on some type of ssri drug . Yeah we have gone the tubes.

    NoDebt

    If I was to boil down the arguments for and against Trump I could go down the ledger double-entry-accounting-style and balance off every plus with a minus. But there would be just one line on the ledger left over with no counter-balancing liability.

    George Soros hates Trump.

    Find me the liability that offsets that asset. If you're looking for a simple "Occams Razor" decision criteria maybe that's as good as any.

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Tue, 01/26/2016 - 06:11 | 7096642 nmewn

    Maybe he does hate him...but do you think they could make a deal together? I do.

    And therein lies the rub.

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Tue, 01/26/2016 - 06:31 | 7096651 Never One Roach

    He's not a career parasite. That goes a long way in my book after the last several Messiahs. The second major plus is he is in favor of a strong middle class as opposed to Soweto who sought to destroy America's class and its values with almost every move.

    order66

    I'll tell you what, watch the interview CNBC did with him strictly about real estate. Guy's a wing nut but knows his shit. Great interview. I think it was Ron "Fantasy Portfolio" Insana.

    Atomizer

    The Establishment is shaking in their boots

    The sociopath migration to derail America will be neutered

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Mon, 01/25/2016 - 21:13 | 7095767 38BWD22

    + 1

    RINOs and D-Teamers are quaking that their dream of 12,000,000 more Democrat voters may not get onto the voting rolls after all.

    The Establishment does not have the stones nor the desire to act to protect our country.

    Donald J. Trump

    The last 8 years have taken a considerable toll on peoples political and moral views. It's a different world today and a lot of people are pissed.

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Mon, 01/25/2016 - 21:15 | 7095769 V for ...

    The Dark Knight.

    Hollyweird always pre-conditions the USA for its money changers.

    2016 is a pivotal moment. Choose, and be damned if you vote.

    Chaos suits sociopaths, and the District of Criminals/Wail Street in particular. It is not about the money. It is about sending a message: new feudalism, bowing down to bankster thieves...or not.

    Choose.

    Duc888

    " What motivates Trump isn't the collection of material things, rather, it's a constant need to stroke his enormous ego and stoke his narcissism."

    Well, he's a complete fucking piker compared to chalky.

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Mon, 01/25/2016 - 21:12 | 7095759 duo

    Our current president is one hell of a narcissist. How could it be any worse? Obama destroyed what he said he would destroy, and a whole lot more. Maybe Trump at a minimum can stop the decline.

    Savyindallas

    So Trump shared a flight with Jeffrey Epstein-- what the hell does that prove? We know about Clinton -serial rapist, sexual predator extraordinare. Trump assocated with tons of scummy slime -people like Hillary. The evidence on Trump and the sleazy Epstein shit proves absolutely nothing. trump has been honest and open with his assocaitions with scumbag criminals like Clinton. Billionaires from New York have to assocaite with pleanty of scumbag degenerate criminals -start with slime like Bloomberg and Gulianni - both are Luciferian trashbags.

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Tue, 01/26/2016 - 09:24 | 7097123 Iwanttoknow

    V for,

    My feras exactly.Neocon supremo John bolton is his advisor.His granddaughter and ex wife are members of the tribe.

    Duc888

    " Trump believes in winning, and he thinks he and America are one in the same. In that sense, I genuinely believe that as President he would do what he thinks is best for America."

    I agree. I've always gotten a sense that Trump genuinely loves USA. He has a vested interest business wise to see things turn around. Contrast that with Barry Soetero who despises USA and pledged to "fundamentally change" it. To the best of my knowledge Barry never so much as ran a lemonade stand and can not fathom what it would take to do so successfully. Any successful Black businessman such as Tavis Smiley would have been light years ahead of Barry running the show....

    sessinpo

    Duc888 So restructuring is a bad thing now? He used the laws to his advantage. I'd hazard to guess he makes more money than you or I and speaking for myself... his net worth is slightly (joking) higher than mine. What exactly makes him "not a great manager"? Just curious.

    ----

    Do you include the Banks, the Fed and those executives? I suppose they are great managers too. They are just using the laws/rules to their advantage. sarc/

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Tue, 01/26/2016 - 08:43 | 7096965 detached.amusement

    There's a difference between using existing law to one's advantage, and completely ignoring said laws... not to mention buying off the legislature to change those rules....

    V for ...

    The problem with grenades is that they could kill you too.

    The USA is very much like Germany in the inter war years: an indebted nation, wanting a strong man of rhetoric who will do more harm than good. Look at his business and personal track record. It is bad.

    Keep the Constitution. Keep the guns. Never believe a nazionist like Tramp.

    lester1

    Trump built an successful empire worth billions and created tens of thousands of jobs over the years.

    He wants to end NAFTA and kick out the illegals.

    Trump 2016 !!

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Mon, 01/25/2016 - 21:35 | 7095868 V for ...

    His 'empire' was built on debt and backroom deals. He is indebted, another paper pusher.

    So perhaps he does suit the modern USA. Pity, pity you modern serfs, wanting a narcissist, and your betrayal of what was the light of the world, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

    lester1

    Trump is the only one I hear talking about these insane trade deals and the need to bring jobs back from overseas.

    Trump is the only one I hear talking about the loss of 55,000 US factories since 2001.

    Trump is actually inspiring!

    Trump has my vote --

    flaunt

    If this country can survive Barrack Obama, surely it can survive Donald Trump. I must say I thoroughly enjoy watching the mainstream and even some of the so-called "alternatives" become utterly unhinged as Trump runs over them all and leaves a trail of bodies a mile long. It's fantastic.

    Thinkor

    There is a very great difference in personality and background between Hitler and Trump. Hitler did not see his job as one of winning in negotiations but of making hmself the master of Europe through the triumph of his own Will to Power. He had an outsized goal and paid the ultimate price. Trump is much older than Hitler was when he became chancellor of Germany at age 44. Hitler was relentlessly aggressive and gambling for the highest stakes. Trump is far more careful. Look at how long he has been thinking about the possibility of becoming President and how he now is acting in just the situation in which he predicted he would run for president -- to prevent the country going down the tubes. That's excellent timing, one must admit! Consider also his big issues: making better trade deals, forcing countries we defend to pay for their own defense, stopping the ludicrously excessive and indiscriminate immigration that the left is encouraging, getting along with Putin, Xi Jinping, etc. by making intelligent deals with them, restoring American military power, replacing Obamacare, and his general goal of "making America great again", not the master of the entire world. Of course, if it falls in his lap ...

    sheikurbootie

    All I want to say is FUCK Michael Bloomberg, Hillary and Bernie. The republicans aren't any better and are all fucking politicians that will tell you anything to get elected. I like Trump. I think he'll actually build a fucking wall and stop the illegal immigration. If he does that ONE thing then I'm a happy camper. You don't have a sovereign nation without borders.

    Obama has done nothing he promised, as I expected. He fucked up anything he tried. All politicians suck.

    I've lived around the world. It made the NATIONAL news when they caught and deported a simple tourist for overstaying a visa. NATIONAL news- they showed the 30 year old man being led onto an airplane and being politely never to return. All for overstaying a visa by 60 days. He was unable to find work other than bumming around. They fine employers severely in the rest of the world. It's financially impossible to hire an non-citizen without a work permit. My work permit cost $5000 a year (paid by my employer). I saw this on more than one occasion while overseas. National news. It's a big deal in every other country.

    TheFutureIsThePast

    There are more problems in America than money or the lack of jobs.

    I want someone to explain to me how Trump, or any other person, under the restrictions of a Democratic Republic and the Constitution will:
    A) Reverse the 50 years of cultural decay
    B) Uproot the increasing corruption in both DC and the greater nation
    C) Completely remove the influence of banks, corporations and foreigners (ZIONISTS)
    D) Reverse the negative birth rate for White Americans
    E) Rebuild the family unit and keep it strong
    F) Remove or severely limit propaganda in the media and schools that threatens the integrity of the nation, its blood, its culture and its long term ideas (HOLLYWOOD)

    and all in 4-8 years. I legitimately want an explanation.

    Savyindallas

    If trump empowers Americans to finally get off the belief that they have to accept the two establishment candidates that they choose for us -then anything is possible. We need to prove we can beat the Orwellian Machine - that we can arise from the comfort of the Matrix and think for ourselves -that we can think independently and make our own choice. Trump can open the door to our awakening from our slumber-- then perhaps -anything is possible.

    If that occurs, it will open the door for future candidates to address your concerns -

    Trump may do so, not sure that this is his passion or concern. It's somewhat irrelevant. The key is to open the door to awaken the sleeping sheeple -so that we can make our own free choices-by electing those who truly represent our interests.

    Bobportlandor

    Christie and Crying glen beck tonight came out and LIED that Trump said it:

    As far as I'm concerned the Radio media has gone belly up, too many fucking commercials anyway.

    Here's Trump without the Liar's Club interpretation.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/

    moonmac

    One thing is for sure high level managers in the Federal Government who rarely do any work or even show up to the office are shaking in their boots at the thought of a Trump Presidency. Federal workers used to be the lowest of the low and now they're running the show. It's still the biggest Good Ol' Boys Network around where the phrase "You're Fired" is never spoken or heard.

    Kiwi Pete

    Does Trump really:

    1. Admire the Chinese leaders who used tanks to crush unarmed stuydent protesters. Would he order the US Army to crush US students protesting in Washington DC?

    2. Believe in the ability of a macho Strongman to fix the countries problems. How often has that worked out?

    3. Believe he is that man. ???

    4. Think that complex problems can be solved with simplistic answers. Would he really rip up GATT which the US worked hard to create and reaps untold benefits from?

    5, Have the support of the taxi driving fraternity. Whose opinions world-wide are somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan!

    nevertheless

    So very true...Mark Twain once said, "if voting made a differance, they would not let us do it". That statemnt was true then, and more true now. This is all a game. And it astounds me how many play right along. Its like the anti-Muslsim stuff, like I am going to get my understanding from religion from US TV, the most controlled manipulative TV in the world, by far.

    Its all about giving the people/sheep, the idea of choice/freedom, when in reality, they have none.

    Iam Yue2

    "The implied probability of Donald Trump becoming President has hit an all time high of 22%."

    http://www.bettingmarket.com/trump.html

    JungleTrunks

    Something this essay didn't pick up on that bodes well for a Trump Presidency is his belief that one of the key reasons the country is failing is because the middle class is failing. For Trump, success won't be success unless the middle class are winning. He stakes his reputation on it which is everything to him.

    Also, I disagree about the "strongman" threat, not that he may have some preidposition for it, but that there's too many checks in the system for him to go too far, just like there's too many checks for Obama to go too far as an authoritarian, although Obama has tried. I see a much greater threat and predisposition in Obama for being an authoritarian than I see in Trump. For Trump, as the essay describes, he truly does want to see the country do great in a way most Americans have always seen the country; for Obama, he truly does want to see the country change in ways most Americans wouldn't recognize, and he's crafty with slight of hand policy. This is what makes Obama's authoritarian tendencies much more dangerous.

    [Jan 23, 2016] Michael Bloomberg mulls presidential run on heels of Trump surge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton served more as Secretary of War than Secretary of State. ..."
    "... Funny - when Trump speculated about an independent run, media articulated the very detailed reasons why such an enterprise would be doomed. State legislatures have virtually abolished the mere possibility of success, at least for 2016. Now with things looking bad for Hillary, another billionaire steps forward, knowing full well what cannot work. Clinton campaign magic ? ..."
    "... You forget that there are a lot of people who dont bother to vote. Rationally, why would anybody waste time choosing between bad and worse when voting for bad makes things worse? Just because it doesnt make things worse as fast as voting for the alternative, it still makes things worse and every president for decades has made things worse because the only choices were bad and worse. ..."
    "... New York is the media capital and that tends to create a very narcissistic enclosed echo chamber where the impact of native son Bloomberg is exaggerated. And yes, in the heartland Bloomberg will not be regarded as a real American. ..."
    "... Yes, the plutocracy has decided enough with the fun and games and the Sanders infant must be strangled in the crib. ..."
    "... As a New York City resident of 40 years, his money corrupting the political process will always be my memory of Bloomberg. ..."
    "... If you want management, vote for Bloomberg. If you want management AND democracy, try someone else. ..."
    "... socially responsible, you having a laugh. His Apartheid policies have been a disaster for the working classes of New York. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The Guardian

    DogsLivesMatter 23 Jan 2016 21:35

    Next it will be the Koch brothers - either one as it makes no difference.

    James Gee -> revelationnow 23 Jan 2016 21:17

    Hillary Clinton served more as Secretary of War than Secretary of State. The only visible progress made in foreign relations (Cuba, Iran) came after her departure. The Democrats have inched, then hot-footed it so far rightwards that their nominee-select is further right than the Republican candidate in 1964. Goldwater at least opposed the death penalty whereas there should be no doubt of Clinton's believing that "extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice!"

    bw9009 -> lamuella 23 Jan 2016 21:00

    Exactly. Apparently Bloomberg doesn't get it. Bernie wins the primary and this billionaire tool thinks he needs to step in and "save" the election. Bernie-s rise in the polls is no mystery...he has the genuine passion and concern on issues the majority of Americans share.

    Copper65 -> wrathofgod 23 Jan 2016 20:46

    The USA needs somebody who can get bipartisan support

    Do you seriously see Michael Bloomberg as 'bipartisan'? Debbie Wasserman Shultz is more 'bipartisan' than Bloomberg.

    jpsartreny 23 Jan 2016 20:42

    Too short, too old and too New Yorkish. Not to mention the slots for billionaire and Hebrew candidates are already taken.

    James Gee 23 Jan 2016 20:23

    Funny - when Trump speculated about an independent run, media articulated the very detailed reasons why such an enterprise would be doomed. State legislatures have virtually abolished the mere possibility of success, at least for 2016. Now with things looking bad for Hillary, another billionaire steps forward, knowing full well what cannot work. Clinton campaign "magic"?

    bluepanther -> Jantar 23 Jan 2016 20:17

    Economic concerns now outweigh single issues like gun control. Cruel but true. And Bernie comes from a rural state and has come to terms with gun owners and this actually helps him in the heartland.

    curiouswes -> cliffstep 23 Jan 2016 20:08

    Sorry , but Sanders does not have a realistic shot. Say it loud , say it often , but he just ain't gonna get 50.1%.

    You forget that there are a lot of people who don't bother to vote. Rationally, why would anybody waste time choosing between bad and worse when voting for bad makes things worse? Just because it doesn't make things worse as fast as voting for the alternative, it still makes things worse and every president for decades has made things worse because the only choices were bad and worse.

    For once we can say that a candidate can actually make things better and that could inspire those who don't bother to vote if his message resonates with them. The system is rigged. Sanders says it is rigged. Trump says it is rigged, and everybody who is paying attention knows it is rigged. Clinton doesn't care that it is rigged and that doesn't bother some people, but any rationally thinking person ought to be bothered by the fact that it is rigged and many could very easily conclude from that little tidbit of information that it is a waste of time to vote.

    We all have a civic duty to vote, but voting without knowing for whom or for what one is voting is just as irresponsible as not voting if not more so. If you did any research, you'd know that for decades your choice is between getting screwed and getting screwed without lubrication. Why would any rational person stand in a line to get screwed?

    Before this election is done, people are going to know that this is our chance. Bloomberg knows it, and doesn't like it, apparently.

    bluepanther -> JohnCan45 23 Jan 2016 20:02

    New York is the media capital and that tends to create a very narcissistic enclosed echo chamber where the impact of native son Bloomberg is exaggerated. And yes, in the heartland Bloomberg will not be regarded as a "real American."

    bluepanther -> ositonegro 23 Jan 2016 19:48

    Yes, the plutocracy has decided enough with the fun and games and the Sanders infant must be strangled in the crib.

    Michronics42 -> Zoonie 23 Jan 2016 19:38

    Anything is possible, but the timing to me is very suspicious: Hillary's campaign is flailing and all of a sudden, establishment types are coming out of the woodwork to discredit Bernie; maybe Bloomberg is attempting this on a more implied level.

    In my opinion, Bloomberg's rational predisposition-as you suggest-is a byproduct of his neo-liberalism; that is, financialization of the world, which trumps humanism.

    Also, at this stage, I don't see the current crop of nihilists in the GOP cottoning to Bloomberg.

    Bloomberg may self-identify as an independent-for convenience sake-but in matters of policy, he is very much in the Clinton, neoliberal policy mold; I think he is as anti-Sanders as the rest of the establisment (in both major parties).

    EDVDGN 23 Jan 2016 19:22

    When Bloomberg first entered office as mayor, there was a 2-term limit on New York City mayors, a law voted for by the people of the city.

    He got that law set aside, with no agreement from NY's voters, so he could run a third time.

    He was able then to buy the office one, last time with his billions. Yet he only squeaked by with 51% of the vote because of the resentment towards him. (I remember being bombarded with phone calls and mailings from his campaign during that last run for office, something for which he could personally afford to pay.)

    As a New York City resident of 40 years, his money corrupting the political process will always be my memory of Bloomberg.

    If you want management, vote for Bloomberg. If you want management AND democracy, try someone else.

    InMyFactualView 23 Jan 2016 19:17

    In the year where establishment is a hated word, Bloomberg wants to represent the establishment of both parties. The 1% would really welcome it and vote for him, but I doubt there be anyone else supporting him.

    Dannybald -> Obelisk1 23 Jan 2016 19:09

    'socially responsible', you having a laugh. His Apartheid policies have been a disaster for the working classes of New York.

    Marcedward -> profitendieu 23 Jan 2016 18:53

    Sorry boy, maybe you don't get American politics.

    Running as a third party candidate with no organization on the ground (not even the green party) is pretty much impossible. It's most likely even if Bloomberg started hiring his campaign people on Monday he'd not be able to get on the ballot in most states. In short he'd not even run as well as George Wallace.

    Even Ross Perot had a natural following, Bloomberg has nothing.

    Goldenbird -> eoin.des 23 Jan 2016 18:34

    Bernie is the only candidate fighting for the working man and woman, the only candidate not in the pockets of the Billionaire snobs. He's the only candidate who will give us our jobs and prosperity back.

    But we can't get cocky. He's going to scare the billionaire's out of their minds, and they're going to be coming after him with pitchforks. All of us need to work to elect him -- talk to your friends, volunteer for him, go knocking door to door.

    [Jan 22, 2016] Sanders smeared as communist sympathiser as Clinton allies sling mud

    Notable quotes:
    "... I have to wonder if Clinton will go to the next debate armed and try to shoot Sanders - shes just that desperate. ..."
    "... Once the thin veneer of civility peels away the sheer ugliness of the Clinton save-your-ass campaign becomes clear. ..."
    "... Also, if 5 minutes is all Clinton thinks Iowans are worth, then her head is already too big to fit into the oval office. Imagine, red-baiting in 2016! That belongs to the 1950s and McCarthyism, a smelly part of our political history. ..."
    "... the more I listen to her and distrust her motives and her campaign tactics, the more I, who has voted straight Dem all my life, think that if shes the nominee I will consider Trump. ..."
    The Guardian

    Marcedward -> maritherese 22 Jan 2016 21:22

    "Once the thin veneer of civility peels away the sheer ugliness of the Clinton save-your-ass campaign becomes clear"

    I have to wonder if Clinton will go to the next debate armed and try to shoot Sanders - she's just that desperate.

    immycracorn , 2016-01-23 02:20:31
    We all knew it was only a matter of time before those few in the establishment with so much to loose would start trying to scare us into voting against our own interests. Sanders wasn't a serious candidate or a joke or novelty as long as he wasn't doing well. Same thing happened to Corbyn and every other person who tries to change the status quo towards a more equitable distribution of anything. Problem is it makes those few with so much seem desperate, even more corrupt and comes across as a really transparent ploy to protect their own power and wealth at our expense. Scare monger away ya bunch of ass hat's, it just proves how bad things need to change.
    nnedjo -> Agapito , 2016-01-23 02:19:24

    Unfortunately Webster provides no definition for "Democratic Socialism."

    You see, Karl Marx was of the opinion that the capitalists will not voluntarily relinquish ownership of the means of production. For this reason, he advocated a communist revolution during which workers need to seize by force the means of production from the capitalists, and take them to their property. He called it, I think, "the expropriation of the expropriators", in the sense that by then the capitalists unfairly appropriated for themselves the surplus of capital that workers create by their work.

    And, in order to exclude the possibility that the capitalists again come into possession of the means of production, Marx prescribed that after the revolution is necessary to create a "dictatorship of the proletariat" or the sole authority of the Communist Party, while all the other parties should be banned as enemies of socialism.

    Thus, democratic socialists, social democrats, or simply, the socialists, are fighters for social justice, who do not accept the idea of Marx's communist revolution.

    Simply put, they believe that a multiparty system and political pluralism is a better environment in which they can achieve their goals, rather than Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat/working class" and the one-party system in which the Communist Party has a monopoly of power.

    elaine layabout -> Anand Holtham-Keathley , 2016-01-23 02:13:08
    Thank you for that. We would be so much wiser and kinder and richer in spirit if we aspired to live by the words of Reverend King. He was a man ahead of his time and a man for all times. And, in my opinion, the greatest American who ever lived.

    How very lucky we are to have a leader within our grasp who seeks to continue Dr. King's legacy.

    Did you catch the "lost" MLK speech that Democracy Now broadcast on Monday?

    devin42 -> FrankThomas, 2016-01-23 02:12:52
    Here's the awesome Glenn Greenwald on Corbyn/Sanders similarities...

    https://theintercept.com/2016/01/21/the-seven-stages-of-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition /

    maritherese, 2016-01-23 02:10:33
    Once the thin veneer of civility peels away the sheer ugliness of the Clinton save-your-ass campaign becomes clear. Sleazy politics is synonymous with Brock and Clinton should feel deep shame for not speaking out against him.

    Also, if 5 minutes is all Clinton thinks Iowans are worth, then her head is already too big to fit into the oval office. Imagine, red-baiting in 2016! That belongs to the 1950's and McCarthyism, a smelly part of our political history.

    Nancy Elwell -> Dragonsmoke315

    the more I listen to her and distrust her motives and her campaign tactics, the more I, who has voted straight Dem all my life, think that if she's the nominee I will consider Trump. Think about it. BUT I just feel in my bones that Bernie is the man for 2016 and am supporting his campaign financially and vocally.

    Nancy Elwell -> 1stneutrino

    you don't have to scrape the surface very hard to discover how the press corp and the secret service , the resident staff at the White House all say she is a hell detail posting they hate. Vulgar, sewer mouth and really short fuse. No! not for me. When she speaks she acts and sometimes her urge to be the natural harridan starts to emerge.

    newsfreak

    The Democrats were always the softer alternative of the establishment. And now that they have a candidate that maybe could threaten the status quo they appeal to the fears and prejudices of the brain-washed public at large to prevent any possible, meaningful change. Just like Holywood used (and perhaps still uses) to make most movies for the mentality of a 10 year old audience, the system in place breed Americans to fall for those tricks. Something that also has been happening in the global village at large.

    dhinds

    This is typically dishonest behavior by the Clinton Political Machine and clearly demonstrates why Hillary will NOT be the candidate nominated by the Democratic party, nor should she be! America deserves better.

    Dragonsmoke315

    The response to criticisms of Bernie's so-called socialism should be this: "Define socialism."

    I guarantee you that would make most of the anti-socialist pundits shut up. Most of the people who throw that word around have no idea what it means. If the media would stop trying to hang that label around Bernie's neck, no one would even be mentioning it. He rarely uses the term except to correct people who misunderstand it. It is old news--or should be.

    Dragonsmoke315

    Hillary Clinton is the Jeb Bush of the Democratic Party insofar as she is terrible at campaigning. To win in November, she would need Bernie's supporters to rally around her, which won't happen if she runs a dishonest, mudslinging campaign.

    If she wins the nomination by lying about Bernie, she will lose the general election because she will have alienated a big part of the Democratic base. But she can't see that, because her instinct, like her husband's, is to win at all costs.

    I had forgotten why I so eagerly voted against her in 2008. Now I remember.

    JavierSoriano

    "Donald Trump Utilizes Racism, but Hillary Clinton Used Similar Tactics Against Obama in 2008."
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/donald-trump-utilizes-racism-_b_8756816.html

    "The Guardian in 2008 published an article titled Clinton aides claim Obama photo wasn't intended as a smear, highlighting that a leading Democrat was willing to utilize "dirty tricks" pertaining to race and Islamophobia, even against a Christian man born in the U.S."
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton


    malleusmaleficarum

    Hillary Clinton's message has failed. Hillary's Plan B (lose Iowa and New Hampshire and sweep the red state primaries in the South) is in dire jeopardy. So, voila - Plan C - smear Bernie Sanders with a case straight out of the 1950s. Will it work? Almost certainly not.


    Chris Silva

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/21/clinton-super-pac-offers-off-record-news-tips/79131372/

    Laudig

    Clinton Panic Syndrome, bring out the liars, make former non-liars into liars, and hire professional liars. The Clintons, along with the war criminal, war profiteer, Blairs, can now leave the public stage weighed down with their bags of gold that drip blood. Say "Goodnight Hillary". End the grift,

    johnnyyesno

    Re: "Not believing in Capitalism"

    - Hahaha, so capitalism is a religion now, Hillary?
    A "Capitalist Religion" would by defenition be a belief system in which money is worshipped as a God...

    [Jan 20, 2016] Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump, Which Could Bolster Him in Iowa

    The New York Times

    Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice-presidential nominee who became a Tea Party sensation and a favorite of grass-roots conservatives, endorsed Donald J. Trump in Iowa on Tuesday, providing him with a potentially significant boost just 13 days before the state's caucuses.
    "Are you ready for the leader to make America great again?" Mrs. Palin said with Mr. Trump by her side at a rally at Iowa State University. "Are you ready to stump for Trump? I'm here to support the next president of the United States - Donald Trump."

    Her support is the highest-profile backing for a Republican so far. It came the same day that Iowa's Republican governor, Terry Branstad, said he hoped that Senator Ted Cruz would be defeated in Iowa. The Feb. 1 caucuses are a must-win for the Texas senator, who is running neck-and-neck with Mr. Trump in state polls.

    [Jan 12, 2016] Every voter needs to know this about Ted Cruz

    www.dailykos.com
    Given how closely I follow politics and the news, I can't believe this is the first time I'm hearing this story about Ted Cruz. Kudos to David Brooks for bringing it to light:

    In 1997, Michael Wayne Haley was arrested after stealing a calculator from Walmart. This was a crime that merited a maximum two-year prison term. But prosecutors incorrectly applied a habitual offender law. Neither the judge nor the defense lawyer caught the error and Haley was sentenced to 16 years.

    Eventually, the mistake came to light and Haley tried to fix it. Ted Cruz was solicitor general of Texas at the time. Instead of just letting Haley go for time served, Cruz took the case to the Supreme Court to keep Haley in prison for the full 16 years.

    The case reveals something interesting about Cruz's character. Ted Cruz is now running strongly among evangelical voters, especially in Iowa. But in his career and public presentation Cruz is a stranger to most of what would generally be considered the Christian virtues: humility, mercy, compassion and grace. Cruz's behavior in the Haley case is almost the dictionary definition of pharisaism: an overzealous application of the letter of the law in a way that violates the spirit of the law, as well as fairness and mercy.

    In the end, Haley was released after serving six years. During the Supreme Court hearing, Justice Anthony Kennedy-left incredulous by Cruz's position- asked him: "Is there some rule that you can't confess error in your state?"

    Brooks's article is titled "The Brutalism of Ted Cruz." An apt description indeed. Would hearing this story undercut Cruz's support among Republican primary voters? I really don't know. I do know that a person who would fight such a case all the way to the Supreme Court is lacking something very basic-something important not only for Christians, but for any of us, and certainly for anyone seeking to become the most powerful individual in the world. That thing is judgment.


    Patriot4peace

    I think this story, when told to the rabid right wing evangelical base of support that Cruz engages will only serve him well.

    They will consider him a "tough on crime, doesn't back down" patriotic defender of right wing morality and virtue.

    Few of the evangelical supporters of Cruz would consider his past actions to be less than Christian of him. They don't strike me as followers of Jesus' teachings, they are "punish the wicked" bible thumpers that would rather pat Cruz on the back for this.

    I just don't see the Christ in these Christians.

    [Jan 12, 2016] Hillary Clinton Races to Close Enthusiasm Gap With Bernie Sanders in Iowa

    It's amazing that such establishemnt rag as NYT printed such as article... Stresseing inseinsery of Hillary: "Many of the Sanders supporters interviewed said they felt personally moved by what they described as his sincerity. Bert Permar, 86, a retired professor, said he had gone to four Sanders events and was now making calls to share the candidate's message.". Hillary has a real enthusiasm gap problem.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Maybe if the Times had actually acknowledged Sanders as a real candidate, and had been following and reporting on his campaign, this would not have come as such a surprise. This enthusiasm for Bernie has been there since he announced his candidacy. Your readers have been expressing it in the comments for months and begging you for more coverage of the Sanders campaign. You guys have just been too busy shilling for Hillary to notice. ..."
    "... Bernie has stepped outside the cynical straitjacket of marketing and spin to speak with honesty and conviction about the real and profound issues that are deforming our society and threatening our future. The Democratic party and the country have been waiting a long time for a candidate of this courage, integrity and devotion to the public good. This is why we're rising up to support him. Ms. Clinton cannot project qualities she does not have. She's no match for Bernie. He's going to win. ..."
    "... This race is not about the candidates themselves. It's about the American people taking a stand to get out democracy back. That's why establishment politicians will not win, and it's precisely why you're seeing the same level of excitement for insurgent candidates, on both sides. ..."
    "... Clinton has been on autopilot to the general election and is only now realizing that the base isn't with her. Clinton's favorability feels more like general acquiescence than actual support. Millennials would rather stay home than cast a spurious vote. The Clinton camp assumes support from minorities and moderates but perhaps unduly. Even the female vote seems split in their appraisal. That doesn't exactly strike me as a coalition. ..."
    "... Isn't it amazing what someone can accomplish when they start and operate from a position of integrity, and present the current American reality to the American people with honesty and passion? ..."
    "... For thirty five years, we've seen our country sold off piecemeal to and for the 1%, aided and abetted by the sociopaths in the GOP, and third-way, triangulating Democrats. We've been conditioned by our sell-out politicians that we must accept a steadily diminishing quality of life and opportunity. We've been tricked into believing its inevitability, as the best we can manage . ..."
    "... There are many of us who are not conventionally liberal who support Sanders, not necessarily because we always agree with what he says, but because he is the candidate of integrity and reform. All the other candidates with the exception of Trump are bought and sold by money interests that donate unlimited funds to superPACs, national committees, and shadowy political groups without any kind of oversight. It is very basic human behavior that when someone gives you something of value, they generally expect something back in some way. Hence the policies of the last 40 years that have overwhelmingly favored the wealthy and skewed national income upwards. The status quo is that the tail wags the dog in the United States government, with important political and economic decisions made on the basis of who has given the most to the leading candidate. ..."
    "... Something tells me that Americans have finally had their fill of the Clintons and may not be able to fathom either one of them back in the Oval office, past shenanigans there notwithstanding. ..."
    "... It's refreshing to see Americans Feeling The Bern after 35 years of right-wing economic violence that have systematically savaged the American people with corporate-sponsored extortion of healthcare, cable TV, internet, cellphone service, pilfering of 401Ks and pensions and endless tax cuts for the richest citizens and corporations in the land while wages, the safety net, infrastructure and public education were obliterated. ..."
    "... Hillary has always been too busy cashing $350,000 Wall St. speaking fees to notice her own hypocrisy, insincerity and secret crush on the 0.1% parasites that have wrecked the country. ..."
    "... Only the Times would continue to express surprise at Mr Sanders support when both wings of national politics are clearly being driven by a disgust with current political party leadership and the current way of (not) doing the business of government. It's an ego-driven circus and any candidate who is sincere (not doing that sincere thing) is like a breath of fresh air! Simply put, the Clinton air is stale! ..."
    "... Why is every headline I've ever read in the NYT worded in way that down-plays Mr. Sanders and plays up Mrs. Clinton? The title of this article so clearly attempts to cast Mrs. Clinton as the continued protagonist in the events unfolding that it's almost painful to read. ..."
    "... Commitment cards? See now, this pretty much epitomizes why Hillary is a turn off for me. It's as though she's using the Iowa caucus voters as chits to turn in for more money at the super-pac window. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    With a new poll showing Mr. Sanders surging ahead in Iowa , Mrs. Clinton and her aides have dropped any pretense that they can ignore Mr. Sanders or treat him like a gadfly. They have become zealous and combative as they try new ways to undercut his high favorability ratings.

    ... ... ...

    Clinton advisers said they believed Iowa was a single-digit race and have been warning supporters against complacency, admitting that Mr. Sanders's operation in the state was better financed and organized than they had expected. On Saturday, they began trying to undercut his electability with a television ad casting Mrs. Clinton as the strongest possible Democratic nominee, even though some polls show Mr. Sanders would perform well in matchups against Republicans like Donald J. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.

    ... ... ...

    A Sanders victory in Iowa would be a shock, given the institutional advantages held by Mrs. Clinton, a former secretary of state and a favorite of the Iowa Democratic establishment. It would also set off significant momentum for Mr. Sanders heading into the Feb. 9 primary in New Hampshire, where he holds a slight lead in the polls.

    ... ... ...

    Mr. Sanders's supporters point to his grass-roots strengths: He has more than 14,000 volunteers in Iowa, and he has spoken to more than 40,000 people at events in the state so far, huge numbers that include young people, independents and new voters who might not be on pollsters' call sheets. (Mrs. Clinton's advisers declined to say how many volunteers she had or people she had spoken to in Iowa.)

    "I think his secret weapon, maybe his silver bullet even, is the young adult population that hasn't been involved in politics up until this point," said Katie Mitchell, 28, a middle school teacher who lives in Des Moines.

    ...many younger women who gathered did not share Ms. Dunham's visceral enthusiasm for Mrs. Clinton, saying that for most of their lives she has been a familiar fixture of establishment politics rather than an exciting new voice or an agent of change.

    ... ... ...

    Many of the Sanders supporters interviewed said they felt personally moved by what they described as his sincerity. Bert Permar, 86, a retired professor, said he had gone to four Sanders events and was now making calls to share the candidate's message.

    "I love to see him. He motivates me," Mr. Permar said on Sunday, sitting in the front row at a Sanders forum on veterans' issues in Marshalltown. "I get emotional. It brings tears that someone is talking about the issues that we should be concerned about."

    Selected Skeptical Comments (Note the comments below are from NYT staff picks; the first 6 was top comments at the time I viewed them)

    Bruce Rozenblit,

    Hillary has a real enthusiasm gap problem. People just can't get excited about her. Last fall I attended an annual neighborhood fair and there was a table set up for her campaign. Absolutely no one stopped at her table to talk or sign those silly commitment cards. The two people at sitting there were the loneliest at the fair and I live in a heavily democratic district.

    The reason President Obama defeated her in 2008 was mostly because he was a new fresh face. Hillary has the same problem in 2016. We all know her too well. She represents the past. We want a new future.

    Bernie Sanders has been around forever but he has never been a part of the political establishment that we all despise. Machine politics is killing this nation. Politics isn't competitive. Candidates are anointed by the party machine or catapulted by big money thanks to Citizens United.

    Bernie is tapping into the same angst that Trump mines except he directs it with a positive message and Trump uses the old GOP hate and fear message. The young people are flocking to Bernie because they want better times. The old people flock to Trump for safety from perceived external invaders.

    Bernie has a real chance. So does Trump. Truth be told, many of Hillary's supporters view her as the default candidate, not the preferred candidate. They really want someone else. I'm one of them and as a consequence, I'm starting to get all Berned up.

    A. Spencer, Asheville, NC 13 hours ago

    Maybe if the Times had actually acknowledged Sanders as a real candidate, and had been following and reporting on his campaign, this would not have come as such a surprise. This enthusiasm for Bernie has been there since he announced his candidacy. Your readers have been expressing it in the comments for months and begging you for more coverage of the Sanders campaign. You guys have just been too busy shilling for Hillary to notice.

    Portia, Massachusetts 13 hours ago

    Bernie has stepped outside the cynical straitjacket of marketing and spin to speak with honesty and conviction about the real and profound issues that are deforming our society and threatening our future. The Democratic party and the country have been waiting a long time for a candidate of this courage, integrity and devotion to the public good. This is why we're rising up to support him. Ms. Clinton cannot project qualities she does not have. She's no match for Bernie. He's going to win.

    Kevin R, Brooklyn 12 hours ago

    This race is not about the candidates themselves. It's about the American people taking a stand to get out democracy back. That's why establishment politicians will not win, and it's precisely why you're seeing the same level of excitement for "insurgent" candidates, on both sides.

    The level of excitement is equally invigorated on the right for Trump, and more recently for Cruz. The entire political system that's been systematically rigged in favor of plutocrats and their corporate shells is about to be flipped on its rear.

    This is precisely what Bernie has been talking about for 8 months, every time he utters the words "political revolution", and man, does it feel glorious!

    Andy, Salt Lake City, UT 11 hours ago

    Clinton has been on autopilot to the general election and is only now realizing that the base isn't with her. Clinton's favorability feels more like general acquiescence than actual support. Millennials would rather stay home than cast a spurious vote. The Clinton camp assumes support from minorities and moderates but perhaps unduly. Even the female vote seems split in their appraisal. That doesn't exactly strike me as a coalition.

    This was a foreseeable scenario though. Clinton is her own worst enemy. She had the opportunity to get ahead on Bernie's issues and took a pass. There was a legitimate fear that she might alienate center-right voters in a general election for a "no contest" primary. Knowing what we know now about the GOP field, that was a bad decision.

    Now she's playing catch-up and the effort comes across as threatened and disingenuous. A position that falls neatly inline with long-standing public perception issues. Sanders has a real chance to win both States as a result. Even if Clinton ultimately wins the nomination, I think a close race in Iowa and New Hampshire is a positive for her campaign. Perhaps she'll learn from the lessons of 2008.

    Dominic, Astoria, NY 11 hours ago

    Isn't it amazing what someone can accomplish when they start and operate from a position of integrity, and present the current American reality to the American people with honesty and passion?

    For thirty five years, we've seen our country sold off piecemeal to and for the 1%, aided and abetted by the sociopaths in the GOP, and third-way, triangulating Democrats. We've been conditioned by our sell-out politicians that we must accept a steadily diminishing quality of life and opportunity. We've been tricked into believing its inevitability, as "the best we can manage".

    Well, the big lie has run out of steam. In Bernie Sanders we see a candidate who reminds all of us that not only can we do better- we deserve better. Bernie has motivated Americans in remarkable ways, and reminded us that it is indeed our nation, and that our government works best when it works for all of us, regardless of income and connection.

    Mike Thompson, New York 11 hours ago

    There are many of us who are not conventionally liberal who support Sanders, not necessarily because we always agree with what he says, but because he is the candidate of integrity and reform. All the other candidates with the exception of Trump are bought and sold by money interests that donate unlimited funds to superPACs, national committees, and shadowy political groups without any kind of oversight. It is very basic human behavior that when someone gives you something of value, they generally expect something back in some way. Hence the policies of the last 40 years that have overwhelmingly favored the wealthy and skewed national income upwards. The status quo is that the tail wags the dog in the United States government, with important political and economic decisions made on the basis of who has given the most to the leading candidate.

    Hillary is the embodiment of this system, and Bernie is its antithesis. He doesnt have a superPAC, he takes his campaign funding from the people and as such is beholden only to the people. That is why I support Bernie Sanders and that is why I believe that he will win this nomination.

    A, Philipse Manor, N.Y. 10 hours ago

    The media, and that includes the esteemed N.Y Times, love a good train wreck. It sells newspapers, ads etc. There are a lot of blank newsprint to cover, empty air time on TV and digital media space to fill.

    Clinton's story is colorful, at times salacious and occasionally borders on legally questionable. When talking about her the media can include the philandering of her husband, the elbow rubbing with Wall Streeters etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. So much grist, so much filler. Monica Lewinsky's reemergence, Benghazi, even Trump's wedding have all been side stories. These are interesting to read about and keep her in the forefront of the news.

    Sanders, in contrast, has no skeletons, no questionable spousal wanderings, no nothing except a message that seems to resonate with ALL ages.
    I remember reading months ago that the nomination was Clinton's to lose.

    Underestimating the appeal of the straight talking Brooklynite seems to be the big mistake that the Clinton campaign is making , despite the fact that her headquarters is in Brooklyn.

    Something tells me that Americans have finally had their fill of the Clintons and may not be able to fathom either one of them back in the Oval office, past shenanigans there notwithstanding.

    Socrates, is a trusted commenter Downtown Verona, NJ 13 hours ago

    It's refreshing to see Americans Feeling The Bern after 35 years of right-wing economic violence that have systematically savaged the American people with corporate-sponsored extortion of healthcare, cable TV, internet, cellphone service, pilfering of 401Ks and pensions and endless tax cuts for the richest citizens and corporations in the land while wages, the safety net, infrastructure and public education were obliterated.

    Bernie Sanders is honest and brave enough to tell America that Wall St. regulates Congress --- not the other way around.

    Hillary has always been too busy cashing $350,000 Wall St. speaking fees to notice her own hypocrisy, insincerity and secret crush on the 0.1% parasites that have wrecked the country.

    More and more Americans who have been burned by the 0.1% will be Feeling The Bern with each passing day.

    Bernie Sanders 2016

    ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 14 hours ago

    Bernie will eventually win the Democratic nomination and presidency. His campaign is from the heart and he is the only candidate not bought and paid for by Wall Street. He actually believes what he says. Take a look at Hillary's top donors and compare them to Sanders. Banks/Financiers versus groups representing labor and the people.

    Bernie does not come saddled with decades of scandal. He does not represent the power elite. He is the only candidate who presents an opportunity of changing the status quo.

    Bernie or bust.

    Jack Chicago, is a trusted commenter Chicago 13 hours ago

    Never has a political campaign, in my lifetime, revealed so clearly where our media stand. The NY Times has been a huge disappointment. Not because they obviously have pre-ordained a Democrat machine candidate, but because their coverage and reporting has been so tone deaf. This has not been reporting on, but steering the news.

    Only the Times would continue to express surprise at Mr Sanders support when both wings of national politics are clearly being driven by a disgust with current political party leadership and the current way of (not) doing the business of government. It's an ego-driven circus and any candidate who is sincere (not doing that sincere thing) is like a breath of fresh air! Simply put, the Clinton air is stale!

    William, Vienna 13 hours ago

    Why is every headline I've ever read in the NYT worded in way that down-plays Mr. Sanders and plays up Mrs. Clinton? The title of this article so clearly attempts to cast Mrs. Clinton as the continued protagonist in the events unfolding that it's almost painful to read. Shouldn't the title of this article be "Bernie Sanders Quickly Closing Gap With Mrs. Clinton in Iowa By Way of Hugely Enthusiastic Crowds"? How else can this continued contortion of wording be understood other than a clear bias on the part of the NYT for HRC? What else can readers conclude except that it is not only HRC who is worrying about the rise of Bernie Sanders but also the owners of the New York Times.

    j. frances, denver, colorado 13 hours ago

    I'm a 46 y.o. woman and my 49 y.o. sister and I are going to be at our Colorado caucus in support of Bernie. We'll bringing cookies decorated like Bernie.

    I've got bumper stickers on my car and bike and two Bernie signs in my window. I've already donated over $400 (I'm a childcare worker so this is a stretch.). Bernie is the first candidate I've ever done any of this for. I am passionate about his ideas. Time for a revolution. Who better than Bernie to lead it? Game on.

    Sarah Strohmeyer, Vermont 13 hours ago

    Commitment cards? See now, this pretty much epitomizes why Hillary is a turn off for me. It's as though she's using the Iowa caucus voters as chits to turn in for more money at the super-pac window.

    Bernie doesn't need commitment cards. But he does need commitment because if he wins, as I so hope, that will be only the beginning of a tough fight to preserve democracy, close the income gap, guarantee truly affordable healthcare for all, and do what we can to save the climate from further deterioration.
    It's now or never, guys.


    [Jan 12, 2016] The DNC Junta Is Continuing the Democratic Leadership Council Coup

    DLC neoliberals are dangerous and will not give up without a fight...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Although hes not as well-known as someone like Karl Rove or Frank Luntz, Al From is one of the most important political operatives of the past few decades. ..."
    "... A veteran Democratic staffer, he thought his party moved too far to the left during the 1970s, and so, in 1985, he founded a group known as the Democratic Leadership Council, or DLC, whose stated goals were to expand the partys base and appeal to moderates and liberals. ..."
    "... Under Froms leadership, the DLC staged a bloodless coup of the Democratic Party, and swapped out the progressivism of FDR, Truman and Johnson for the corporatism of the Clintons. ..."
    "... Al From had personally recruited Bill to run for president, and the DLCs ideas were the basis for most of his policies. ..."
    "... And even though it no longer actually exists (it folded in 2011) the DLC and its supporters still control the Democratic establishment , especially Hillary Clinton - Bill Clintons wife. ..."
    "... The base of the Democratic Party is still progressive even if the party bigwigs have sold-out to the corporatists. ..."
    "... They want real change, not Republican-lite policies pretending to be progressive. And so, theyre siding with Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election. ..."
    "... Bernies campaign is showing cracks in their junta and the coup that Al From staged more than two decades ago is on the verge of collapsing. ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    Sanders is already beating Clinton in New Hampshire, and if he can pull-off a two-state sweep of the early primaries, that would completely change the dynamic of the race.

    And I mean completely.

    At this point, national polls don't really matter; what matters is momentum, and if Bernie can win Iowa and New Hampshire, he would suck up pretty much all of the momentum.

    Now, considering the fact that Bernie Sanders does better than Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical matchup with Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, you'd think that the establishment Democrats would be thrilled with these developments.

    You'd think that the people who talk so much about "electability" and how important it is would be overjoyed that Bernie Sanders, a popular and electable candidate, is moving towards the Democratic nomination.

    Apparently not.

    Instead of celebrating the rise of a new star, establishment Democrats are freaking out about the possibility of Bernie Sanders winning both Iowa and New Hampshire.

    Case in point: former Tennessee congressman Harold Ford, Jr., who on MSNBC agreed with Joe Scarborough that establishment Dems could recruit John Kerry or Joe Biden to run if Bernie sweeps both early primary states.

    Pretty weird, right?

    Here Bernie Sanders is inspiring millions of young people to get involved in politics, and establishment Democrats think it might be a good idea to draft two guys who've already lost presidential races.

    Go figure.

    But here's the thing: Establishment Democrats aren't stupid - they should be scared of Bernie Sanders.

    And that's because he represents a direct threat to the centrists who have ruled the Democratic Party for the past few decades.

    Although he's not as well-known as someone like Karl Rove or Frank Luntz, Al From is one of the most important political operatives of the past few decades.

    A veteran Democratic staffer, he thought his party moved "too far to the left" during the 1970s, and so, in 1985, he founded a group known as the Democratic Leadership Council, or DLC, whose stated goals were "to expand the party's base and appeal to moderates and liberals."

    That obviously sounds nice in theory, but in practice it meant the destruction of the thing that made the Democratic Party the United States' governing party for most of the 20th century: the progressive values of the New Deal and FDR.

    Under From's leadership, the DLC staged a bloodless coup of the Democratic Party, and swapped out the progressivism of FDR, Truman and Johnson for the corporatism of the Clintons.

    Instead of talking about ways to make the US a more just and equal society, Democrats now talked about things like "welfare reform," so-called "free trade" and so-called "school choice," which were really just corporate plans to privatize the commons.

    The final victory in the DLC's takeover of the Democratic Party came when Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992.

    Al From had personally recruited Bill to run for president, and the DLC's ideas were the basis for most of his policies.

    Over the next 20 years, the DLC consolidated its stranglehold over the Democratic Party.

    And even though it no longer actually exists (it folded in 2011) the DLC and its supporters still control the Democratic establishment , especially Hillary Clinton - Bill Clinton's wife.

    Which brings us back to Bernie Sanders.

    If his wildly successful campaign has told us anything, it's that Democratic voters are sick and tired of the DLC-Clintonites running the show.

    The base of the Democratic Party is still progressive even if the party bigwigs have sold-out to the corporatists.

    They want to go back to the values that made the Democratic Party the United States' governing party from the New Deal until the 1990s.

    They want real change, not Republican-lite policies pretending to be progressive. And so, they're siding with Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election.

    As I said earlier, establishment Democrats should be scared.

    Bernie's campaign is showing cracks in their junta and the coup that Al From staged more than two decades ago is on the verge of collapsing.

    This article was first published on Truthout and any reprint or reproduction on any other website must acknowledge Truthout as the original site of publication.

    [Jan 12, 2016] Bernie Sanders is now in a statistical dead heat with Hillary Clinton

    With just three weeks to go before the Iowa caucus, Bernie Sanders is now in a statistical dead heat with Hillary Clinton.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Summarizing Buchanan on Trump: What the Republican electorate says of Trump is what Lincoln said of Grant: We need this man. He fights ..."
    "... Hey, these pinko hipster pricks have a point! ..."
    naked capitalism

    Policy

    "Hillary Clinton took aim at Bernie Sanders' single-payer health care plan on Monday, characterizing it as "turning over your and my health insurance to governors," specifically naming Republican Terry Branstad. It's a pretty clear reference to the many conservative states that have refused ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion - implying that Sanders would allow conservative states to opt out of his plan, and hence partially destroy all federal health insurance programs" [ The Week ]. "This is absolutely false." (NC readers know this from our debate coverage; see this post from November 15 .) Left to her own devices, Clinton wouldn't mention single payer at all . Now that Sanders has forced the issue, she lies.

    The Voters

    Myth of the independent: "As we noted in August, most independents lean toward one party or the other - and in 2012, the majority of those leaning independents voted for their preferred party's presidential candidate. (According to the book "The Gamble," 90 percent of Democratic-leaning independents backed Obama in 2012, and 78 percent of Republican-leaning ones backed Romney.)" [ WaPo ].

    "[I]f Americans are indeed angry, unsettled, or dissatisfied, in many ways they appear to disagree about why they should be angry, unsettled, or dissatisfied" [ WaPo ].

    "Bernie Sanders has an 11-point advantage over Hillary Clinton among voters under 35" [ Vox ]. Let's see if they come out to vote…

    The Trail

    "MoveOn is endorsing Bernie Sanders for president after the liberal challenger to Hillary Clinton won 78 percent of votes cast by its membership" [ The Hill ]. Granted, Ilya Sheyman is MoveOn's political director, but still: This is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. And 78%!

    "The Top 5 Reasons MoveOn Members Voted to Endorse Bernie (with the Most Votes and Widest Margin in Our History)" [Ilya Sheyman, Medium ]. #1: "1. Bernie's lifelong commitment to standing up to corporate and 1% interests to fight for an economy where everyone has a fair shot." Not sure where the wording on those "reasons" comes from, but contrast Clinton.

    "[FBI] agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one of [three] sources told Fox" [ The Hill ]. "One of the Fox sources also said that the FBI is especially eager to pursue a high-profile public corruption case in the wake of what they believe was overly lenient treatment of former CIA Director David Petraeus, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor last year for mishandling classified information after it was revealed that he had given classified information to his mistress."

    O'Malley was the intended sheepdog, not Sanders: "O'Malley's continued presence in the race is helping Clinton. In Iowa we find his supporters would prefer Sanders over Clinton 43/20, and in New Hampshire they prefer Sanders over Clinton 47/13. So to some extent O'Malley is helping to split the anti-Hillary vote" [ Public PolicyPolling ].

    "According to a Monmouth University survey released on Monday, Trump has 32 percent support in New Hampshire, up from 26 percent when the same question was asked in November" [ The Hill ].

    Summarizing Buchanan on Trump: What the Republican electorate says of Trump is what Lincoln said of Grant: "We need this man. He fights" [ WaPo ].

    Left in Wisconsin , January 12, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    Watching MSNBC last night (what can I say?), I thought I noticed a very distinct change in tone re: Sanders. A lot more "gee, he's really doing a lot better than we thought he would" and less "what a weird old geezer whose got no chance." Anyone else notice? Probably just horse race pumping but interesting nonetheless.

    Whereas the WaPo seems to be doubling down on HRC today. (Can you double down if you are already all in?)

    Pavel , January 12, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    Well this will sound strange coming from a jaded, cynical curmudgeon, but I'm actually starting to think Bernie has a chance. The amount of coverage has been increasing (although as noted the NYT, WaPo, and even the Grauniad (UK) are still blatantly biased). But I remember Bill de Blasio's amazing victory in the NY mayoral race (managing to beat even Carlos Danger, husband of Hillary's right-hand-woman :) and perhaps even more astonishingly - given how "extreme" he is deemed to be - Jeremy Corbyn's Labour leadership victory.

    Sure, HRC has oodles of money, the MSM on her side, the super delegates, and all the establishment Dems. But this year above all is the one where those have the least value, and may even work against her. In the UK the more the Labour establishment and the press railed against Corbyn, the more popular he became.

    The other factor working for Sanders is of course the internet funding. He is almost keeping up with HRC, and soon her $2800 per head rich pals will reach their donation limit. Bernie on the other hand can keep going back to his $30 and $40 and $100 donors.

    And that FBI investigation into the emails and the Clinton Foundation… I've always maintained that could be the ticking bomb. How many of those 30,000 "personal" emails Hillary deleted had to do with Foundation business…?

    Exciting times.

    Uahsenaa , January 12, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    Democratic Party super delegates are cockroaches, they'll kick Hillary to the curb the moment the primary returns show the electorate moving Sanders' way. The exact same thing happened in 2008: her campaign staff went on and on about how many super delegates were backing her, yet, come convention time, they swiftly abandoned her in favor of Obama.

    Christopher Fay , January 12, 2016 at 6:03 pm

    It sounds like the FBI is coming around to the real crime of the emails, influence peddling

    Andrew Watts , January 12, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Report: FBI expands investigation of Clinton

    I like to believe that the FBI has secretly been radicalized by all the activists they've infiltrated over the last decade. It's so secret that they're not even aware of it.

    "Hey, these pinko hipster pricks have a point!"

    edmondo , January 12, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    Hillary Clinton ….she lies.

    Don't the Clintons usually wait until they are under oath before they lie?

    Massinissa , January 12, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    Wait, did she say DISMANTLE MEDICARE?

    The socialist wants to DISMANTLE MEDICARE? Does anyone really believe that when she says it?

    And if he wanted to dismantle private insurance… Uh… Wouldn't that be a GOOD thing?

    Man, Hellery is so desperate shes getting Bill and Chelsea to start stumping for her. They wouldn't be involved if they thought Hellery was in a good position.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , January 12, 2016 at 7:10 pm

    ObamaCare's neoliberal intellectual foundations are crumbling.

    If we didn't need her to invent the internet, we don't need her to dismantle ObamaCare either. The thing's foundations are crumbing on their own, though it sounds good she says she wants to dismantle it.

    Christopher Fay , January 12, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    Chelsea Clinton, the view from the billionaire bench. Those Clinton Foundations are just clever tax treatments.

    [Jan 10, 2016] Trump Could Win It All 20% Of Democrats Say They will Vote For Trump Over Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nearly 20 percent of likely Democratic voters say theyd cross sides and vote for Trump, while a small number, or 14 percent, of Republicans claim theyd vote for Clinton. When those groups were further broken down, a far higher percentage of the crossover Democrats contend they are 100 percent sure of switching than the Republicans. ..."
    "... The idea that Trump can't beat Hillary in a fair election is coming from the camp of 2% JEB!. Nobody actually believes it. It's just the latest in a flurry of 'stop Trump' gambits. Trump would cream Hillary, Bernie and any of the 12 Republicans left and the American people know it. ..."
    "... In America these days, it is unorthodox to tell the truth if you run for President. At least Trump says what he thinks, even if he is uninformed, opinionated, and ignorant. Better any day than the incorrigible liars we get who will slit your throat for the chance to be a stooge for the deep state. ..."
    "... The problem with Hillary and the rest of her ilk is that they are used to trading blows with dance of words, where the Donald just comes in with a fucking hammer and whacks every motherfucking mole that comes pops up in his way. ..."
    "... while we may be at our lowest point so far as a nation, at least Trump actually provides some potential promise of a change in the status quo. Him and a VP like Rand Paul could actually do SOMETHING positive for the United States, unlike every single other candidate who would just run it right into the ground every single time they open their mouth or sign a bill (or veto it), kind of like our dear Magik Negrow. ..."
    "... Is Trump the end all be all? No. But he is probably the best shot we have had in a long time for actually making some kind of change. While Ron Paul or Ross Perot had better policy, they never stood a chance because the MSM shuts them out. ..."
    "... I was not intending to hate on Trump (though I can't stand Hitlery) but rather was commenting on the state of affiars these days. It's all theater anyway.....it's just the cost of our tickets is astronomical. ..."
    "... Christ on a crutch, people, she ordered a staffer to strip off the headers and send it to me in reference to classified material being sent to an illegal server in somebody's basement? ..."
    Jan 10, 2016 | Zero Hedge

    At this point, it's become abundantly clear that Donald Trump's brazen rhetoric and unorthodox campaign strategy (which primarily involves simply saying whatever pops into his head with no filter whatsoever) isn't a liability.

    In fact, the bellicose billionaire's style and penchant for controversy has catapulted the real estate mogul to the top of the polls leaving but one serious challenger (Ted Cruz) for the GOP nomination.

    Recently, Trump has taken aim at Hillary Clinton, calling her "disgusting," a "liar", and insisting that she's "married to an abuser." His first television ad opens with a black and white image Obama and Clinton who are referred to only as "the politicians" (a nod to Trump's contention that he's trustworthy precisely because he comes from outside the Beltway, so to speak).

    ... ... ...

    According to a survey conducted by Washington-based Mercury Analytics, 20% of likely Democratic voters say they'd cross sides and vote for Trump. Here's more from US News & World Report :

    So if Donald Trump proved the political universe wrong and won the Republican presidential nomination, he would be creamed by Hillary Clinton, correct?

    A new survey of likely voters might at least raise momentary dyspepsia for Democrats since it suggests why it wouldn't be a cakewalk.

    The survey by Washington-based Mercury Analytics is a combination online questionnaire and "dial-test" of Trump's first big campaign ad among 916 self-proclaimed "likely voters" ( this video shows the ad and the dial test results). It took place primarily Wednesday and Thursday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.

    Nearly 20 percent of likely Democratic voters say they'd cross sides and vote for Trump, while a small number, or 14 percent, of Republicans claim they'd vote for Clinton. When those groups were further broken down, a far higher percentage of the crossover Democrats contend they are "100 percent sure" of switching than the Republicans.

    When the firmed showed respondents the Trump ad, and assessed their responses to each moment of it, it found "the primary messages of Trump's ad resonated more than Democratic elites would hope."

    About 25 percent of Democrats "agree completely" that it raises some good point, with an additional 19 percent agreeing at least "somewhat."

    Mercury CEO Ron Howard, a Democrat whose firm works for candidates in both parties and corporate clients, concedes, "We expected Trump's first campaign spot to strongly appeal to Republican Trump supporters, with little impact – or in fact negative impact – on Democratic or independent voters."

    He continues, "The challenge to Hillary, if Trump is the nominee and pivots to the center in the general election as a problem-solving, independent-minded, successful 'get it done' businessman is that Democrats will no longer be able to count on his personality and outrageous sound bites to disqualify him in the voters' minds."

    MalteseFalcon

    The idea that Trump can't beat Hillary in a fair election is coming from the camp of 2% JEB!. Nobody actually believes it. It's just the latest in a flurry of 'stop Trump' gambits. Trump would cream Hillary, Bernie and any of the 12 Republicans left and the American people know it.

    Of course Trump will not be the Republican nominee, because as the softer options fail, more stringent measures will be applied.

    Perimetr

    In America these days, it is "unorthodox" to tell the truth if you run for President. At least Trump says what he thinks, even if he is uninformed, opinionated, and ignorant. Better any day than the incorrigible liars we get who will slit your throat for the chance to be a stooge for the deep state.

    Escrava Isaura

    Perimetr: In America these days, it is "unorthodox" to tell the truth

    Agree. It starts by the title of this article. There's only TWO polls that shows Trump ahead:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    Welfare Tycoon

    What I would give to watch the Donald 3=====>SCHLONG<=====3 Clinton in a public debate. I'm pretty sure her head would explode from the overload of no-fucks-given, lack of PC your a fucking criminal diatribe that would come out of his mouth.

    The problem with Hillary and the rest of her ilk is that they are used to trading blows with dance of words, where the Donald just comes in with a fucking hammer and whacks every motherfucking mole that comes pops up in his way.

    And to your point - while we may be at our lowest point so far as a nation, at least Trump actually provides some potential promise of a change in the status quo. Him and a VP like Rand Paul could actually do SOMETHING positive for the United States, unlike every single other candidate who would just run it right into the ground every single time they open their mouth or sign a bill (or veto it), kind of like our dear Magik Negrow.

    Is Trump the end all be all? No. But he is probably the best shot we have had in a long time for actually making some kind of change. While Ron Paul or Ross Perot had better policy, they never stood a chance because the MSM shuts them out. You cannot just shut out Trump though. He shuts you out!

    Look at it the positive way. If Trump ends up turning his back on us like the rest, at least our Titanic will sink with a fucking circus playing for entertainment until the very end!

    Occams_Chainsaw -> Welfare Tycoon

    I was not intending to hate on Trump (though I can't stand Hitlery) but rather was commenting on the state of affiars these days. It's all theater anyway.....it's just the cost of our tickets is astronomical.

    Creepy Lurker

    Welfare and Occam,

    I can't even comprehend why Hillary is still walking free at this point, and everyone is debating policy? Really?

    http://observer.com/2016/01/hillarys-emailgate-goes-nuclear/

    Where is the public outrage? WTF? Even more, WHY isn't this plastered all over? WHY isn't this on the lips and keyboards of everyone, everywhere? THAT'S a bigger scandal than the shit she actually did! Christ on a crutch, people, she ordered a staffer to "strip off the headers and send it to me" in reference to classified material being sent to an illegal server in somebody's basement?

    Have we really fallen so far into banana republic world that no one is outraged? And this person is running for President? Fucking really????

    [Jan 09, 2016] Controversial DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz To Face Progressive Tim Canova In An August Primary

    Triangulation is the term given to the act of a political candidate presenting their ideology as being above or between the left and right sides (or "wings") of a traditional (e.g. American or British) democratic political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political opponent. The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent's ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.
    Notable quotes:
    "... women's issues, LGBT issues, gun issues but anything that involves economics ..."
    "... It's like having a serial killer come out in support of you. ..."
    "... These pols have played very successfully on out-groups' fear that their hold on legitimacy and power is fragile. ..."
    "... I understand that, but there is something in psychology called "shared distinctiveness". LGBT groups are uniquely distinctive just as corrupt politicians are uniquely distinctive. And the more I see corrupt politicians talking about the importance of LGBT issues, etc, the more the two are starting to go together in my head. ..."
    "... As I said that's not a rational process, but it's real. The mental connections that are formed mean that whenever I see LGBT activities/people/whatever I immediately think of all the corrupt politicians they're in bed with, and a lot of that aura of corruption brushes off on them. ..."
    "... Lindsey Graham is a fine example .. ..."
    "... Feminist concerns are not in themselves corrupt, but what the Dem party peddles is tame, second wave weak sauce feminism of the Betty Friedan kind. Basically, "middle class housewives are oppressed by being withdrawn from equity within the workplace," which was even criticized at the time (notably by Germaine Greer) ..."
    "... the DCCC's take that you can be liberal on "social" issues while hard right on political economy is not at all in line with contemporary feminist thinking, which holds, more or less, that the economy is a social issue just like reproductive rights, workplace equity, etc. ..."
    "... Hillary is a woman despite Hillary losing young women in 2008. ..."
    "... Your assessment is more spot on, perhaps, given we can't even get Dems to commit to something as broadly popular as paid family leave. ..."
    "... Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world – you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians pretending to be religious. ..."
    "... Its a classic bait and switch move, but it also reflects a professional political class who have completely lost contact with their supposed base. I've met left wing activists who genuinely saw it as something more important than, say, protecting benefits for the poor. ..."
    "... Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world – you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians pretending to be religious. ..."
    "... They crunched the polling numbers, and strategised that they could replace them with the one big cohort that pollsters said were 'unclaimed' by other parties – working educated females 25-45. So they quite deliberately refocused their policies from representing working class and poorer people, to focusing on progressive-lite policies. fortunately, it seems that most working educated females 25-45 are too smart to fall for the cynicism, most polls indicate they will be wiped out in the next election. ..."
    "... I do see signs of political awakening around the Western world, including here in the epicenter of the neoliberal infestation. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009. ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders isn't perfect, but he's so much better than Hillary in every way. ..."
    "... I don't think the the neolib Dems (aka DLC Dems) want to win full control of the federal government. They want the presidency and only one of the two houses of Congress. This allows them to remain on the money train while blaming the Republicans for their inability to pass progressive legislation which pisses off their paymasters. ..."
    "... What drives me crazy about Hillary (though it can easily be extended to other Dems) is all her talk of women, children, gun control, and LGBT rights (remember her tweet when gay marriage was legalised) while as SofS she approved arms deals to Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Slush Foundation took donations from it - surely one of the most despotic, anti-women, anti-LGBT regimes in the world. Not to mention the ongoing US-supported Saudi genocide in Yemen. ..."
    "... Hey Team Bernie, in the next debate, if HRC brings up control, just have Bernie quietly but clearly say something like: "Forgive me Madame Secretary, but HOW DARE YOU criticise me on gun control when you were responsible for blowing up Libya and shipping arms to ISIS?" ..."
    "... Also re guns and politics, if he can win the nomination, Sanders' position will help him in rural states. I have never seen a national politician address the differing needs between working people who feed their families with the help of a deer or two vs urban people whose primary concern is gang violence. All we hear is pro or anti gun and people have trouble imagining each others circumstances. ..."
    "... She keeps getting re-elected because of weak opposition and a complicit local media. ..."
    "... And all that cash she gets from the people she sells out to. ..."
    "... And if she loses in the primary, so what? As far as I can tell, the head of the DNC does not have to be an elected official still in office. She of course is a "superdelegate," and under DNC rules, wiki reports that "The chairperson is a superdelegate for life." ..."
    "... Isn't a name missing from the above rogue's gallery: Nancy Pelosi. If I'm not mistaken DWS was a bit of a protege. ..."
    "... Obama's name is missing. He's the one who picked her to head the DNC. ..."
    "... Obama never gets blamed for anything. Keep your fingerprints off and find a villain to blame instead. That's Obama's modus operandi and it's worked his entire life. He is beyond Teflon. ..."
    "... Great news! How do you get rid of neolib DLC-machine third-way triangulating Dems? One seat at a time. ..."
    Jan 09, 2016 | naked capitalism

    An Axis of Evil inside the Democratic Party is suddenly on the defensive. Steve Israel was forced to announce an early retirement for reasons that are still murky . Rahm Emanuel can barely show his face in Chicago and, with the exception of Hillary Clinton, all his cronies and allies are jumping off that sinking ship . And now it's looking like Debbie Wasserman Schultz's rotten self-serving career is finally catching up with her. As we mentioned, Tuesday, Roots Action has a petition drive to force her out of the DNC - with over 30,000 signatures already. And then yesterday, CREDO launched another petition drive to get her out of a position she never should have been in in the first place. I don't like signing petitions but I eagerly signed both of these. The Democratic Party will never be a force for real progressive change with careerist power mongers like Steve Israel, Rahm Emanuel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Chuck Schumer controlling it.

    ...There aren't that many Democrats as transactional as Debbie Wasserman Schultz when it comes to serving the interests of the wealthy people who have financed her political rise, from the sugar barons and private prison industry to the alcohol distillers .

    ...Wasserman Schultz's support for the dysfunctional corporate trade agreements like TPP very much motivated Canova to make the difficult decision to take on one of the House's most vicious gutter fighters. "People are just tired of being sold out by calculating and triangulating politicians," told us back in October when he was thinking about running. "Wasserman Schultz has become the ultimate machine politician. While she stakes out liberal positions on culture war issues, when it comes to economic and social issues, she's too often with the corporate elites. On too many crucial issues– from fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership to the war on drugs and medical marijuana and mass incarceration, to her support for budget sequestrations and austerity– Wasserman Schultz votes down the line with big corporate interests and cartels: Wall Street banks and hedge funds, Big Pharma, the private health insurers, private prisons, Monsanto, it goes on and on."

    Clive , January 9, 2016 at 2:54 am

    I know it's the Daily Mail (I always swore I'd never start a comment with that but needs must ), anyhow, I know it's the Daily Mail, but I never saw such an outpouring of consistent bile and outrage like the comments which were posted on this DWS article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2962331/Democratic-Party-chair-Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz-says-activist-s-allegations-tried-bribe-outrageous.html

    jgordon , January 9, 2016 at 3:31 am

    women's issues, LGBT issues, gun issues but anything that involves economics

    This is important. Initially I started out not having much of an opinion on LGBT and women's issues. However, the more I saw corrupt neoliberal politicians advocating for these issues (wasn't Obama trying to make Lloyd Blankfein the ambassador for LGBT issues or something a couple of years ago?) the more I started associating them with corruption and evil.

    This isn't rational at all, but whenever I see HRC or Obama advocating for some particular culture war issue, the more I despise the groups and causes they're advocating for and the more I want to fight against them. Why aren't these people in the LGBT and women communities vocally and continually disowning these corrupt politicians? It's like having a serial killer come out in support of you.

    Yves Smith Post author , January 9, 2016 at 4:29 am

    These pols have played very successfully on out-groups' fear that their hold on legitimacy and power is fragile. That is particularly true with gay men, who outside a handful of big cities, face open discrimination and risk of physical harm.

    jgordon , January 9, 2016 at 10:14 am

    I understand that, but there is something in psychology called "shared distinctiveness". LGBT groups are uniquely distinctive just as corrupt politicians are uniquely distinctive. And the more I see corrupt politicians talking about the importance of LGBT issues, etc, the more the two are starting to go together in my head.

    As I said that's not a rational process, but it's real. The mental connections that are formed mean that whenever I see LGBT activities/people/whatever I immediately think of all the corrupt politicians they're in bed with, and a lot of that aura of corruption brushes off on them.

    polecat , January 9, 2016 at 11:34 am

    Lindsey Graham is a fine example ..

    Uahsenaa , January 9, 2016 at 8:04 am

    Feminist concerns are not in themselves corrupt, but what the Dem party peddles is tame, second wave weak sauce feminism of the Betty Friedan kind. Basically, "middle class housewives are oppressed by being withdrawn from equity within the workplace," which was even criticized at the time (notably by Germaine Greer) .

    bell hooks, on the other hand, doesn't mince words at all, when she shows how questions of racial and gender oppression are expressly linked to economics/class and militarism. You can't tackle any of them without tackling all of them, so the DCCC's take that you can be liberal on "social" issues while hard right on political economy is not at all in line with contemporary feminist thinking, which holds, more or less, that the economy is a social issue just like reproductive rights, workplace equity, etc.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 9, 2016 at 9:52 am

    I wouldn't even say Team Blue is there. Pelosi and other prominent Team Blue women held a mock panel to get to the bottom of why Rush Limbaugh was mean to a Georgetown Law school student who was photogenic. This has been the sum total of Team Blue's defense of feminism since GDub except to cynically conclude young women will rush to Team Blue because Hillary is a woman despite Hillary losing young women in 2008.

    Uahsenaa , January 9, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    Your assessment is more spot on, perhaps, given we can't even get Dems to commit to something as broadly popular as paid family leave.

    That said, I've noticed a denigrating tone directed toward what gets labeled as "identity politics" of late, and I just wanted to make clear that current proponents of things like critical race theory and what have you are more in line with the NC commentariat than I think people give them credit for.

    PlutoniumKun , January 9, 2016 at 8:21 am

    Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world – you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians pretending to be religious. Here in Ireland the Irish Labour party, in coalition with a centre right party, used up every bit of political credit they had to push for gay marriage. Like most people I was very happy it was legalised, but they were patting themselves on the back for this while simultaneously supporting vicious austerity.

    Its a classic bait and switch move, but it also reflects a professional political class who have completely lost contact with their supposed base. I've met left wing activists who genuinely saw it as something more important than, say, protecting benefits for the poor.

    wbgonne , January 9, 2016 at 9:11 am

    Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world – you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians pretending to be religious.

    I think the explanation is quite simple, at least in the U.S. (which has effectively exported its political dysfunction to other developed democracies). When the Washington Consenusus formed around corporatism (neoliberalism for the Democrats, conservatism/economic libertarianism for the Republicans), there was no longer meaningful economic distinction between the parties. So culture war/identity politics issues are all that remain for brand differentiation. Obama's recent Academy Award performance on guns is a harbinger of how the Democrats will run in 2016 if Clinton is the nominee. Plus Planned Parenthood and gay marriage and a few additional poll-tested non-economic issues that the professionals calculate will garner marginally more votes than they will cost. If the Democrats here truly wanted to win they would nominate Bernie Sanders and run on the wildly-popular platform of economic populism. (I'd say this is probably true in Britain with Corbyn and Labour as well, and probably in France and Italy as well, where the nominal leftists parties have been infected by neoliberalism.) It seems clear at this point that the Democratic Party is more committed to Wall Street than it is to the middle class, and is quite prepared to lose political power to keep its place at the financial trough. Obama's reign is solid evidence and the fact that Clinton remains the frontrunner and the establishment's darling shows they are doubling down, not changing course.

    PlutoniumKun , January 9, 2016 at 10:21 am

    You are quite right in what you say, even if the processes are slightly different in every country. In the UK in particular, I think there is a huge problem with the Labour Party in that it was effectively taken over by middle class left wing student activist types who have only the most theoretical notion how poor or working class people live. It is inevitable that they start to reinterpret 'left wing' and 'liberal' in a manner which suits the people they socialise with. I.e. seeing social progressivism as far more important than economic justice.

    Back in the 1990's I shared a house in London with a lawyer who qualified in Oxford – many of her friends were the first generation of Blairites. They were intelligent, enthusiastic and genuinely passionate about change. But talking to them it was glaringly obvious the only connection they had with 'ordinary' people was when they first had to canvass on the streets. I remember one young woman expressing horror at the potential constituent who came and insisted that she sort out her welfare entitlements, because thats what a politician is supposed to do. She had simply never met someone from the 'underclass' if you want to put it that way. It was all too obvious that people like her would shift rapidly to the right as soon as they achieved power, they had no real empathy or feel for regular people.

    In my own country, in Ireland, it is far more cynical. Its no secret that the traditional main centre left party, Labour, realised it would lose its core working class base if it supported austerity. They crunched the polling numbers, and strategised that they could replace them with the one big cohort that pollsters said were 'unclaimed' by other parties – working educated females 25-45. So they quite deliberately refocused their policies from representing working class and poorer people, to focusing on progressive-lite policies. fortunately, it seems that most working educated females 25-45 are too smart to fall for the cynicism, most polls indicate they will be wiped out in the next election.

    wbgonne , January 9, 2016 at 11:40 am

    it seems that most working educated females 25-45 are too smart to fall for the cynicism, most polls indicate they will be wiped out in the next election

    I do see signs of political awakening around the Western world, including here in the epicenter of the neoliberal infestation. Can the forces of reform win? Can the people take control of the political systems back from the plutocrats? Can they do it in time to avoid catastrophic global warming and socially-destructive wealth inequality? We'll see.

    ifthethunderdontgetya™ł˛®© , January 9, 2016 at 10:26 am

    Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009.

    Bernie Sanders isn't perfect, but he's so much better than Hillary in every way.

    wbgonne , January 9, 2016 at 11:36 am

    Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009.

    True, but there is one glaring difference between the 90s and today. In the 90s one could make a plausible if not persuasive case that the electorate did not want economic populism and was content with the Third Way's neoliberal economic royalism. So, Bill Clinton's "triangulation" was actually designed to secure votes and win elections (as well as pad Clinton's pockets, of course.). Today, things are very different, with the people since 2007 overwhelmingly clamoring for economic populism but the Democrats refusing to provide it and indeed castigating those who want the party to turn left.

    Bernie Sanders isn't perfect, but he's so much better than Hillary in every way.

    No doubt. And I am very pleased to say that I appear to have been wrong in thinking that Sanders was fading. I'm not saying Sanders will win, but it looks to me like he may stick around long enough for Hillary to (very possibly) implode, since she is and always has been a bad politician.

    ex-PFC Chuck , January 9, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    In re:

    "If the Democrats here truly wanted to win they would nominate Bernie Sanders and run on the wildly-popular platform of economic populism."

    I don't think the the neolib Dems (aka DLC Dems) want to win full control of the federal government. They want the presidency and only one of the two houses of Congress. This allows them to remain on the money train while blaming the Republicans for their inability to pass progressive legislation which pisses off their paymasters.

    Pavel , January 9, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    What drives me crazy about Hillary (though it can easily be extended to other Dems) is all her talk of women, children, gun control, and LGBT rights (remember her tweet when gay marriage was legalised) while as SofS she approved arms deals to Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Slush Foundation took donations from it - surely one of the most despotic, anti-women, anti-LGBT regimes in the world. Not to mention the ongoing US-supported Saudi genocide in Yemen.

    So I guess HRC and the others think Americans need all these rights but people in the Mideast can just go stuff themselves. Because, you know, ISIS, and TERRORISM, and OIL and arms sales.

    Why the fsck doesn't Bernie point out these contradictions? Hillary apparently is blaming him for being "weak on gun control" while she has been a member of one of the most militaristic, bombing-and-droning administrations since, well, George W. Bush's.

    Hey Team Bernie, in the next debate, if HRC brings up control, just have Bernie quietly but clearly say something like: "Forgive me Madame Secretary, but HOW DARE YOU criticise me on gun control when you were responsible for blowing up Libya and shipping arms to ISIS?"

    /rant

    Local to Oakland , January 9, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    Thank you for saying this.

    Also re guns and politics, if he can win the nomination, Sanders' position will help him in rural states. I have never seen a national politician address the differing needs between working people who feed their families with the help of a deer or two vs urban people whose primary concern is gang violence. All we hear is pro or anti gun and people have trouble imagining each others circumstances.

    andyb , January 9, 2016 at 8:05 am

    DWS is my Congressperson. She is adored by elderly Jewish women, reluctantly accepted by Democrats (an overwhelming majority in her District), and loathed by all others. Whenever she appears on local or national TV, she regurgitates an obvious rote memorized list of talking points that she refuses to stray from. She will never engage in a true debate, and avoids answering any substantive questions. She keeps getting re-elected because of weak opposition and a complicit local media.

    I'm thrilled that there is a candidate that could derail her.

    Readers should be aware that some years back a local politician used her picture as a target at a local gun range. There was considerable uproar in the media, somewhat offset by a cottage industry providing actual pictures of her superimposed over a standard target.

    ifthethunderdontgetya™ł˛®© , January 9, 2016 at 10:27 am

    She keeps getting re-elected because of weak opposition and a complicit local media.

    And all that cash she gets from the people she sells out to.

    allan , January 9, 2016 at 11:19 am

    It's hard to say exactly what you're referring to,
    but saying that FDL's regulars and commenters were DWS fans is totally off base.
    Typical coverage (from 2009):
    Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Won't Draw "Lines in the Sand" – Except When She Does

    when she says it's more important for her to be in a leadership position fighting for a public plan than it is to make a commitment to vote against a bill that doesn't have one, I think that's a luxury she can afford:

    DWS: I'm planning to reform for a health care reform plan that includes a robust public option.

    Mike Stark: Those are we're calling them "weasel words" over at FDL just because it does give you a huge loophole to back out of .

    DWS: Well I'm not someone who draws lines in the sand.

    JTMcPhee , January 9, 2016 at 8:56 am

    And if she loses in the primary, so what? As far as I can tell, the head of the DNC does not have to be an elected official still in office. She of course is a "superdelegate," and under DNC rules, wiki reports that "The chairperson is a superdelegate for life."

    Wiki also reports that the DNC plays no role in "policy." Just writes the platform every so often. Really?

    While they live, they rule, and to re-coin an old legal chestnut, we have buried the Rulers we unelect, but they rule us from their graves

    Carolinian , January 9, 2016 at 9:36 am

    Isn't a name missing from the above rogue's gallery: Nancy Pelosi. If I'm not mistaken DWS was a bit of a protege.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 9, 2016 at 10:19 am

    Nancy is a Lex Luthor caliber villain. She doesn't warrant being lumped with henchmen or the Kitemans of the world.

    polecat , January 9, 2016 at 11:05 am

    I can hardly wait for her grand-daughter to rise-up to the same level ..

    ifthethunderdontgetya™ł˛®© , January 9, 2016 at 10:29 am

    Obama's name is missing. He's the one who picked her to head the DNC.
    ~

    wbgonne , January 9, 2016 at 11:45 am

    Obama never gets blamed for anything. Keep your fingerprints off and find a villain to blame instead. That's Obama's modus operandi and it's worked his entire life. He is beyond Teflon.

    Pavel , January 9, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    Part of that strategy seems to be a definite preference for staying ignorant and uninformed. How many times has he claimed not to be aware of something going on until it's in the MSM? Of course hard to keep up when one is on the golf course so much of the time.

    mad as hell. , January 9, 2016 at 10:56 am

    You could see which way her wagon was headed almost four years ago if not longer from Greenwald's article.

    www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/20/wasserman-schultz-kill-list

    Schultz's is one of those unfortunate people to have a bullshit aura circling her where ever she steps.

    flora , January 9, 2016 at 12:36 pm

    Great news! How do you get rid of neolib DLC-machine third-way triangulating Dems? One seat at a time.

    [Jan 08, 2016] Donald Trumps Vermont takeover: Republican invades Sanderss home turf

    Notable quotes:
    "... A lot fuss over a state that has less than .2% of the nations population. ..."
    "... Hitler reincarnated? Hitler hated Slavic peoples. Trump has married two Slavic women and has half-Slavic children. Hitler famously hated Jews. Trump has Jewish grandchildren. His daughter Ivanka married an observant Jewish man and they have several children. I could list much, much more, but you get my point. ..."
    "... Before liberal Democrats flock to Hillary Clinton they should remember she stands firmly to Bernies right on Wall Street reform, healthcare, campaign finance reform, foreign interventionism, education policy and basically every issue of consequence. ..."
    "... He has consistently shown the courage to go where he knows he is on hostile territory. ..."
    "... Trump is bold, he is a brilliant campaigner. His recent Instragram ad featuring the Clintons was clever, vicious and funny all at the same time. This man is unafraid to get down and in the trenches and fight fire with fire. I like it. I like it a lot. ..."
    "... Like East Germany? Obviously Mr. Jacobs never was in East Germany. I was there in 1964. First of all, there would not have been a contested election. Secondly, protesters would have lost more than their coats. ..."
    "... But this is not journalism as the headline suggests. It is a well-crafted hit piece. ..."
    "... I would like to see Obama, Hillary, Sanders, Cruz, Rubio, and Deer-in-the-headlights-Jeb! have the same kinds of rallies that Trump has. They would have an extremely difficult time. Actually, it would be kinda hilarious. ..."
    "... And, compared to many other Trump gatherings, this one was very small, about 1400 people. I love like to see Hillary talk to, say, 10,000 people without any script.... and then take unscreened questions, as Trump so often does. ..."
    "... This undoubtedly has more than a little to do with the states very small population: there are 25 cities in the US with populations greater than Vermonts 625,000. ..."
    "... As the article suggested, Sanders policies are not universally shared - but Sanders is personally very well liked and trusted even by people would always vote generic Republican over generic Democrat. ..."
    "... I wonder if the gentleman realizes the irony that Trump made his money the old fashioned way , he inherited it. ..."
    Jan 08, 2016 | theguardian.com

    Djinn666, 8 Jan 2016 18:22

    A lot fuss over a state that has less than .2% of the nation's population. On a lighter note, why isn't the Guardian covering the campaign of Vermin Supreme. He's more realistic then the two front runners.

    RollTide16 -> willowmanvt , 24m ago
    Hitler reincarnated? Hitler hated Slavic peoples. Trump has married two Slavic women and has half-Slavic children. Hitler famously hated Jews. Trump has Jewish grandchildren. His daughter Ivanka married an observant Jewish man and they have several children. I could list much, much more, but you get my point.
    Bix2bop , 29m ago
    Bernie "I don't have a super PAC, I don't even have a backpack" Sanders, England's favorite "socialist," is just as big a gun nut as Donald Trump or any other Republican. He has a 100% rating from the NRA.

    The following is from Slate which is a more reliable source of information than the Guardian.

    But before liberal Democrats flock to Sanders, they should remember that the Vermont senator stands firmly to Clinton's right on one issue of overwhelming importance to the Democratic base: gun control. During his time in Congress, Sanders opposed several moderate gun control bills. He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory-one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_

    MooseMcNaulty -> Bix2bop , 8 Jan 2016 18:33
    Before liberal Democrats flock to Hillary Clinton they should remember she stands firmly to Bernie's right on Wall Street reform, healthcare, campaign finance reform, foreign interventionism, education policy and basically every issue of consequence.

    Single issue voting is dumb, and Bernie's stance on gun control is not that of an NRA stooge, anyway. Holding manufacturers responsible for gun violence is one of the stupidest ideas ever to come from the simple minded American liberal, and I'm quite glad the man voted against it.

    LFCarp -> 2headedboy , 44m ago
    Trump's charisma (or whatever you want to call it!) attracts people who want to come out of the shadows and support him while he flaunts their racist views and fears in public. Trump isn't conning his supporters, his fans are happy they get to hear what they've been thinking all along. Thinking that this crap is good for the country? The Republican peons are fooling themselves. Unfortunately Democrats are fooling themselves, too, thinking members of their own party are not like Trump's fans.
    RollTide16 , 48m ago
    Donald Trump has balls as big as some planets. He has consistently shown the courage to go where he knows he is on hostile territory. The magazines, Rolling Stone and Esquire, both who did hit pieces on him. He will go on any talk show on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, where he is met with furious indignation and disrespect. Towns like Burlington VT which is clearly Sanders territory. Trump is bold, he is a brilliant campaigner. His recent Instragram ad featuring the Clintons was clever, vicious and funny all at the same time. This man is unafraid to get down and in the trenches and fight fire with fire. I like it. I like it a lot.
    J.K. Stevens -> Dan Wipper , 49m ago
    Trump is a true Patriot to the money changers in the temple.
    ReasonableDemocrat , 1h ago
    This article creates a false narrative that implies that there is a vast right-wing movement in Vermont. It's, therefore, worth reiterating that Bernie won his last state-wide election with 71% of the vote.
    Sfan Jeffery -> Cash Weigand 1h ago
    Much as I like the Guardian, they always run click-bait articles like this. Anti-Americanism really sells on this board, so they make sure to feature highly distorted articles that confirm their readers' prejudices against Americans. It's almost a sport on here. Goes with the territory.
    Nevis7 2h ago
    His rise is not the fringe right's fault. It's the left's fault. Let me say it again, it's the left's fault. The Democrats should not have pursued and maintained the open border policy and repetitive amnesty that we've been living with for decades. Without that issue, he'd have dropped out by now. Instead, the Democrats thought they were buying all future elections with unrestricted immigration - and no doubt they sure have bought a lot of votes. The consequence of that decision, however, was to empower the far right platform as the broader platform that Americans of many different backgrounds rally around. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the longer this country waits to seriously deal with the issue of illegal immigration, the louder and more extreme our leaders will become on the issue.
    lapenseuse 2h ago
    The Trumpaloosa performance opposite Bernie's headquarters in Burlington, VT is so telling.

    The Donald and Hillary must be worried for them to go to Bernie's turf so dramatically.

    Trump's main purpose is to knock out Bernie (who's for the 99%) for Hillary's sake as the two COLLUDE toward keeping their billionaire (for the 1%) taxes minimal.

    Let Bernie say it best:

    "Donald Trump and I finally agree on something. He wants to run against me. I want to run against him. It would be an extraordinary campaign and I am confident I would win.

    The American people will not support a candidate trying to divide us up by where we came from. They will not support a candidate who does not favor raising the minimum wage and who thinks wages in the country are too high. They will not support a candidate who thinks climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese. They will not support a candidate who wants to give huge tax breaks to billionaires like himself."

    Bernie is already gathering the critical mass that will elect him over Hillary as indicated by this recent Quinnipiac University poll showing that Sanders outperformed Trump 51 percent to 38 percent:

    https://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us12222015_Uhkm63g.pdf

    Let's see how the Hillarybots spin this one.

    Mark Stadsklev 2h ago
    Do you know what the biggest socialist program in the world is? The US military.
    Beowullf , 2h ago
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-destroys-donald-trump-by-13-points-6-more-than-clinton-_b_8936840.html
    Mick Lee Green 3h ago
    "I work for myself, not other people" this quote succinctly expresses the culture of the extremists of the right wing. Isolated, no sense of connection to others, certainly not those less fortunate than themselves. Not inclined to make any contribution to the society they live in. This also illustrates the effectiveness of the brainwashing perpetrated by those who benefit from people who adhere to this almost paranoid mindset.
    >oney1969 -> Ron Jacobs 3h ago
    "Overall, Vermonters tend to appreciate intelligence and honesty, something Trump doesn't seem to have much of in either regard."

    So 20,000 people show up for, what? Free hats?

    He didn't stumble and trip into first place. Maybe your definition of intelligence is a little skewed.

    And if you intend to vote for a democrat, Clinton, since she is a lock, honesty must mean nothing to you.

    Veronica Roach -> LibertineUSA 3h ago
    AND - Trump's worth is almost exactly the same as the point at which he inherited it - adjusted for actual today's value -- In other words he has done a lot of 'deals' but accomplished nothing very much - that point must make him so mad --

    I am betting he retires every night after having a good shower to rid himself of the stink from the 'low life' he has been hanging around with all day - that's what I think he really thinks of all these people who love him --

    Veronica Roach 4h ago
    " Trump is a little bit more high class" - this person has no concept of what high-class is - Trump is totally classless - his language skills are minimal, he talks rather like Sarah Palin, he is tacky & thinks his million-cost-gold-encrusted apartment is 'class' ? - hah --

    ... ... ...

    laredo33 4h ago
    Like East Germany? Obviously Mr. Jacobs never was in East Germany. I was there in 1964. First of all, there would not have been a contested election. Secondly, protesters would have lost more than their coats. I probably am as scornful of Mr. Trump as is Mr. Jacobs. But this is not journalism as the headline suggests. It is a well-crafted hit piece.
    bcarey 4h ago
    This Trump rally took place at the same time Obama was having his very carefully staged and controlled so-called "town hall".

    I would like to see Obama, Hillary, Sanders, Cruz, Rubio, and Deer-in-the-headlights-Jeb! have the same kinds of rallies that Trump has. They would have an extremely difficult time. Actually, it would be kinda hilarious.

    And, compared to many other Trump gatherings, this one was very small, about 1400 people. I love like to see Hillary talk to, say, 10,000 people without any script.... and then take unscreened questions, as Trump so often does.

    NatashaFatale 4h ago
    Vermont is a bad place to hold a rally for divisiveness. It still bipartisan in an old-fashioned way: rather than being split down the middle, people tend to pick who they vote for candidate by candidate. I don't know many people who vote a straight ticket. A lot of people who voted for the current Democratic governor, who is retiring, will vote for the Republican lieutenant governor as his successor because he's generally thought to have done a good job.

    This undoubtedly has more than a little to do with the state's very small population: there are 25 cities in the US with populations greater than Vermont's 625,000. If you're not housebound sooner or later you'll meet the governor and both US senators. As the article suggested, Sanders' policies are not universally shared - but Sanders is personally very well liked and trusted even by people would always vote generic Republican over generic Democrat.

    LibertineUSA 4h ago

    Unlike Sanders, Trump knew "nothing was free, someone's got to pay for it."

    I wonder if the gentleman realizes the irony that Trump made his money the "old fashioned way", he inherited it. The textbook example of getting money for nothing. Never mind the fact that he has filed multiple business bankruptcies, where he ended up getting goods and services "for nothing" by screwing his creditors...

    [Jan 08, 2016] Political positions of Bernie Sanders

    This is one of the few article where you can get real staff about positions, not personality related gossip like BusinessWeek and other rags feed to lemmings.
    Wikipedia

    A cornerstone of Sanders's campaign is to fight the increasing wealth inequality in the United States:

    What we have seen is that while the average person is working longer hours for lower wages, we have seen a huge increase in income and wealth inequality, which is now reaching obscene levels. This is a rigged economy , which works for the rich and the powerful, and is not working for ordinary Americans … You know, this country just does not belong to a handful of billionaires .

    -  The Guardian (April 2015) [8]

    In July 2015 Sanders introduced legislation that would incrementally increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by the year 2020. [10]

    Taxes

    Sanders supports repeal of some of the tax deductions that benefit hedge funds and corporations, and would raise taxes on capital gains and the wealthiest one percent of Americans. He would use some of the added revenues to lower the taxes of the middle and lower classes.[11][12] Sanders has suggested that he would be open to a 90% top marginal tax rate (a rate that last existed during the years after World War II) for the wealthiest earners,[13] and has proposed a top marginal rate of 65% for the federal estate tax, up from the current 40% rate.[14]

    Wall Street reform

    On May 6, 2015, Sanders introduced legislation to break up "too big to fail" financial institutions. With three of the four banks that were bailed out during the 2007–08 Global Financial Crisis now larger than they were then, Sanders believes that "no single financial institution should have holdings so extensive that its failure would send the world economy into crisis. If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist."[15][16] As a representative from Vermont, Sanders opposed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, signed into law in 1999 by then president Bill Clinton, which repealed the provision of the Glass–Steagall Act that prevents any financial institution from acting as both a securities firm and a commercial bank. Sanders supports legislation sponsored by Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) to re-instate Glass–Steagall.[17]

    Trade

    Sanders is opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which he has called "a continuation of other disastrous trade agreements, like NAFTA, CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with China." He has said he believes Americans need to rebuild their own manufacturing base by using American factories and supporting decent-paying jobs for American labor rather than outsourcing to China and other countries.[18][19]

    Jobs

    Saying "America once led the world in building and maintaining a nationwide network of safe and reliable bridges and roads. Today, nearly a quarter of the nation's 600,000 bridges have been designated as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete...Almost one-third of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition...," Sanders has introduced amendments to Senate bills (S.Amendt.323) that promote the creation of millions of middle-class jobs by investing in infrastructure, paid for by closing loopholes in the corporate and international tax system.[20][21] He also supports legislation that would make it easier for workers to join or form a union.[22] Sanders' campaign website also has focused on the concerns of both the long-term unemployed and the underemployed, citing that "the real unemployment rate is much higher than the "official" figure typically reported in the newspapers. When you include workers who have given up looking for jobs, or those who are working part-time when they want to work full-time, the real number is much higher than official figures would suggest."[23]

    Employee ownership

    Sanders supports the establishment of worker-owned cooperatives and introduced legislation in June 2014 that would aid workers who wanted to "form their own businesses or to set up worker-owned cooperatives."[22][24][25] As early as 1976, Sanders was a proponent of workplace democracy, saying, "I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves."[26]

    Offshore tax havens

    Noting that American corporations are collectively holding more than $1 trillion in profits in offshore tax haven countries, Sanders has introduced legislation that would crack down on offshore tax havens by requiring companies to pay the top U.S. corporate tax rate on profits held abroad.[27] On his website Sanders offers examples of large American companies that paid no federal taxes and even received tax refunds, with many of them receiving large amounts in financial assistance during the recent financial crisis and continuing to receive billions in subsidies.[28] Sanders feels this is unfair and damages America's economy, believing the money used for refunds and subsidies should instead be invested in American small businesses and the working people.[29]

    [Jan 06, 2016] Hillary tried Rovian tactics: used duplicity in her assault of Bernie proposal to tame TBTF financial institutions

    Should Hillary cut the chase and just hire Karl Rove ? She a a neocon like him, so it will be a good match.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Mr. Sanders fundraising has surpassed expectations. Lacking the donor network the Clinton family built over a quarter century on the national stage, Mr. Sanders has nearly matched her fundraising haul. ..."
    "... Oh, Hillary! Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were large investment banks. They werent the largest, but they definitely were banks. And giant investment bank Goldman Sachs was connected at the hip to AIG. I cant help noticing that she failed to mention Washington Mutual or Countrywide Finance, two large banks / savings and loan associations, which were also neck deep in the collapse. ..."
    "... Sociopaths always have a slick rationalization at hand, to recast their venal predation as self-sacrificing philanthropy. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Policy

    Clinton, in Iowa: ""You know, I think Bernie's giving a speech today in New York about what he wants to do to shut down the big banks. Everybody who's looked at my proposals says my proposals are tougher, more effective, more comprehensive. Because, yeah, I take on the banks, but remember, part of what caused the mess we had in '07-'08 were not the big banks. It was Lehman Brothers. It was Bear Stearns. It was AIG, the giant insurance company. I want to go after everybody who poses a risk to our financial system," Clinton said to applause from the more than 500 people crowded into the lobby of Sioux City's historic Orpheum Theater" [ Des Moines Register ]. Chutzpah! And very Rovian: Assault your enemy's strength.

    Clinton: "There needs to be a rival organization to the NRA of responsible gun owners" [ Raw Story ].

    The Voters

    "POLITICO has learned that his campaign several months ago assembled an experienced data team to build sophisticated models to transform fervor into votes" [ Politico ]. "The team is led by two low-profile former Republican National Committee data strategists, Matt Braynard and Witold Chrabaszcz, and includes assistance from the political data outfit L2."

    Money

    "Mr. Sanders's fundraising has surpassed expectations. Lacking the donor network the Clinton family built over a quarter century on the national stage, Mr. Sanders has nearly matched her fundraising haul. In the final quarter of 2015, he raised more than $33 million, compared to her $37 million. In the third quarter, the Sanders campaign collected $26 million; the Clinton campaign, $28 million" [ Wall Street Journal ]. Without PAC and SuperPAC money, or the "ginormous and ever-evolving hairball of tangled and conflicted personal and institutional relationships" that you get with the corrupt Clinton dynasty, either.

    Selected Skeptical Comments
    Vatch , January 6, 2016 at 2:23 pm

    Clinton, in Iowa: "… but remember, part of what caused the mess we had in '07-'08 were not the big banks. It was Lehman Brothers. It was Bear Stearns. It was AIG, the giant insurance company."

    Oh, Hillary! Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were large investment banks. They weren't the largest, but they definitely were banks. And giant investment bank Goldman Sachs was connected at the hip to AIG. I can't help noticing that she failed to mention Washington Mutual or Countrywide Finance, two large banks / savings and loan associations, which were also neck deep in the collapse.

    Jim Haygood , January 6, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    Hillary focuses on the investment banks because her consort, "Bill," signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.

    Letting commercial banks into investment banking helped fuel the housing securitization bubble that culminated in the 2008 crisis, as well as the perceived need to extend TARP loans to every TBTF bank (since their investment banking activities made them riskier and increased their capital needs during financial stress).

    Sociopaths always have a slick rationalization at hand, to recast their venal predation as self-sacrificing philanthropy.

    Synoia , January 6, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Clinton: "There needs to be a rival organization to the NRA of responsible gun owners"

    There is. The National Guard.

    [Jan 05, 2016] Paul Krugman: Elections Have Consequences

    Notable quotes:
    "... So self-identifying as a Republican now means associating yourself with a party that has moved sharply to the right since 1995. If you like, being a Republican used to mean supporting a party that nominated George H.W. Bush, but now it means supporting a party where a majority of primary voters **** support Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Being a Democrat used to mean supporting a party that nominated Bill Clinton; it now means supporting a party likely to nominate, um, Hillary Clinton. And views of conservatism/liberalism have probably moved with that change in the parties. ..."
    "... Yes the differences between candidates may not be nearly as great as you want it to be - but the idea that it makes no difference whether the GOP or Democratic candidate gets to be president is idiotic. Anybody who can be bothered looking through executive actions during Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama years will recognize a huge difference. ..."
    "... The world of the NY Times, Wapo, the Atlantic, the New Republic, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, National Review - its all one intellectually gated community where the affluent talk among themselves at the club house about their slightly different approaches to maintaining order are protecting elite privileges and power. ..."
    "... I didnt say they were either stupid or corrupt. They are intelligent people whose political orientation reflects the general predilections and interests of their class. Thats really not much different than most people in America. But the class divides are intensifying, which is why the discourse of that establishment group is of increasingly diminished relevance to what the other 80% of the country is talking about. ..."
    "... The difference between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to income inequality, TBTF, and financial regulation is stark. These economic issues are studiously avoided by DeLong and Krugman because they are, and always have been, loyal insiders to the establishment. ..."
    "... I took it that what Julio was mainly referring to was that the establishment discourse has moved so far to the right that someone like Krugman now represents the far left of what that establishment will tolerate. ..."
    "... I think Krugman the columnist started as someone above the fray , engaged in an academic exercise; and has since learned he must support his allies, even if he has intellectual disagreements with them. ..."
    "... However there is one key difference: Sanders has been able to energize the Democratic base in a way that Clinton the policy wonk simply cant. ..."
    "... The studied failure of the fierce critic of the Washington Post and New York Times from the economics department of the University of California at Berkeley to so much as regret the firing of the only writer on labor affairs at either paper tells of just how little regard there is for the affairs of ordinary workers. ..."
    "... Even Brookings is getting worried about whats going on with the growing cultural isolation of the relatively affluent: ..."
    "... I had a very similar experience with the people I met at my Ivy League university. A depressing percentage of the student body consisted of spoiled trust fund babies, many of whom were apparently ignored or otherwise mistreated by their parents and exhibited a shocking array of psychological and substance abuse problems. ..."
    "... But these people were of a distinctly different class than the many nominally upper-middle class people I encounter in daily life. Even now, high as my household income is, I would immediately be detected as a mere prole by them, a lower class person. ..."
    "... Fitzgerald was absolutely right -- the truly well off are indeed different from you and me. Even if you dont realize it, rest assured that they do. ..."
    "... The concept of class is also just a model, and not rigidly tied to economic markers. People in comparable occupational settings or type of economic participation can have very different incomes and ability to afford certain lifestyles. ..."
    "... E.g. regardless of your pay level, if your occupational situation is such that you have to essentially show up for work every day and follow somebody elses directives (to make a relatively low-risk income), then it would be a stretch to consider you upper middle class. ..."
    "... From what Ive observed, following the 2008 crash a lot of upper-middle class people suddenly realized that the differences between themselves and those living in poverty are actually much smaller than the differences between themselves and the truly wealthy. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    As the title says, elections matter:
    Elections Have Consequences, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times : ...I'm a big geek... I was eagerly awaiting the I.R.S.'s tax tables for 2013... And what these tables show is that elections really do have consequences.

    You might think that this is obvious. But on the left, in particular, there are some people who, disappointed by the limits of what President Obama has accomplished, minimize the differences between the parties. Whoever the next president is, they assert - or at least ... if it's not Bernie Sanders - things will remain pretty much the same, with the wealthy continuing to dominate the scene. ...

    But the truth is that Mr. Obama's election ... had some real, quantifiable consequences. ...

    If Mitt Romney had won, we can be sure that Republicans would have found a way to prevent these tax hikes. ...

    Mr. Obama has effectively rolled back not just the Bush tax cuts but Ronald Reagan's as well..., about $70 billion a year in revenue. This happens to be in the same ballpark as both food stamps and ... this year's net outlays on Obamacare. So we're not talking about something trivial.

    Speaking of Obamacare, that's another thing Republicans would surely have killed if 2012 had gone the other way. ... And the effect on health care has been huge...

    Now, to be fair, some widely predicted consequences of Mr. Obama's re-election - predicted by his opponents - didn't happen. Gasoline prices didn't soar. Stocks didn't plunge. The economy didn't collapse..., and the unemployment rate is a full point lower than the rate Mr. Romney promised to achieve by the end of 2016.

    In other words, the 2012 election didn't just allow progressives to achieve some important goals. It also gave them an opportunity to show that achieving these goals is feasible. No, asking the rich to pay somewhat more in taxes while helping the less fortunate won't destroy the economy.

    So now we're heading for another presidential election. And once again the stakes are high. Whoever the Republicans nominate will be committed to destroying Obamacare and slashing taxes on the wealthy - in fact, the current G.O.P. tax-cut plans make the Bush cuts look puny. Whoever the Democrats nominate will, first and foremost, be committed to defending the achievements of the past seven years.

    The bottom line is that presidential elections matter, a lot, even if the people on the ballot aren't as fiery as you might like. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

    anne :
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/academics-and-politics/

    January 4, 2015

    Academics And Politics
    By Paul Krugman

    Via Noah Smith, * an interesting back-and-forth about the political leanings of professors. Conservatives are outraged ** at what they see as a sharp leftward movement in the academy:

    [Graph]

    But what's really happening here? Did professors move left, or did the meaning of conservatism in America change in a way that drove scholars away? You can guess what I think. But here's some evidence. First, using the DW-nominate measure *** - which uses roll-call votes over time to identify a left-right spectrum, and doesn't impose any constraint of symmetry between the parties - what we've seen over the past generation is a sharp rightward (up in the figure) move by Republicans, with no comparable move by Democrats, especially in the North:

    [Graph]

    So self-identifying as a Republican now means associating yourself with a party that has moved sharply to the right since 1995. If you like, being a Republican used to mean supporting a party that nominated George H.W. Bush, but now it means supporting a party where a majority of primary voters **** support Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Being a Democrat used to mean supporting a party that nominated Bill Clinton; it now means supporting a party likely to nominate, um, Hillary Clinton. And views of conservatism/liberalism have probably moved with that change in the parties.

    Furthermore, if your image is one of colleges being taken over by Marxist literary theorists, you should know that the political leanings of hard scientists are if anything more pronounced than those of academics in general. From Pew: *****

    [Chart]

    Why is this? Well, climate denial and hostility to the theory of evolution are pretty good starting points.

    Overall, the evidence looks a lot more consistent with a story that has academics rejecting a conservative party that has moved sharply right than it does with a story in which academics have moved left.

    Now, you might argue that academics should reflect the political spectrum in the nation - that we need affirmative action for conservative professors, even in science. But do you really want to go there?

    * https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/683784992380424192

    ** http://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/

    *** http://voteview.com/Political_Polarization_2014.htm

    **** http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

    ***** http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

    anne -> anne...
    Wild conservatives have been attacking supposed liberals at universities since the time of Joseph McCarthy. The attacks have changed in nuance now and again but been persistent since the close of the 1940s. Whether the attacks extend back before the late 1940s is a matter I have to look into.
    DeDude :
    Yes the differences between candidates may not be nearly as great as you want it to be - but the idea that it "makes no difference" whether the GOP or Democratic candidate gets to be president is idiotic. Anybody who can be bothered looking through executive actions during Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama years will recognize a huge difference.
    Dan Kervick :
    Elections matter. Nominations matter too. But the only nomination battle Paul Krugman is apparently interested in is the Republican one, which he trolls constantly to amuse himself. This despite the fact that there are very major policy difference, both foreign and domestic, present on the Democratic side - along with major differences in political alliances, monetary support bases and key constituencies.

    Paul Krugman is a middle of the road, mainstream fellow who manages to line up on the "left" according to the austerely conservative economic standards of the establishment media. If Krugman were chief economic adviser - or even president - nothing very important in America would change economically. So when he tries to tell "progressives" about what would advance "their goals", his words are a good candidate for in one ear, out the other treatment.

    Harold Meyerson, the Democratic Socialist op-ed columnist for Wapo, was just canned by Fred Hiatt. Apart from removing another left wing economic voice from the establishment public sphere, this helps clear the decks for a 2017 Middle East war after Clinton gets control of the war room from Obama. Not a word on that firing from sometime scourge of the Washington Post, Brad DeLong - who I guess is pretty cool with it.

    The world of the NY Times, Wapo, the Atlantic, the New Republic, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, National Review - it's all one intellectually gated community where the affluent talk among themselves at the club house about their slightly different approaches to maintaining order are protecting elite privileges and power.

    Dan Kervick -> EMichael...
    I didn't say they were either stupid or corrupt. They are intelligent people whose political orientation reflects the general predilections and interests of their class. That's really not much different than most people in America. But the class divides are intensifying, which is why the discourse of that establishment group is of increasingly diminished relevance to what the other 80% of the country is talking about.
    Dan Kervick -> EMichael...
    That's what the elite is always going to do. People who are interested in significant social change should never count on elitists coming down out of the clouds to save them.
    anne -> Dan Kervick...
    Harold Meyerson, the Democratic Socialist op-ed columnist for Wapo, was just canned by Fred Hiatt.... Not a word on that firing from sometime scourge of the Washington Post, Brad DeLong - who I guess is pretty cool with it....

    [ Telling and saddening, but this should not be a surprising silence by an academic who periodically wildly smashes liberals. ]

    Julio -> Dan Kervick...
    "Paul Krugman is a middle of the road, mainstream fellow..."

    I am old enough to remember a time when he would have been one. But not now.

    "So when he tries to tell "progressives" about what would advance "their goals", his words are a good candidate for in one ear, out the other treatment."

    No: they are a candidate for a place to start a conversation with liberals, to expand their views of what's possible.

    Dan Kervick -> Julio ...
    Krugman is not interested in such discussions. As has been pointed out several times, he and DeLong have studiously avoided any engagement with the issues that are being hotly contested in the Democratic Party's primary campaign. They are bright and well-informed fellows, so this is no ignorant oversight and is certainly a deliberate, tactical political choice.
    EMichael -> Dan Kervick...
    Why in the world do you care why two economists who you disrespect on many levels have not discussed the Dem candidates?
    yuan -> EMichael...
    Funny how you skipped over the word "issues" and moved the goal post to "dem candidates".

    The difference between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to income inequality, TBTF, and financial regulation is stark. These economic issues are studiously avoided by DeLong and Krugman because they are, and always have been, loyal insiders to the establishment.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/nothing-to-say/

    Sanjait -> yuan...
    "The difference between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to income inequality, TBTF, and financial regulation is stark."

    Sanders shouts about income inequality but like Hillary has no real plan to impact it except at the margins.

    On financial regulation also, Sanders makes the louder noises and trots out Glass Steagall often, but Hillary, not Bernie, is the one who actually has a coherent and plausible plan for limiting systemic financial risk. Bernie fans seem fundamentally incapable of unwilling to process this fact, to the detriment of everyone.

    Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
    I take exception to your (mis)use of Krugman to support your narrative. As Julio notes above (I think), Krugman's early writings were notably more middle of the road; he started off as a committed centrist, taking on left and right equally whenever he felt one side or the other was peddling nonsense. Over time I've seen his writing become more political and more consistently liberal, even as his paycheck has presumably increased.

    As an example, back in the '90s Krugman was slamming Robert Reich as a nonsense-peddling "policy entrepreneur", but by 2015 he was writing a glowing review of Reich's book, "Saving Capitalism".

    Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
    I took it that what Julio was mainly referring to was that the establishment discourse has moved so far to the right that someone like Krugman now represents the far left of what that establishment will tolerate.
    Julio -> Dan Kervick...
    That was indeed my point.
    Julio -> Syaloch...
    I would not call his review "glowing", but I agree with your example. I think Krugman the columnist started as someone "above the fray", engaged in an academic exercise; and has since learned he must support his allies, even if he has intellectual disagreements with them.
    Julio -> Dan Kervick...
    "Krugman is not interested in such discussions."

    So? If I am correct in stating that he represents a lot of the liberal spectrum, then those are the people we need to move "left" or, as I prefer to put it, enlarge their view of what's possible.

    Sanders IMO is doing a good job of this. He is being loudly ignored by Krugman, which makes your point; and also by a lot of liberals who think he cannot win because, um, he's unelectable -- which makes mine.

    Dan Kervick -> Julio ...
    It doesn't seem like we disagree much on the background facts. But if someone is engaging in a deliberate strategy of ignoring the left, there doesn't seem to be much point in pretending they are having a discussion with the left.

    One way to try to move more people to the left is to encourage them to stop lending so much credence to establishment opinions. Krugman's ego is big enough that if he detects his relevance and popularity slipping away, he will move along with the zeitgeist to go where the people are.

    Syaloch -> Julio ...
    I don't think there's nearly as much of a separation between Krugman and Sanders as you guys seem to think.

    At least Sanders doesn't seem to think so.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/05/bernie-sanders-cabinet_n_7730208.html

    Bernie Sanders Hints At What A Sanders Administration Cabinet Could Look Like

    Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) offered a first glimpse on Sunday of some of the people he might consider for his cabinet in a potential Sanders administration, and a few that he certainly won't.

    "My cabinet would not be dominated by representatives of Wall Street," Sanders said on CNN's "State of the Union." "I think Wall Street's played a horrendous role in recent years, in negatively impacting our economy and in making the rich richer. There are a lot of great public servants out there, great economists who for years have been standing up for the middle class and the working families of this country."

    Prompted by host Jake Tapper, Sanders went on to praise Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist. Krugman is a vocal opponent of tax cuts for the rich, and he has warned readers for years about the dangers of income inequality. "Krugman does a great job," Sanders said.

    Also doing a great job, Sanders said, is Columbia University economics professor and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, whose recent work has focused on the perils of radical free markets, such as those espoused by some in the libertarian wing of the GOP.

    Sanders also singled out Robert Reich, the former labor secretary under President Bill Clinton, now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley: "I think [he] is doing a fantastic job." Reich has long been an influential backer of labor unions, which have come under attack from Republican governors in recent years.

    Still, Sanders said, "it's a little bit too early, I must say, to be appointing a cabinet. Let me get elected first."

    In recent weeks, Sanders' long shot campaign for the Democratic nomination has captured a swell of momentum on the left, drawing larger crowds in Iowa than Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic front-runner.

    "All over this country, younger people, working people, elderly people, are moving in our direction, because they want a candidate to take on the establishment," Sanders said.

    Julio -> Syaloch...
    I don't think Krugman disagrees with Sanders, but he seems to ignore him. Like everyone else in the media, he's devoted much more time to the Republicans.
    Syaloch -> Julio ...
    But that's because it's always been his style to write that way. Krugman has always spent most of his effort attacking those who he perceives as peddling nonsense, or providing additional evidence to back up a position he has taken against a nonsense peddler. He rarely spends time talking about those he agrees with. Even in cases where he has written approvingly about Obama or the ACA, he's done so primarily as a counterweight to all those he sees taking the opposite (and incorrect) view.

    While he hasn't said much about Sanders aside from praising his example of Denmark as a role model for change, he hasn't said a whole lot about Clinton either. Probably his most explicit comment on either was in his column comparing their proposed Wall Street reforms, where he concluded:

    "If a Democrat does win, does it matter much which one it is? Probably not. Any Democrat is likely to retain the financial reforms of 2010, and seek to stiffen them where possible. But major new reforms will be blocked until and unless Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress, which isn't likely to happen for a long time.

    "In other words, while there are some differences in financial policy between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, as a practical matter they're trivial compared with the yawning gulf with Republicans."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html

    Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
    Yes, but there are clearly more differences between Clinton and Sanders than just differences over financial policy - the most obvious and large one being their differences over health care.
    Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
    In terms of what they're likely to be able to deliver in the current political climate there really doesn't seem to be that much difference between them.

    However there is one key difference: Sanders has been able to energize the Democratic base in a way that Clinton the policy wonk simply can't.

    But we digress.

    pgl -> Dan Kervick...
    Bernie is endorsing single payer. That was HillaryCare ala 1993. That was her position in 2008...
    Dan Kervick -> pgl...
    What the heck are you talking about? The Clinton health Care Plan of 1993 was not a single payer plan. The 2008 plan was also by no means a single payer plan. And single payer is certainly not her position now, since she has come out strongly against it on the oh-so-progressive grounds that it will ... (gasp) ... raise taxes! Good grief.
    Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
    Do you really think that the differences between Sanders and Clinton on how college education is to be paid for, to take one example, is trivial?

    Painting the large differences between Clinton and Sanders as trivial seems like a case of dumbing down the debate so that people don't pay attention to it.

    Krugman frequently devotes a great deal of time to people who are not peddling nonsense. He just participated in an involved debate with DeLong and Summers, two people he agrees with on most issues. And he has done the same in many past columns debating the views of various esteemed economics colleagues at length.

    pgl -> Syaloch...
    "Sanders went on to praise Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist. Krugman is a vocal opponent of tax cuts for the rich, and he has warned readers for years about the dangers of income inequality."

    Even more places where Bernie Sanders has basically called JohnH a liar.

    anne -> Julio ...
    If I am correct in stating that he represents a lot of the liberal spectrum, then those are the people we need to move "left" or, as I prefer to put it, enlarge their view of what's possible.

    Sanders IMO is doing a good job of this. He is being loudly ignored by Krugman...

    [ Nicely expressed. ]

    pgl -> Dan Kervick...
    So go write these comments over at Paul's place. Oh wait - you are a coward. Never mind.
    Julio -> pgl...
    You know, of all the insults you freely toss about, this "cowardice" one is the dumbest. We're all here to discuss Thoma's selections, but we're cowards if we criticize them here?
    Dan Kervick -> pgl...
    I have written several comments at "Paul's" blog that were directly critical of his arguments. I have also posted many critical comments on Twitter directly @ Krugman. I have no problem going right at people. But I don't like the NY Times format as much because it is harder to have a live debate there.
    anne -> Dan Kervick...
    The word "troll" is used to intimidate and silence, and used to depict the writer in question is wildly false and mean-spirited.
    Dan Kervick -> anne...
    Lol... yeah, I know the feeling.
    Sanjait -> pgl...
    Delong isnt a socialist, democratic or otherwise.

    And this bent of creating purity tests for commentators and politicians to define who is sufficiently progressive or more progressive or whatever, it reeks of Republicans and their conservative tribalism.

    It's asinine and anti intellectual, and I condemn it unequivocally.

    Dan Kervick -> Sanjait...
    It's not a purity test of any kind. I don't know what "purity" means in this context. There is no sense in which democratic socialists are "purer" than liberals. They just have different values and goals. For socialists, a society based on sharing, solidarity, equality and cooperation is the highest ideal, where for liberals the highest idea is the expression of personal liberty, potential and individuality. There are certainly ways in which these outlooks can find specific expressions at a given point in time that involve significant overlap, but their chief governing ideals are different.


    I agree with you completely that DeLong simply has a different ideology or social philosophy than someone like Sanders or Meyerson, and I object to the dumbing down of the debate between these two camps by such trite slogans as "Oh, you know after all, we are all on the same team". That's silly. It confuses the highly contingent, shifting and adventitious alliances that are part of the American party system with the coherence of a philosophical stance. These differences and disputes should be debated, instead of attempting to muddy and flatten them all under the foolish fantasy that it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference whether a society moves toward an ideal of progress fashioned from democratic socialist principles or one fashioned from liberal principles.

    I brought DeLong in this context because he is a noted scourge of the Washington Post and its op-ed writers, so if he had any sympathy for Meyerson's views, this would be more low-hanging fruit for him. But nothing so far. And my guess is that the main reason is that Meyerson is just not DeLong's cup of tea. But who knows. the year is young.

    Sanjait -> Dan Kervick...
    Tl;dr

    What I do notice is a lot of navel gazing talk about how "left" this or that commentator is, which as I said is asinine, anti-intellectual, and ironically very similar to the way conservatives operate.

    Dan Kervick -> Sanjait...
    Great. You think it's navel gazing. Easy for you to say from your desk writing insurance policies or whatever the hell it is you do. But it does make a real difference to millions and millions of people who don't have the lives you and I have, and whose lives aren't going to get *notably* better once Krugman, DeLong and Summers decide which particular version of capitalist oppression their best models point toward. Those people are dying of American capitalism, and their kids are going to die of it too, and whether the ruling class decides on one set of interest rates or a slightly higher set of interest rates only marginally affects the precise speed at which the barons who own their lives are able to kill them.

    If people have the honestly to tell me, "Look, I'm a believer in good ol' American capitalism, and that lefty stuff just won't fly with me," that's one thing. But when they try to convince me that the kind of world they are after is really the same kind of world I want, just so I'll vote for their politicians - then I get ornery. Maybe I'd have an easier time with the conservatives because at least the look me in the face and say, "I hate your pinko guts".

    The debate has gotten half crazy. Someone like Brad DeLong has called himself a "card-carrying neoliberal". And yet I get pilloried for calling DeLong a neoliberal - as though I libeled him - or for calling attention to the apparently uncomfortable fact that since neoliberals are obviously not leftists, then DeLong is no kind of leftist whatsoever. Or for noting that since DeLong is a loyal student of his mentor and adviser Larry Summers - who is about as mainstream a player as they come in the global capitalist system - that makes Delong a thoroughly establishment economist. (This isn't about "purity". DeLong is not an "impure" half-assed lefty. He's just a mainline capitalist.) Or for having the audacity to want to *debate* from the left the ideas that come up here instead of joining in with the yea-and-amen corner where everybody just agrees with one another. Oh no, we're all on the same team! Stop being such an annoying troll and criticizing the team! Larry Summers - that great man on the make who was the highest paid professor in the history of Harvard, and sold himself and his thoroughly mainstream "advice" to some Wall Street firm for $5 million/yr in between other gigs - he's also on the team bro!

    I've made many good faith efforts in the past to calmly debate the ideas of people whose moral outlooks I disdain and whose best proposals amount to no more than marginal differences in a system I detest. In return, I get insulted routinely and asked to leave. But hey, we're all on the same team!

    It seems to me that the liberals are having a crisis of faith and confidence because their late 20th century paradigm is crumbling apart from the inside, they don't know what to replace it with, and they don't know what side they are going to end up standing on when it falls. Look at poor pgl. He can't even remember what "single payer" means any more. I haven't encountered a single liberal Clinton supporter who is positively enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton. Frankly, they all seem defensive at best about her, and somewhat scared. But they fell in early with the TINA argument and the strategy of smothering debate under the Clinton machine, and now having let the Inevitability Express get so far down the tracks they don't know what else to do. And when that crazed, neocon-tilting fanatic launches her global military crusades in 2017, you guys will all be investing some sob story about how Bush is to blame, or Reagan is to blame, or Calvin Coolidge or William McKinley is to blame. A fat lot of good that will do the body parts she scatters all over the West Bank, Syria, Iran or whatever other places we're into by then.

    Krugman had a meltdown last week - as he and the other chronic countercyclical stabilizers apparently do whenever anybody uses that dangerous and threatening word "structural", pointing at the possibility of changing the system and not just stabilizing it - because even a middle of the road guy like Tim Taylor had the audacity to "change the subject" and talk about something he actually wants talk about ... as though Paul Krugman gets to decide what the "subject" is, and everyone who doesn't talk about what Krugman demands they talk about is written up for changing that subject. Screw Krugman. He wouldn't know what "the subject" is if he tripped over it lying in the street on his way to some Manhattan train station. In fact, he probably has tripped over it.

    I'm so tired of dealing with liberals with their chronic cases of double-think, unresolved intellectual conflicts, self-deluding irony and fuzzy, snarky ambivalence about everything. Pick a damn side. You are either with the plutocratic owners who dominate and run everyone else's lives - or you are on the side of taking them down and leveling the field.

    anne -> Dan Kervick...
    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/no-happy-new-year-at-the-washington-post-harold-meyerson-gets-the-boot

    December 31, 2015

    No Happy New Year at the Washington Post: Harold Meyerson Gets the Boot

    The Washington Post opinion pages is not a place most people go for original thought, even if they do provide much material for Beat the Press. One major exception to the uniformity and unoriginality that have marked the section for decades was Harold Meyerson's column. Meyerson has been writing a weekly column for the Post for the last thirteen years. He was told by opinion page editor Fred Hiatt that his contract would not be renewed for 2016. *

    According to Meyerson, Hiatt gave as his reasons that his columns had bad social media metrics and that he focused too much on issues like worker power. The first part of this story is difficult to believe. Do other Post columnists, like Beat the Press regulars Robert Samuelson and Charles Lane, really have such great social media metrics?

    As far as the second part, yes Meyerson was a different voice. His columns showed a concern for the ordinary workers who make up the overwhelming majority of the country's population. Apparently this is a liability at the Post.

    * http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2015/12/washington-post-harold-meyerson-columns-failed-to-attract-readers-217256

    -- Dean Baker

    anne -> anne...
    The studied failure of the fierce critic of the Washington Post and New York Times from the economics department of the University of California at Berkeley to so much as regret the firing of the only writer on labor affairs at either paper tells of just how little regard there is for the affairs of ordinary workers.

    Not surprising, but disappointing nonetheless.

    Sanjait -> anne...
    Oh please.

    Delong has been writing loudly about the need for pro labor fiscal and monetary policy for the last 6 years. He's a leading voice on this topic, despite being "shrill."

    To anyone that has been paying attention even a little, he has more than firmly established his concern for workers.

    You're just weirdly upset because he called the Yale protesters stupid. Others here are upset because, like conservative tribalists, they think the best way to promote progressive causes is to ignore fact based debates and instead talk about who is or isn't an apostate. It's really very ugly.

    ken melvin -> Dan Kervick...
    Two states, maybe?
    am -> Dan Kervick...
    Harold Meyerson, the Democratic Socialist op-ed columnist for Wapo, was just canned by Fred Hiatt. Apart from removing another left wing economic voice from the establishment public sphere, this helps clear the decks for a 2017 Middle East war after Clinton gets control of the war room from Obama. Not a word on that firing from sometime scourge of the Washington Post, Brad DeLong - who I guess is pretty cool with it.

    This is from your comment. You go from the sacking of a journalist to clearing the ground for a middle east war and then connect it all to Brad De Long. I hope you see the defects in your thinking.

    Dan Kervick -> am...
    OK, let's wait and see what DeLong says.

    However, I stand by the idea that one of Hiatt's beefs with Meyerson is that Meyerson is a critic of the generally neoconservative foreign policies that Hiatt staunchly promotes. I think Hiatt is likely rubbing his hands in glee over the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, since her foreign policy will be much more aggressive and neocon-friendly than Obama's - and also much more so than a president Trump, for that matter, whom the neocons despise and fear.

    djb -> Dan Kervick...
    sorry to bother you dan but I couldn't help notice your comment to Egmont about consumption being greater than income

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=31Y0

    "As you can see, consumption runs consistently and significantly higher than wages and salaries."

    why do you think that is?

    Dan Kervick -> djb...
    djb, to be accurate, I pointed out that consumption was higher than wage and salary income. And clearly one reason for that is that is that wage and salary income is only one portion of national income. Besides other returns to labor like bonuses, a lot of income consists in profits and other returns to capital.
    Dan Kervick :
    Even Brookings is getting worried about what's going on with the growing cultural isolation of the relatively affluent:

    http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2015/09/03-separation-upper-middle-class-reeves?cid=00900015020089101US0001-0907

    Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
    This Brookings piece doesn't contribute much of anything to the conversation either. Mostly it just provides a working definition of upper middle class. The "getting worried" part is pretty much limited to the conclusion, and even then mostly outsourced to a conservative writer over at Slate:

    The Upper Middle Class Is Ruining America

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_upper_middle_class_is_ruining_all_that_is_great_about_america.2.html

    And if we go and read the Slate piece we find out that it's mostly BS -- even the Brookings article warns us in advance that it's "hyperbole, of course."

    All of that said I do think there is an important point to be made, one that I was making the other day -- if you let a small number of people accumulate extreme levels of wealth, these people will tend to focus their philanthropic efforts on the sorts of problems that get discussed in their rather limited social circle, which may not be what the broader population views as the most pressing issues. However, I was talking about billionaires (and tech billionaires in particular, who tend to view things through an even narrower lens. In contrast, here we're talking about a much larger and more diverse group -- 15-20% of the working-age population according to the article -- many of whom came from middle class or lower-middle class backgrounds and who strongly identify with these groups and their concerns.

    EMichael -> Syaloch...
    Of course it doesn't contribute to the discussion, not unless you read between the kervick lines and understand that the separation is sinister, aided and abetted by pols and economists on both sides as they are all elites.


    "When everyone is out to get you, paranoia is just being careful." Dan K, err, I mean Woody Allen.

    Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
    The Brookings title for the article describes the separation as "dangerous". Isn't that an instance of worrying?

    The point isn't that the upper middle class is engaged in some sort of sneaky, diabolical plot to "ruin" America, but rather that the emergence of growing cultural, educational and economic gaps between different classes of Americans is bad for the country, and that the greater the degree of class separations, the greater likelihood that the discourse of people who belong to a particular class will tend to reflect the preoccupations and values of that class alone.

    At all times and in all societies the preoccupation of those who have most greatly benefited from a given social order will tend to be focused on how to defuse, appease or discipline dissenting elements without disrupting the social order.

    Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
    The Brookings title appears to be mere clickbait, with little in the article to back the claim up. The main thrust of the piece is that those who've managed to make it to the upper end of the middle class have been more successful than those with less income. Big surprise there.

    I have no objection to the claim that growing economic gaps are bad for the country. However, I do think your attempt to cast this as an internal conflict within the middle class is nonsense.

    I mean, Bernie Sanders' net worth is reportedly $700,000, which is roughly three times the median for someone his age ($232,100 as of 2013). Isn't he part of this elite class you describe, doing what elites always do? Does his political orientation reflect the general predilections and interests of his class?

    Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
    It seems to me the article documents trends in several areas, all meant to back up the summary story told in the opening paragraph:

    "The American upper middle class is separating, slowly but surely, from the rest of society. This separation is most obvious in terms of income-where the top fifth have been prospering while the majority lags behind. But the separation is not just economic. Gaps are growing on a whole range of dimensions, including family structure, education, lifestyle, and geography. Indeed, these dimensions of advantage appear to be clustering more tightly together, each thereby amplifying the effect of the other."

    cm -> Syaloch...
    Considering current real estate evaluations (I suppose Mr. Sanders owns a house), I don't think 700K is a net worth that confers any kind of elite status (where in this discussion "elite" must be understood as being able to set or influence policy, without necessarily holding public office).
    Syaloch -> cm...
    The current median sales price for homes in Burlington VT is around $270,000, so Sanders must be living in an "elite" home appropriate to his class.

    More seriously, I don't think $700K necessarily confers elite status either, I'm just poking holes in the arguments of those who want to drive wedges between different segments of the middle class.

    Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
    I don't think it's so much a matter of driving wedges, but recognizing the wedges that are already there.

    Of course, some individual people who have lots of money are capable of adopting political stances that range outside their class interests. The similarity between political outlook and class interest is a strong general tendency, not an iron rule.

    Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
    Your understanding of class relationships is flawed.

    Perhaps one has to actually be part of the upper middle class to see how these things actually work?

    Julio -> Syaloch...
    Here's a tidbit that seems relevant, though I'm not sure exactly how:
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/income-and-voting/?_r=0
    Syaloch -> Julio ...
    Yeah, I don't know exactly how either.

    The county where I live is one of the richest in the country, and it consistently votes Democrat. But then again the cost of living is very high here, so a lot of people who appear to have high incomes by national standards actually live quite modest lifestyles. And many people who live here came from other lower-income areas to find work, and probably relate most strongly with the places and backgrounds from which they came (even after 25 years of living in the DC suburbs my wife and I still tend to answer the question, "where are you from?" with the states we were born in).

    The relationship between income and "class interest" is apparently quite complicated.

    cm -> Syaloch...
    **my wife and I still tend to answer the question, "where are you from?" with the states we were born in**

    Isn't that what the questioner is actually asking? I always understood this question as "what is your cultural (often more specifically ethnic) background". The question often comes in the form "where's your *accent* from".

    Syaloch -> cm...
    Sometimes it's unclear, but generally the context is ah, so you're a visitor here, where is your home located?

    We still have a hard time saying we're "from" Virginia, as the part of Virginia that borders DC bears little relationship culturally, politically, or economically with the rest of the state. Culturally we're still very much Northerners.

    cm -> Syaloch...
    Perhaps, though I often respond jokingly stating the city where I live, and then there is *always* the clarification "no where are you originally from". The larger area here has a lot of immigration from other places (inside and outside the US), and a lot of people with immigrant family background. It seems to be a common (and reliable) conversation opener.
    cm -> Syaloch...
    "The relationship between income and "class interest" is apparently quite complicated."

    A large part of the complication is adjustment to local cost structures. Another is that "class" is a fairly abstract concept, which I define more by socioeconomic autonomy and participation in the societal decision making process (at higher or lower levels) than by income. Of course the former strongly correlates with income. E.g. when obtaining one's income absolutely requires personal daily commitment to some activity (e.g. employment), one cannot be consider "upper" of anything.

    I would even question whether middle to upper corporate management falls in the upper middle class - let's say Director to VP levels. They are paid quite well and can generally afford living in "good neighborhoods" with higher end houses and cars, and perhaps even domestic "help", but can they influence policy outside their company?

    anne -> Julio .. .
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/income-and-voting/

    October 22, 2007

    Income and Voting
    By Paul Krugman

    And one more before the day's round of media stuff begins.

    Another weirdly persistent myth is that rich people vote Democratic, while working stiffs vote Republican. Here's Tucker Carlson: *

    "OK, but here's the fact that nobody ever, ever mentions - Democrats win rich people. Over 100,000 in income, you are likely more than not to vote for Democrats. People never point that out. Rich people vote liberal. I don't know what that's all about."

    Actually, people mention this alleged fact all the time - but the truth is just the opposite.

    From the 2006 exit polls:

    Vote by Income (Total) Democrat Republican

    Less than $100,000 (78%) 55% 43%
    $100,000 or more (22%) 47% 52%

    And the fact that people with higher incomes are more likely to vote Republican has been consistently true since 1972. **

    The interesting question is why so many pundits know for a fact something that simply ain't so.

    * http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/10/19/media-matters-by-jamison-foser/140158

    ** http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20041107_px_ELECTORATE.xls

    anne -> Julio ...
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/even-more-on-income-and-voting/

    October 24, 2007

    Even More on Income and Voting
    By Paul Krugman

    As I pointed out in an earlier post, * there's a weird myth among the commentariat that rich people vote Democratic. There's another strange thing about that myth: the notion that income class doesn't matter for voting, or that it's perverse, has spread even as the actual relationship between income and voting has become much stronger.

    Larry Bartels ** offers us these data, which I also provide in "Conscience of a Liberal," on white voting patterns in presidential elections by income:

    Democratic Share of Vote
    1952-1972

    Bottom third ( 46)
    Middle third ( 47)
    Top third ( 42)

    Democratic Share of Vote
    1976-2004

    Bottom third ( 51)
    Middle third ( 44)
    Top third ( 37)

    As you can see, a 4-point difference between top and bottom became a 14-point difference.

    Andrew Gelman et al *** offer us an election-by-election graph; the dots represent an estimate of the effect of income on the tendency to vote Republican, the whiskers the range of statistical uncertainty. Again, a weak link in the earlier period, except when Barry Goldwater was the candidate, and a much stronger link since then.

    So the conventional pundit wisdom about the relationship between class and voting is, literally, the opposite of the truth.

    * http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/income-and-voting/

    ** http://www.qjps.com/prod.aspx?product=QJPS&doi=100.00000010

    *** http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/red_state_blue_state_revised.pdf

    Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
    If you are trying to suggest that a mere prole couldn't possibly understand how the well-off people actually think, you may be comforted to know that my wife and I are comfortably part of that upper 20%.

    The people I am criticizing are the kinds of people I have known all my life. I went to college and graduate school with them, and have known them socially and professionally. Quite the contrary to your suggestion, I think if people from humbler walks of life had a clearer idea of how knowledge class yuppies actually think and talk when they are not behaving themselves in public forums and trying to act like compassionate and concerned citizens, the resentment and determination to act on the part of the former would be even more intense than it is now.

    I dearly recall the day one of my college friends told me that it was so unfair that smart college kids might be subject to the same kinds of military service requirements that less educated people faced, because the college kids "had so much more to lose." Their heads, after all, were stuffed with big, valuable, meaningful brains; while the existences of the plebs were so much less meaningful. Of course, she's probably running some health care outfit these days.

    Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
    I had a very similar experience with the people I met at my Ivy League university. A depressing percentage of the student body consisted of spoiled trust fund babies, many of whom were apparently ignored or otherwise mistreated by their parents and exhibited a shocking array of psychological and substance abuse problems.

    The most shocking incident I encountered was when a decent-seeming girl I met at the beginning of sophomore year calmly explained during a discussion with myself and a high school friend the "difference between black people and [n-word]s" as if this were a totally natural and uncontroversial position. And she wasn't from the Deep South, either -- she was from Columbia MD.

    But these people were of a distinctly different class than the many nominally upper-middle class people I encounter in daily life. Even now, high as my household income is, I would immediately be detected as a "mere prole" by them, a "lower class" person.

    Fitzgerald was absolutely right -- the truly well off are indeed different from you and me. Even if you don't realize it, rest assured that they do.

    cm -> Dan Kervick...
    Did your friend actually say these things about the brain value or are you extrapolating?

    I had to go to military service *before* going to college, before the question of occupational deferments could even come up, and incidentally so that the conscripts could be coerced with the threat of having their college admission canceled. It was a good opportunity to purge our heads of some of the highschool knowledge and attitudes, and fill it with more practical things like avoiding or shirking work assignments, creative ways of procuring and hiding alcohol, and learning a bit about sizing up people and power dynamics as well as losing some illusions about the universality of human qualities. The latter part was actually useful.

    cm -> Dan Kervick...
    The concept of class is also just a model, and not rigidly tied to economic markers. People in comparable occupational settings or type of economic participation can have very different incomes and ability to afford certain lifestyles.

    This is not only related to geographic differences, but jobs with similar skill profiles and job content can have significantly different pay/perk structures across public/private sector, different industries, and even within the same company. And by significantly I mean easily 2X.

    E.g. regardless of your pay level, if your occupational situation is such that you have to essentially show up for work every day and follow somebody else's directives (to make a relatively low-risk income), then it would be a stretch to consider you upper middle class.

    cm -> cm...
    This is in response to your "wedges" comment, which may not be obvious in the web page layout.
    Dan Kervick -> cm...
    I definitely agree with those observations, although I have to say that following the crash in 2008 I was startled to realize just how much truth there is in the old Marxian idea that in an economic pinch, people will rapidly form coalitions with other people on the basis of economic affinities to protect their mutual interests.
    cm -> Dan Kervick...
    It is probably less about *mutual* interests and more about *common* interests. OTOH (but perhaps fundamentally the same phenomenon) I and others have observed how people switch (declared?) allegiances and ideological leanings and patterns of acting, as well the people they associate with, when changing occupational roles, e.g. from individual contributor to manager or lower to middle management. That usually comes with an income bump, but I don't think it is much related to income level.
    Syaloch -> cm...
    From what I've observed, following the 2008 crash a lot of upper-middle class people suddenly realized that the differences between themselves and those living in poverty are actually much smaller than the differences between themselves and the truly wealthy.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/occupy-wall-street-report_n_2574788.html

    [Jan 05, 2016] Will the Republican Party Survive the 2016 Election

    This is the first realistic analysis of why Trump is so attractive as politician and as Presidential candidate. Great job Atlantic! Still some nuances are missing. Complete domination of Democratic Party by neoliberal "fat cats" and Hillary as one of the most jingoistic candidates, a real neocon even in comparison with Jeb Bush -- in a country that is fed up with neocon foreign policy never mentioned. From one comment from the article " And those looking in from the outside have no clue as to the enormity of voter establishment rejection from all parties. MSM still refuses to put forth the truth about Independents."
    Notable quotes:
    "... White Middle Americans express heavy mistrust of every institution in American society: not only government, but corporations, unions, even the political party they typically vote for-the Republican Party of Romney, Ryan, and McConnell, which they despise as a sad crew of weaklings and sellouts. They are pissed off. And when Donald Trump came along, they were the people who told the pollsters, "That's my guy." ..."
    "... Across Europe, populist parties are delivering a message that combines defense of the welfare state with skepticism about immigration; that denounces the corruption of parliamentary democracy and also the risks of global capitalism. ..."
    "... These populists seek to defend what the French call "acquired rights"-health care, pensions, and other programs that benefit older people-against bankers and technocrats who endlessly demand austerity; against migrants who make new claims and challenge accustomed ways; against a globalized market that depresses wages and benefits. In the United States, they lean Republican ..."
    "... A majority of Republicans worry that corporations and the wealthy exert too much power. Their party leaders work to ensure that these same groups can exert even more. Mainstream Republicans were quite at ease with tax increases on households earning more than $250,000 in the aftermath of the Great Recession and the subsequent stimulus. Their congressional representatives had the opposite priorities. In 2008, many Republican primary voters had agreed with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who wanted "their next president to remind them of the guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off." ..."
    "... Their rebellion against the power of organized money has upended American politics in ways that may reverberate for a long time. To understand what may come next, we must first review the recent past. ..."
    "... Until this decade, however, both parties-and especially the historically more cohesive Republicans-managed to keep sufficient class peace to preserve party unity. Not anymore, at least not for the Republicans. ..."
    "... Trump Republicans were not ideologically militant. Just 13 percent said they were very conservative; 19 percent described themselves as moderate. Nor were they highly religious by Republican standards. ..."
    "... What set them apart from other Republicans was their economic insecurity and the intensity of their economic nationalism ..."
    "... He promised to protect their children from being drawn into another war in the Middle East, this time in Syria. "If we're going to have World War III," he told The Washington Post in October, "it's not going to be over Syria." As for the politicians threatening to shoot down the Russian jets flying missions in Syria, "I won't even call them hawks. I call them the fools." ..."
    "... Its a good analysis, but lacks one important point. If Republicans do go into a defensive crouch, time is not on their side. ..."
    "... And those looking in from the outside have no clue as to the enormity of voter establishment rejection from all parties. MSM still refuses to put forth the truth about Independents. ..."
    "... Nixons southern strategy changed this. All the conservatives (of the south) exited the Democratic party for the GOP. This radicalized the GOP. Eventually Rockefeller Republicans no longer existed - killed off by Reagans revolution. ..."
    "... However elites still controlled both parties. Dems nominated Clinton and Obama who were conservative Dems but only in the sense of giving in to the economic elites wishes: free trade, deregulation etc... The GOPs base became increasingly radicalized. The elite pandered to the base to win elections but abandoned their interest in favor of tax cuts and immigration after elections. ..."
    "... What you had was a political void at the base of the GOP that was hermetically sealed off at the sides by the 2 party system and from above by the elites. ..."
    "... In steps Trump - who is more than willing to descend down from the elite status in favor of the rabble. This is not unlike FDR doing the same - but from the left, which was much kinder. ..."
    "... The only thing going for the elites is that there are populist insurgencies in both parties - so that might split up popular interest enough to sustain at least one elite candidate in one of the major parties. ..."
    "... Fact: in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... Very few single wage families can make it, especially when well-educated high tech workers replaced by H1 and H2 B imports at lower wages ..."
    "... There was a fundamental shift in corporate policy after the Great Recession. Employees are considered a financial liability instead of an asset. Unfortunately, bean counters run everything now. ..."
    "... I went back to school and got certified in computer technology. Guess what I found when I went looking for a job? Contract work only at the low end of the wage spectrum. MikeyArmstrong (below) couldnt be more right. Bill gates is the biggest perpetrator of this fallacy when he made that statement about the USA not having enough skilled workers. Why pay an American a living wage when you can pay a skilled off-shore worker just a fraction of that cost. ..."
    "... One of the problems with oligarchies anywhere in the world is that theyd rather import a middle management class that had no ties to the local lower classes than to improve education and promote the best and brightest of the lower classes, who might have more divided loyalties. The New Deal and the WW II era GI Bill were exceptions to this ..."
    "... Absolute nonsense. H1 and H2B workers are a necessity to corporations because they do not require a living wage, the way Americans with the same or better education do. It is entirely about sending all the profits to the topmost execs and shareholders by stripping it from the people who do the work. ..."
    "... The governments H1B Visa programs are to blame for the influx of foreign workers, and undermining the market dynamics that support Americans. ..."
    "... Education is not the principal reason for the poor economic circumstances of the white middle class. It is the reluctance of the wealthy to invest in the fast-fading industrial sector. Finance and its attendant scams yields far greater returns than the manufacture and sale of useful objects. ..."
    "... When I was young my parents warned me to get a high school diploma or there would nothing but a scarcity of low-paying jobs for me when I go it alone. Then it was a bachelors degree and now its a masters. If this trend continues, we will be a nation of educated derelicts. Like the PhDs standing in long lines to apply for a job at the first McDonalds franchise in the former Soviet Union. ..."
    "... The difference being in the case of 2016 America blaming immigrants for our poor economic circumstances would be correct and its not just uneducated white folks. In fact the black population has been the hardest hit by the importation of cheap third world labor. Even our educated middle class is taking a massive hit through H1-B workers being brought in by the elites. Just ask the laid off workers at Disney. ..."
    The Atlantic

    ... ... ...

    White Middle Americans express heavy mistrust of every institution in American society: not only government, but corporations, unions, even the political party they typically vote for-the Republican Party of Romney, Ryan, and McConnell, which they despise as a sad crew of weaklings and sellouts. They are pissed off. And when Donald Trump came along, they were the people who told the pollsters, "That's my guy."

    They aren't necessarily superconservative. They often don't think in ideological terms at all. But they do strongly feel that life in this country used to be better for people like them-and they want that older country back.

    You hear from people like them in many other democratic countries too. Across Europe, populist parties are delivering a message that combines defense of the welfare state with skepticism about immigration; that denounces the corruption of parliamentary democracy and also the risks of global capitalism. Some of these parties have a leftish flavor, like Italy's Five Star Movement. Some are rooted to the right of center, like the U.K. Independence Party. Some descend from neofascists, like France's National Front. Others trace their DNA to Communist parties, like Slovakia's governing Direction–Social Democracy.

    These populists seek to defend what the French call "acquired rights"-health care, pensions, and other programs that benefit older people-against bankers and technocrats who endlessly demand austerity; against migrants who make new claims and challenge accustomed ways; against a globalized market that depresses wages and benefits. In the United States, they lean Republican because they fear the Democrats want to take from them and redistribute to Americans who are newer, poorer, and in their view less deserving-to "spread the wealth around," in candidate Barack Obama's words to "Joe the Plumber" back in 2008. Yet they have come to fear more and more strongly that their party does not have their best interests at heart.

    A majority of Republicans worry that corporations and the wealthy exert too much power. Their party leaders work to ensure that these same groups can exert even more. Mainstream Republicans were quite at ease with tax increases on households earning more than $250,000 in the aftermath of the Great Recession and the subsequent stimulus. Their congressional representatives had the opposite priorities. In 2008, many Republican primary voters had agreed with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who wanted "their next president to remind them of the guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off." But those Republicans did not count for much once the primaries ended, and normal politics resumed between the multicultural Democrats and a plutocratic GOP.

    This year, they are counting for more. Their rebellion against the power of organized money has upended American politics in ways that may reverberate for a long time. To understand what may come next, we must first review the recent past.

    Meanwhile, the dividing line that used to be the most crucial of them all-class-has increasingly become a division within the parties, not between them. Since 1984, nearly every Democratic presidential-primary race has ended as a contest between a "wine track" candidate who appealed to professionals (Gary Hart, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, and Barack Obama) and a "beer track" candidate who mobilized the remains of the old industrial working class (Walter Mondale, Dick Gephardt, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton). The Republicans have their equivalent in the battles between "Wall Street" and "Main Street" candidates. Until this decade, however, both parties-and especially the historically more cohesive Republicans-managed to keep sufficient class peace to preserve party unity. Not anymore, at least not for the Republicans.

    ,,, ,,, ,,,

    When Trump first erupted into the Republican race in June, he did so with a message of grim pessimism. "We got $18 trillion in debt. We got nothing but problems … We're dying. We're dying. We need money … We have losers. We have people that don't have it. We have people that are morally corrupt. We have people that are selling this country down the drain … The American dream is dead."

    That message did not resonate with those who'd ridden the S&P 500 from less than 900 in 2009 to more than 2,000 in 2015. But it found an audience all the same. Half of Trump's supporters within the GOP had stopped their education at or before high-school graduation, according to the polling firm YouGov. Only 19 percent had a college or postcollege degree. Thirty-eight percent earned less than $50,000. Only 11 percent earned more than $100,000.

    Trump Republicans were not ideologically militant. Just 13 percent said they were very conservative; 19 percent described themselves as moderate. Nor were they highly religious by Republican standards.

    What set them apart from other Republicans was their economic insecurity and the intensity of their economic nationalism . Sixty-three percent of Trump supporters wished to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil-a dozen points higher than the norm for all Republicans. More than other Republicans, Trump supporters distrusted Barack Obama as alien and dangerous: Only 21 percent acknowledged that the president was born in the United States, according to an August survey by the Democratic-oriented polling firm PPP. Sixty-six percent believed the president was a Muslim.

    Trump promised to protect these voters' pensions from their own party's austerity. "We've got Social Security that's going to be destroyed if somebody like me doesn't bring money into the country. All these other people want to cut the hell out of it. I'm not going to cut it at all; I'm going to bring money in, and we're going to save it."

    He promised to protect their children from being drawn into another war in the Middle East, this time in Syria. "If we're going to have World War III," he told The Washington Post in October, "it's not going to be over Syria." As for the politicians threatening to shoot down the Russian jets flying missions in Syria, "I won't even call them hawks. I call them the fools."

    He promised a campaign independent of the influences of money that had swayed so many Republican races of the past.

    "I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people. Before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. And that's a broken system."

    He promised above all to protect their wages from being undercut by Republican immigration policy.

    ... ... ...

    David Frum is a senior editor at The Atlantic and the chairman of Policy Exchange. In 2001-2002, he was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

    deanfromoregon

    Its a good analysis, but lacks one important point. If Republicans do go into a defensive crouch, time is not on their side. The youth, and every demographic gaining numbers is not Republican. So their ability to block change will erode with time. They have to figure out how to come to grops witht he future. They can neither go back, not prevent the future from happening.

    Courageousmisterj > deanfromoregon

    Been hearin that one for 30 years. Ain't happened yet.

    OrangePolicy > Courageousmisterj

    I'm mixed. I don't think the GOP will be a presidential party anytime soon but they're not dead or irrelevant by any measure.

    Damascusdean > OrangePolicy

    They are still alive and have some advantages. Their older, whiter constituency turns out in off years. And they have advantages in low population states, each having the same senators as California. But time will erode these advantages.


    DavidBN > Damascusdean

    And they have advantages in low population states, each having the same senators as California.

    Their majority in the House is much bigger than their majority in the senate.

    Mr. Fusion > DavidBN

    Gerrymandering has its advantages.

    DavidBN > Mr. Fusion

    It does. Demographic changes are slow and are predictable. The Republican party has effectively neutralized the effects of any demographic shift for the next thirty years or so. This internal upheaval that they didn't foresee is a bigger problem.

    Larry Rappaport > Jimmy Kurian

    And those looking in from the outside have no clue as to the enormity of voter establishment rejection from all parties. MSM still refuses to put forth the truth about Independents. Morning internal report, Trump 38% - Clinton 8% - Rubio 6% - Cruz 24%. I've never seen anything like this. One thing is for sure, the GOP Establishment is looking for the paddles, Clear! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz POW! Call the time please.

    M Kane Larry Rappaport 13 days ago
    This is a function of our 2 party system.

    In 1918 the Allies insisted on a liberal German government sans Kaiser in order to arrive at a armistice. That's how we got the Wiemar constitution. The German Elite worried that in a democracy the working class, which had all the numbers, would vote their interest - socialist &/or communist. So, as an attempt to mitigate against this, before soldiers were decommissioned from the German army they had to sit through some right-wing propaganda indoctrination. Hitler was one of those propaganders.

    Hitler's German Workers party was an attempt by the right to set up a party on the right that would appeal to the workers and lower middle class, the rabble. They did that through nationalism, unilateralism/anti-internationalism.

    Because the Nazi's delivered the numbers, the center of power slid away from the elites down to him, the rabble. The rest as they say is history.

    In the U.S. there were two reasons why this was thought couldn't happen - the two party system. A) Each party had is share of liberals and conservatives B) Each party was controlled by elites so that power could never completely flow down to the radicals.

    Nixon's southern strategy changed this. All the conservatives (of the south) exited the Democratic party for the GOP. This radicalized the GOP. Eventually Rockefeller Republicans no longer existed - killed off by Reagan's revolution.

    However elites still controlled both parties. Dems nominated Clinton and Obama who were conservative Dems but only in the sense of giving in to the economic elites wishes: free trade, deregulation etc... The GOP's base became increasingly radicalized. The elite pandered to the base to win elections but abandoned their interest in favor of tax cuts and immigration after elections.

    What you had was a political void at the base of the GOP that was hermetically sealed off at the sides by the 2 party system and from above by the elites.

    In steps Trump - who is more than willing to descend down from the elite status in favor of the rabble. This is not unlike FDR doing the same - but from the left, which was much kinder.

    The only thing going for the elites is that there are populist insurgencies in both parties - so that might split up popular interest enough to sustain at least one elite candidate in one of the major parties. On the other hand, you could have a 3rd and 4th party candidate in the general. Not seen anything like this, I think, since 1860 election.

    Joseph blow M Kane 13 days ago
    Your comments are quite astute, in 1928 Hitler's National socialist party received 2.6% of the vote, but after economic collapse and hyperinflation he received 44% of the vote in 1933. However, America of 2016 is very different than Germany of 1933. The economy is improving, but obviously some have been left behind, uneducated white folks who are looking for somebody to scapegoat or blame for their poor economic circumstances. In 1933 Germany, it was the Jews who were to blame, in 2016 America it is immigrants. Fortunately they are the minority although they represent a significant percent of the republican party.
    RichCash8 Joseph blow 12 days ago
    "some have been left behind, uneducated white folks"

    Shibboleth

    Fact: in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... Very few single wage families can make it, especially when well-educated high tech workers replaced by H1 and H2 B imports at lower wages

    Whirled Peas RichCash8 8 days ago
    The H1 and H2B workers have been a necessity because our education system hasn't been producing enough highly trained, self disciplined candidates in engineering and other STEAM fields.
    MikeyArmstrong Whirled Peas 8 days ago
    This is horse shiiit. We have enough STEM graduates, it's just that corporations don't want to pay them what they're worth.
    maverick909 MikeyArmstrong 7 days ago
    There was a fundamental shift in corporate policy after the Great Recession. Employees are considered a financial liability instead of an asset. Unfortunately, bean counters run everything now. That's why when some companies buck the trend and give ALL their employees huge benefits, bonuses, etc. it is news-worthy.
    Jorja1234 MikeyArmstrong 6 days ago
    "What they are worth" is what employers have to pay to attract them as employees. Unfortunately the government-imposed H1 and H2B foreign worker program has interfered in the normal market dynamics, at the expense of the American worker. Similarly, illegal immigration has interfered in the market dynamics of low-wage workers, and created a welfare class. If there were no illegal immigrants, the "jobs Americans won't do" would pay a wage that would make it worth taking those jobs. And our social costs (including taxes) could be lower. It's been the downside of "Hope and Change."
    maverick909 Whirled Peas 7 days ago
    I went back to school and got certified in computer technology. Guess what I found when I went looking for a job? Contract work only at the low end of the wage spectrum. MikeyArmstrong (below) couldn't be more right. Bill gates is the biggest perpetrator of this fallacy when he made that statement about the USA not having enough skilled workers. Why pay an American a living wage when you can pay a skilled off-shore worker just a fraction of that cost.
    Rebecca Ore Whirled Peas 6 days ago
    One of the problems with oligarchies anywhere in the world is that they'd rather import a middle management class that had no ties to the local lower classes than to improve education and promote the best and brightest of the lower classes, who might have more divided loyalties. The New Deal and the WW II era GI Bill were exceptions to this (and how a number of farm kids got educations. Asian elites would import Chinese; European elites imported Jews; the US South brought down Northern managers. And the southern elites could tell museum directors not to do anything to make the mill hands dissatisfied with their lot in life as late as the 1980s.

    The US stereotypes bright engineering and computer science people far more than Nicaragua does. See any media depictions of the office computer guy (The Americans is fairly classic). The cool kids major in pre-law (and Robert E. Lee failed to get Washington and Lee redirected to technology -- it's still a pre-law/liberal arts school for the most part). This is most unfortunate, but saves lots of money that would be needed to actually improve US education (the other classic Southern statement was, "We don't need to improve education here. All these people are going to do is become mill hands."

    teenygozer Whirled Peas 4 days ago
    Absolute nonsense. H1 and H2B workers are a "necessity" to corporations because they do not require a living wage, the way Americans with the same or better education do. It is entirely about sending all the profits to the topmost execs and shareholders by stripping it from the people who do the work.
    Jorja1234 wandmdave 6 days ago
    That doesn't make any sense. All companies would move these jobs offshore if they could - these jobs are the ones that need to remain here. The government's H1B Visa programs are to blame for the influx of foreign workers, and undermining the market dynamics that support Americans. Our wages will never "balance" with the rest of the world unless our standard of living drops. And that need not happen - Americans are the perfect blend of innovation, flexibility, and hard work, and have been for 100+ years. This will keep us at the forefront, and the world will continue to benefit from us. Unless our government continues to screw things up.
    wandmdave Jorja1234 6 days ago
    Why have we been innovative, flexible, and hard working? I'd argue it is due in no small par to the immigrants we constantly allow to come in. The provide new perspectives to spur the innovation you mention and force flexibility and hard work from all in order to compete in a labor market that is more competitive due to it being open instead of artificially restricted. Walling ourselves off to gain selfish and ultimately short term personal advantages in the labor market is a surefire way to squander the advantages you mention that keep our economy strong. That lowering tide will lower all boats and bite our children if not ourselves in the long term.
    Alan Bickley Joseph blow 12 days ago
    Education is not the principal reason for the poor economic circumstances of the white middle class. It is the reluctance of the wealthy to invest in the fast-fading industrial sector. Finance and its attendant scams yields far greater returns than the manufacture and sale of useful objects. The jobs of the future, says the BLS, will not require the level of education that has created a debt swamp for the young, although degrees will be used as sorting devices in a glutted labor market.
    maverick909 Alan Bickley 7 days ago
    When I was young my parents warned me to get a high school diploma or there would nothing but a scarcity of low-paying jobs for me when I go it alone. Then it was a bachelor's degree and now it's a master's. If this trend continues, we will be a nation of educated derelicts. Like the PhDs standing in long lines to apply for a job at the first McDonald's franchise in the former Soviet Union.
    AtlasObjectivist Joseph blow 11 days ago
    The difference being in the case of 2016 America blaming immigrants for our poor economic circumstances would be correct and it's not just "uneducated white folks." In fact the black population has been the hardest hit by the importation of cheap third world labor. Even our educated middle class is taking a massive hit through H1-B workers being brought in by the elites. Just ask the laid off workers at Disney.
    Huckleseed SeanRenaud 8 days ago

    Sanders would not want to split the Democrat vote, and the truth of the matter is that Donald Trump does NOT actually want to BE President. This was one of his fun things to do as a Billionaire. Get up in front of people on a National stage, voice your opinion loudly, maybe come in second or make some kind of decent show for the ego and then go Trump up another reality show to sell to the networks. But win? Are you kidding me? That's too much work and if I believe Donald Trump knows one thing, it is how many people and how much work it would take for him to be President. Endless meetings with morons both foreign and domestic that you have to attend? Long hours, little appreciation, and missing time with your gorgeous young wife? And for that salary? Again, are you kidding me?

    He has already said that when he donates, all he needs to do is go to the guys who won the elections and they do what he asks, Why does he need to be one of those guys?

    Answer: He doesn't and he doesn't want to be. Being #1 was great. Staying #1 began to become a nightmare when he realized that he really could actually win the Republican nomination and so he started saying more insulting and traditionally outrageous (and vote losing) statements. I can see him asking himself in the mirror now, "What does it take to get these people to think I'm too brash, hard lined, and insulting to everyone to be voted in as President? Who haven't I insulted yet?"

    hartleymsm Huckleseed 7 days ago

    100% spot on. Trumps problem now is that the GOP base is even dumber than he thought, the more crazy stuff he says to lose support, the more the sheep clamor for him.

    ruralblake Deserttrek 14 days ago

    Jeb Bush alone has gotten more from Wall Street than the Democrats & Chris Christie is close. "Republicans beating Clinton, Dems in Wall Street donations"

    Also worth noting how much more Wall Street gave to Romney than Obama in the 2012 cycle "Yet by the end of the 2012 campaign, Wall Street donors had given $64.3 million to Mitt Romney and $19.3 million to the same man they had poured money into just four years before and who was running as the sitting president." http://thehill.com/homenews/ca...

    Statetheobvious > ruralblake

    And yet Hillary and Obama are loyal Wall Street lapdogs almost as much as the GOP. Whoever wins the nomination (unless it's Sanders) is getting the big money. The entire system needs reform. Starting with stacking SCOTUS to overturn Citizens United. The fact that no Democratic lobby group has a case making its way through the courts to challenge CU shows how incredibly pathetic Democrats are.

    [Jan 05, 2016] Homeland Frolics

    Notable quotes:
    "... Of Trumps opponents for the Republican nomination, the only one I can grudge up any interest for is Rand Paul, who is a truly disruptive figure without being a maniac. ..."
    "... But he appears to have a near-zero chance of winning the partys nomination. ..."
    "... Hillary is the opposite of a disrupter; she is the racketeer Godmother. ..."
    "... Hillary would inspire no trust among a fractious population out for revenge against the very enablers of Hillarys election, namely the Wall Street bankers. ..."
    "... The question at hand for 2016 is: Can Hillary be stopped. At this point, I dont see how, given all the weight of the party machinery calibrated in her favor by the equally odious National Party Chairperson, Congressperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz. ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders mounted a noble opposition campaign, and perhaps it is too early to write him off here before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary... ..."
    "... And thats all you get on the Democratic side for the moment: a powerful sense that the fix is in. Yet there is the very real problem of Hillarys loathsomeness and how that would go down at the polls. Theres even a pretty good chance that many women would vote against her... ..."
    David Stockman's Contra Corner
    Pretend to the Bitter End A Contrarian Review Of The Year Ahead

    ... ... ...

    Of Trump's opponents for the Republican nomination, the only one I can grudge up any interest for is Rand Paul, who is a truly disruptive figure without being a maniac. In fact, I think he would make a good president, sober, thoughtful, unencumbered by obligation to the forces of racketeering. But he appears to have a near-zero chance of winning the party's nomination.

    Hillary is the opposite of a disrupter; she is the racketeer Godmother. As things proceed, however, she would merely preside over Great Depression 2.0.

    Unlike FDR in GD 1.0, Hillary would inspire no trust among a fractious population out for revenge against the very enablers of Hillary's election, namely the Wall Street bankers. The nation would fall into factional fighting and possibly even regional breakup under Miz It's-My-Turn. But I get ahead of myself…. The question at hand for 2016 is: Can Hillary be stopped. At this point, I don't see how, given all the weight of the party machinery calibrated in her favor by the equally odious National Party Chairperson, Congressperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

    Bernie Sanders mounted a noble opposition campaign, and perhaps it is too early to write him off here before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary...

    .... ... ...

    And that's all you get on the Democratic side for the moment: a powerful sense that the fix is in. Yet there is the very real problem of Hillary's loathsomeness and how that would go down at the polls. There's even a pretty good chance that many women would vote against her...

    [Jan 05, 2016] Hillary Clinton Gets a Taste of What Could Be a Painful 2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... That's not to say that Hillary Clinton herself will necessarily inject any of those elements into the race. (Beyond the extent to which she already has, that is, via her inexplicable decision to use a private email account while serving as secretary of state.) ..."
    "... If a New Hampshire state legislator is willing to stand up in a public forum and imply that Clinton's husband is a rapist, it seems inevitable that others will take the opportunity of public events to make similar charges. ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    But whomever the Republicans eventually nominate, this year is going to be ugly, because there is a Clinton running for president. Because when Clintons run for office, conspiracy, scandal and prurience inevitably follow.

    That's not to say that Hillary Clinton herself will necessarily inject any of those elements into the race. (Beyond the extent to which she already has, that is, via her inexplicable decision to use a private email account while serving as secretary of state.) It is simply meant to point out that where the Clintons are concerned, there is a large and vocal element of the Republican Party that simply cannot resist the temptation to dive headfirst into the rabbit hole of Bill and Hillary Clinton's past and then come to the surface screaming bloody murder (sometimes literally) about what they think they found there.

    In a New Hampshire town meeting on Sunday, a state legislator named Katherine Prudhomme O'Brien demonstrated what we can likely expect to see a lot of in the coming year.

    When Clinton paused to take questions from the crowd, O'Brien began haranguing the candidate with questions about former president Bill Clinton's decades-old infidelities. Her point was to paint Clinton as a hypocrite for claiming to support women's rights and for launching an anti-sexual assault campaign while, according to O'Brien, her husband still faces unsettled questions about alleged sexual assaults.

    O'Brien, who was very close to Clinton when she began shouting questions at her, was herself shouted down by Clinton supporters. After the event, she told reporters "I asked her how in the world she can say that Juanita Broderick and Kathleen Wiley are lying when she has no idea who Juanita Broderick is," O'Brien said, according to CNN, referring to women who have accused the former president of sexual assault and to another attempt she had made to question the candidate.

    "She told me this summer she doesn't know who she is and doesn't want to know who she is," O'Brien said. "How can she access that they are lying, which she told someone last month?"

    For her part, Clinton responded sharply, breaking from most candidates' strategy of ignoring hecklers to tell O'Brien that she was "very rude" and that Clinton would "never" take questions from her.

    ... ... ....

    Clinton criticism has long since become a field that welcomes all comers, regardless of the strength of their tether to reality. Among Clinton detractors there is a veritable alternative history of the United States, beginning with their rise to power in Arkansas in the 1980s, which includes accusations of murder, drug-dealing and a vast menu of sexual improprieties all committed or endorsed by the Clintons.

    ... ... ...

    If a New Hampshire state legislator is willing to stand up in a public forum and imply that Clinton's husband is a rapist, it seems inevitable that others will take the opportunity of public events to make similar charges.

    [Jan 04, 2016] Hillary Clinton warns that Republicans would turn back the clock on progress

    Notable quotes:
    "... Sorry Hillary, you can pretend to be a progressive, nobody believes you. You want to be President because you want to be President, you dont give a rats rear end about the country. ..."
    "... I think you might be falling for the subtle propaganda out there. The corporate media, as well as the DNC, has been marginalizing him from day one of his campaign because they have a vested interest in Clinton or any Republican winning the primary. Were Sanders to be successful, the corporate media would stand to lose 10s of million$ in campaign attack ads and corporations stand to lose their cheap, working poor, workforce. ..."
    "... This is why corporate media (including MSNBC) continues to either ignore him, or continually say that he cannot win. It is a battle and its completely up to the electorate to form a movement that becomes a political revolution. ..."
    "... I resent the continuing attempts to link her campaign to Senator Elizabeth Warrens positions on financial issues when the overwhelming support for her establishment candidacy is supported by entities inimical to virtually everything for which Ms. Warren fights. It is not only disrespectful to the Senator, but is, to me, proof positive that honesty and transparency remain far outside the Clinton Campaign business model, and that the Advisers - rather than her personal character and knowledge - control the Candidate AND will continue to do so - should they be able to elect her as President. ..."
    "... I believe increasingly that Trump must win, and I say that without being an admirer. He comes with some terrible baggage, but at least on a couple issues, hes the only one saying anything worth saying. Maybe thats what America needs to make a little progress, to elect someone who overall is pretty unpleasant but who brings real progress on a couple of issues. It is particularly in foreign affairs says a couple of pretty penetrating truths. ..."
    "... Hillary has absolutely nothing to say worth hearing. Shes not progressive. Shes not liberal. And shes just so twisted in her dishonesty, you cant make any sense of her from one day til the next. She is a genuinely phony exploiter of the old idea of the Democratic Party, as a party that does something for ordinary people, but that is simply not what that party has been for about half a century. In office, she would have most of Trumps ugly qualities and none of his few strong merits. Basically, she just wants the distinction of being the first woman president. ..."
    "... Again, she stands for absolutely nothing any thoughtful person would call progress. ..."
    "... Surprise, surprise, one more article to add to the many already written by the Guardian on $hillary. Has the Guardian been purchased by the $hillary for President Campaign??? Perhaps $hillary and Bill used the millions they have made on speaking tours, and the Clinton Foundation to buy the Guardian or are they paying to plant articles ..."
    "... The Democratic Party is a terrible institution. It hasnt had a good idea in forty years. Americas entire political system is bent, bent towards the interests of the 1%. Hillary serves the interests of the 1% in virtually everything she does. Then she goes out and makes some vaccuous speeches to others, trying to assure them shes in their corner. The woman is a dreadful fraud and liar. ..."
    "... turn back the clock on progress? What meaningless babble. There is no meangful progress in America on any aspect of domestic life. Not in politics. Not in public education. Not in ethics. However Hillary has played a significant role in Americas one true example of progress, its progress towards becoming an international bully. ..."
    "... Clinton is a neo-conservative war-monger supporting neo-liberal economic policies. But the only Republican who isnt worse on both counts is Rand Paul, who isnt as fully into the neo-conservative carpet bombing agenda. Paul, however, more than makes up for this by being a complete looney on economic/individual rights issues. Unfortunately the only real alternative, Bernie Sanders, has been deemed as unelectable by the smart people and many of the electorate, afraid to throw away their votes may be swayed by that intelligence . ..."
    "... dishonesty happens to be Mr. Hillarys middle name. ..."
    "... Hilary Clinton is complicit in the ongoing US foreign policy of destroying working countries in North Africa and the Middle East and leaving them in ruins, as his her boss Obama. ..."
    "... Polls are now officially worthless. Polling agencies call landlines which are anything but random representation of the ACTUAL American electorate. There are also various media outlets taking worthless internet polls which have absolutely no verification. Harris quit political polling until they can develop new reliable sampling methods. Relying on this information is completely misleading in the 21st century. ..."
    "... Hillary has never seen a patch of desert she didnt want to send our kids to die in. ..."
    "... We need Single Payer. We need Glass-Steagall. We need Peace. We need Bernie. ..."
    Jan 04, 2016 | The Guardian

    loljahlol -> Lazio99 4 Jan 2016 10:12

    ISIS is a proxy of KSA and Turkey. Turkey and KSA are both allies of USA. Therefore, USA doesn't put in the effort.

    HobbesianWorld -> rafinho 4 Jan 2016 10:11

    Apparently you favor Hillary? You like corporate control of government? You like corporate money in elections? You like the fact that the too-big-to-fail Wall Street financial institutions will remain too-big-to-fail, and we, the taxpayer, will remain on the hook to bail them out? You do know that we ARE still on the hook? You do know that the banks have gone back to speculating with our deposits--the major cause of the Republican Great Recession of 2008?

    Or, would you rather see Sanders win, but you are a defeatist who listens to the opinions of those with vested interest in seeing him lose?

    Marcedward 4 Jan 2016 10:03

    Sorry Hillary, you can pretend to be a progressive, nobody believes you. You want to be President because you want to be President, you don't give a rat's rear end about the country.

    HobbesianWorld -> rafinho 4 Jan 2016 10:01

    I think you might be falling for the subtle propaganda out there. The corporate media, as well as the DNC, has been marginalizing him from day one of his campaign because they have a vested interest in Clinton or any Republican winning the primary. Were Sanders to be successful, the corporate media would stand to lose 10s of million$ in campaign attack ads and corporations stand to lose their cheap, working poor, workforce.

    This is why corporate media (including MSNBC) continues to either ignore him, or continually say that "he cannot win." It is a battle and its completely up to the electorate to form a movement that becomes a political revolution.

    Just because they keep saying that he can't win, and then fail to mention him in most news or opinion segments while extolling Hillary, I don't just shrug my shoulders and wimp away, assuming defeat. I will keep on promoting him as the champion of working America and exposing Hillary as the corporatist she is.

    Bruce Gruber -> pol098 4 Jan 2016 09:59

    Vote for Bernie Sanders and make your DETERMINATION clear.

    Revolutions against status quo moderates eager to achieve dysfunctional compromises are NOT solutions. Ms. Clinton panders to FEAR ... It is fear of Republicans winning . She does not say, Bernie, Martin and I stand against ISIL, BUT with strategies that don't alienate Muslims and denigrate a religion." INSTEAD she votes, hints, suggests etc. that 'WE need to FIND solutions ... strengthen our (presently discordant and previously ineffective) policies, and 'fight against' ...(war, war, war!). After years of holding important roles and positions, has she not YET "FOUND" ideas with which to lead? Where ARE the regulations or restrictions? What ARE they? ... are they in support of the OATH to reinstall, preserve and protect the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments to the Constitution?

    Identifying WITH a constituency may be reassuring to 'listeners' as to similarity of concern, but it does NOT convey ideas or leadership to address those issues. Traditionally, politicians are wont to defend against complaints that, "That isn't exactly what I said, and it's not what I meant! You have taken my words out of context."

    So, I find this article to be puff piece. It extols her historic involvement, but avoids her ideas. It ignores the neo-con aspects of her 'experience' and implies much more than it offers.

    Of course, my opinion is biased. I resent the continuing attempts to link her campaign to Senator Elizabeth Warren's positions on financial issues when the overwhelming support for her 'establishment' candidacy is supported by entities inimical to virtually everything for which Ms. Warren fights. It is not only disrespectful to the Senator, but is, to me, proof positive that honesty and transparency remain far outside the Clinton Campaign business model, and that the "Advisers" - rather than her personal character and knowledge - control the Candidate AND will continue to do so - should they be able to elect her as President.

    Additionally, the clown car of Republican dissolution is not an issue in the election. Democrats WILL turn out, so Republicans cannot win. Trump has consolidated THEIR "anti-establishment" base, and their puppet-master cash class are playing poker against one another as though the 'pot' was a new toy.


    Murphy1983 -> Mike Hambuchen 4 Jan 2016 09:58

    Mike: Educate yourself about Sanders. Take a look at this article from The New York Times. As usual, it's very pro HRC and anti-Sanders. Read through the "Readers' Pick" section under Comments. I think you'll be better informed about why Sanders is such an amazing candidate.

    Here's one my favorite comments written by Mark Hugh Miller of San Francisco:

    If you make a list of America's problems, needs, and desires, and then list what each candidate proposes to do about them - to date, mostly nothing - there's only one candidate willing to tell Americans painful truths and things they don't want to hear, and offer practical solutions. That's Bernie Sanders. Who would have imagined it two years ago?

    His detractors won't dare challenge the rightness of what he proposes, but instead use the old GOP canards: "We can't afford it? Where's he going to find the money to pay for it?"

    We can pay for everything, it seems - war, defense, a bloated military arsenal, Wall Street bailouts, more prisons, tax breaks for the wealthy and for corporations, subsidies to oil companies and corporate farming ventures - but "never" anything that benefits the majority of Americans who have helped hold the world together for decades, and every year see their security and futures diminished, threatened.

    Sanders is the only candidate willing to risk defeat by addressing the issues that matter to us, and the world.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-needing-early-lift-builds-iowa-ground-operation.html


    Chuckman 4 Jan 2016 09:56

    I believe increasingly that Trump must win, and I say that without being an admirer. He comes with some terrible baggage, but at least on a couple issues, he's the only one saying anything worth saying. Maybe that's what America needs to make a little progress, to elect someone who overall is pretty unpleasant but who brings real progress on a couple of issues. It is particularly in foreign affairs says a couple of pretty penetrating truths.

    Hillary has absolutely nothing to say worth hearing. She's not progressive. She's not liberal. And she's just so twisted in her dishonesty, you can't make any sense of her from one day til the next. She is a genuinely phony exploiter of the old idea of the Democratic Party, as a party that does something for ordinary people, but that is simply not what that party has been for about half a century. In office, she would have most of Trump's ugly qualities and none of his few strong merits. Basically, she just wants the distinction of being the first woman president.

    Now that would be fine, had she something to offer people, but she does not.

    Again, she stands for absolutely nothing any thoughtful person would call progress.


    MonotonousLanguor 4 Jan 2016 09:53

    Surprise, surprise, one more article to add to the many already written by the Guardian on $hillary. Has the Guardian been purchased by the $hillary for President Campaign??? Perhaps $hillary and Bill used the millions they have made on speaking tours, and the Clinton Foundation to buy the Guardian or are they paying to plant articles .


    Chuckman -> Allan Burns 4 Jan 2016 09:42

    I don't think that's true. The Democratic Party is a terrible institution. It hasn't had a good idea in forty years. America's entire political system is bent, bent towards the interests of the 1%. Hillary serves the interests of the 1% in virtually everything she does. Then she goes out and makes some vaccuous speeches to others, trying to assure them she's in their corner. The woman is a dreadful fraud and liar.


    ID5360392 -> Lazio99 4 Jan 2016 09:35

    I think you are omitting one very important person. Former President George W. Bush took the US to an unjustified war in Iraq and destabilized the entire region. Didn't W at one point claim credit for the "green revolution" and the wave of revolts in the Middle East by saying it was because he brought "democracy" to Iraq?

    Chuckman 4 Jan 2016 09:35

    'turn back the clock' on progress? What meaningless babble. There is no meangful progress in America on any aspect of domestic life. Not in politics. Not in public education. Not in ethics. However Hillary has played a significant role in America's one true example of progress, its progress towards becoming an international bully.


    panpipes -> Ryscavage 4 Jan 2016 09:33

    Hyperbole never helps convince people of the rationality of your argument...

    Clinton is a neo-conservative war-monger supporting neo-liberal economic policies. But the only Republican who isn't worse on both counts is Rand Paul, who isn't as fully into the neo-conservative carpet bombing agenda. Paul, however, more than makes up for this by being a complete looney on economic/individual rights issues. Unfortunately the only real alternative, Bernie Sanders, has been deemed as unelectable by the "smart people" and many of the electorate, afraid to "throw away their votes" may be swayed by that "intelligence".

    Zepp -> rafinho 4 Jan 2016 09:29

    His claim is accurate. Assuming Sanders is the nominee, he would trounce Trump, on average by 16 points. According to several such polls.
    Yes, he trails Hillary, who is well known and well funded. But he leads in New Hampshire, and is in striking distance in Iowa. And let's face it: most Democrats really aren't very enthusiastic about Clinton.


    AmbassadorIII 4 Jan 2016 09:11

    Dishonesty insults and demeans the people of America and dishonesty happens to be Mr. Hillary's middle name. Truth is, indeed, bitter after three consecutive, pathological liar presidents. Thank God, Trump has the courage to speak it.


    Lazio99 4 Jan 2016 08:59

    Hilary Clinton is complicit in the ongoing US foreign policy of destroying working countries in North Africa and the Middle East and leaving them in ruins, as his her boss Obama. How these two come to be the pin ups of the European liberal chattering classes beats me. How can anyone vote for a pair like these?


    Charles Taylor -> rafinho 4 Jan 2016 09:25

    Polls are now officially worthless. Polling agencies call landlines which are anything but random representation of the ACTUAL American electorate. There are also various media outlets taking worthless internet "polls" which have absolutely no verification. Harris quit political polling until they can develop new reliable sampling methods. Relying on this information is completely misleading in the 21st century.

    brianBT 4 Jan 2016 08:14

    Hilary is running almost the same campaign she did last time.. the lips are moving but nothing is coming out.. and the words that do issue tend to be strategically and politically non-committal.. in short a political gas bag.. she has no chance of winning

    Mike5000 4 Jan 2016 08:07

    RomneyObamaCare is making Hillary's insurance mafia buddies rich while bankrupting ordinary Americans.

    Taxpayer-subsidized gambling is making Hillary's bankster buddies rich while fraudulently taking millions of American homes.

    And Hillary has never seen a patch of desert she didn't want to send our kids to die in.

    We need Single Payer. We need Glass-Steagall. We need Peace. We need Bernie.

    [Jan 03, 2016] TRUMP 'Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama'

    What is interesting is that Trump is 100% right... I think he has a marketing talent. One thing for certain, he created a problem for Repugs establishment and all those yellow US MSM and their owners...
    "... "She should be in jail, by the way, for what she did," Trump said. "Everybody knows she should be in jail. What she did with the emails is a disgrace," he added. ..."
    news.yahoo.com

    He then blamed US President Barack Obama and his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, for the Islamic State's rise.

    "They have a bunch of dishonest people," he continued. "They've created ISIS. Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama - created with Obama. But I love predicting because you know, ultimately, you need somebody with vision."

    Trump and Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, have fiercely sparred in recent weeks. Trump took particular exception to Clinton saying that his provocative campaign-trail statements had become propaganda for the Islamic State, especially his proposal to bar Muslims from entering the US.

    The Republican billionaire demanded that Clinton apologize, but her campaign replied at the time: "Hell no. Hillary Clinton will not be apologizing to Donald Trump for correctly pointing out how his hateful rhetoric only helps ISIS recruit more terrorists."

    After Clinton said Trump had generally displayed a "penchant for sexism," Trump went after her husband, former US President Bill Clinton. Trump recently proclaimed that the former president has "a terrible record of women abuse," referring to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, among other things.

    At his Saturday rally, Trump also blasted Hillary Clinton for a report on her husband's paid speeches while she was secretary of state. As he has done frequently before, Trump further asserted that Clinton "shouldn't be allowed to run" because of the private email system she used for her State Department work.

    "She should be in jail, by the way, for what she did," Trump said. "Everybody knows she should be in jail. What she did with the emails is a disgrace," he added.

    Continued

    Recommended Links

    Google matched content

    Softpanorama Recommended

    Top articles

    Oldies But Goodies

    [Dec 11, 2017] Strzok-Gate And The Mueller Cover-Up by Alexander Mercouris

    [Dec 03, 2017] Another Democratic party betrayal of their former voters. but what you can expect from the party of Bill Clinton?

    [Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins

    [Oct 11, 2017] Russia witch hunt is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working class

    [Oct 09, 2017] After Nine Months, Only Stale Crumbs in Russia Inquiry by Scott Ritter

    [Oct 03, 2017] Russian Ads On Facebook A Click-Bait Campaign

    [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills

    [Jul 13, 2017] Progressive Democrats Resist and Submit, Retreat and Surrender by James Petras

    [Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray

    [Nov 27, 2018] The political fraud of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal"

    [Nov 12, 2018] The Democratic Party long ago earned the designation graveyard of social protest movements, and for good reason

    [Nov 07, 2018] There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard.

    [Nov 05, 2018] Bertram Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer

    [Nov 03, 2018] Kunstler The Midterm Endgame Democrats' Perpetual Hysteria

    [Oct 13, 2018] To paraphrase Stalin: They are both worse.

    [Oct 02, 2018] Kavanaugh is the Wrong Nominee by Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers

    [Aug 18, 2018] Sanders behaviour during election is suspect, unless you assume he acted as sheep dog for hillary

    [Jun 26, 2018] Identity politics has always served as a diversion for elites to pursue stealth neoliberal policies like decreasing public spending. Fake austerity is necessary for pursuing neoliberal privatization of public enterprises

    [Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare

    [Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern

    [May 03, 2018] Alert The Clintonian empire is still here and tries to steal the popular vote throug

    [Apr 30, 2018] Neoliberalization of the US Democratic Party is irreversible: It is still controlled by Clinton gang even after Hillary debacle

    [Apr 24, 2018] The Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice

    [Apr 17, 2018] Poor Alex

    [Apr 11, 2018] It is long passed the time when any thinking person took Trump tweets seriously

    [Apr 01, 2018] Big American Money, Not Russia, Put Trump in the White House: Reflections on a Recent Report by Paul Street

    [Mar 13, 2018] The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party by Patrick Martin

    [Feb 19, 2018] Russian Meddling Was a Drop in an Ocean of American-made Discord by AMANDA TAUB and MAX FISHER

    [Feb 11, 2018] How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war

    [Feb 11, 2018] Clinton Democrats (aka

    [Jan 02, 2018] What We Don t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking by Jackson Lears

    [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan

    [Dec 23, 2017] Russiagate as bait and switch maneuver

    [Nov 27, 2019] Obama Admits He Would Speak Up Only To Stop Bernie Sanders Nomination

    [Sep 15, 2019] Donald Trump as the DNC s nominee by Michael Hudson

    [Jul 30, 2019] The main task of Democratic Party is preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left and killing such social movements

    [Apr 28, 2019] Biden has huge, exploitable weakness in relation Ukraine

    [Jan 29, 2019] These 2020 hopefuls are courting Wall Street. Don t be fooled by their progressive veneer by Bhaskar Sunkara

    [Jan 12, 2019] Tucker Carlson Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it's infuriating Fox News

    [Jan 12, 2019] Tucker Carlson has sparked the most interesting debate in conservative politics by Jane Coaston

    [Jan 11, 2019] Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming

    [Mar 07, 2020] The Neoliberal Plague by Rob Urie

    [Mar 04, 2020] Russiagate should be viewed as classic, textbook case of gaslighting and projecting election interference

    [Mar 03, 2020] Super Tuesday Bernie vs The DNC Round Two

    [Mar 03, 2020] Let s Talk About Your Alleged #Resistance by Joe Giambrone

    [Mar 03, 2020] Whacking Rich is a reminder to Sanders what the party establishmen is capable of

    [Feb 26, 2020] A serious US politician has to demonstrate a large capacity for betrayal.

    [Feb 25, 2020] The Democrats' Quandary In a Struggle Between Oligarchy and Democracy, Something Must Give by Michael Hudson

    [Feb 25, 2020] The Economic Anxiety Hypothesis has Become Absurd(er)

    [Feb 23, 2020] Looks like the USA intelligence (or, more correctly semi-intelligence) agencies work directly from KGB playbook or Bloomberg as Putin's Trojan Horse in 2020 elections

    [Feb 15, 2020] How does one say Adam Schiff without laughing? by title="View user profile." href="https://caucus99percent.com/users/alligator-ed">Alligator Ed

    [Feb 09, 2020] What Separates Sanders From Warren (and Everybody Else)

    [Feb 07, 2020] Moving independents is the primary task for Sanders

    [Feb 07, 2020] Sanders Called JPMorgan's CEO America's 'Biggest Corporate Socialist' Here's Why He Has a Point

    [Jan 31, 2020] What's going on right now with Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton is the beginning of sticking the knife back into Bernie's back by Bill Martin What follows originates in some notes I made in response to one such woman who supports Bernie. There are two main points.

    [Jan 29, 2020] Campaign Promises and Ending Wars

    [Jan 28, 2020] Sanders is like a geriatric Colonel Kurz, operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct by CJ Hopkins

    [Jan 23, 2020] An incredible level of naivety of people who still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?

    Sites



    Etc

    Society

    Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

    Quotes

    War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

    Bulletin:

    Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

    History:

    Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

    Classic books:

    The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

    Most popular humor pages:

    Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

    The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


    Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

    FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

    This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

    You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

    Disclaimer:

    The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

    Last modified: May, 12, 2020