Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better

Elections2020 bulletin, 2019

Home 2019 2018 2017

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Aug 02, 2019] Trade -- On Our Terms

Aug 02, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

anne , July 30, 2019 at 09:13 AM

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1156228417601376257

Paul Krugman‏ @paulkrugman

OK, obviously I need to weigh in on Elizabeth Warren's trade proposal. I've been a huge fan of her plans so far. This one, not so much, although some of the critiques are overdone 1/

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/trade-on-our-terms-ad861879feca

Trade -- On Our Terms
By Elizabeth Warren

Last month, I released my economic patriotism agenda -- my commitment to fundamentally changing the government's approach to the economy so that we put the interests of American workers and families ahead of the interests of multinational corporations. I've already released my ideas for applying economic patriotism to manufacturing and to Wall Street. This is my plan for using economic patriotism to overhaul our approach to trade.

8:41 AM - 30 Jul 2019

The truth is that this would have been a bad and destructive plan if implemented in, say, 1980. At this point it's still problematic, but not disastrous (this is going to be a long tweet storm) 2/

Background: the way we currently do trade negotiations is that professionals negotiate out of public view, but with input from key business players. Then Congress gets an up or down vote on the result 3/

This can sound like a process rigged in favor of special interests. But it was created by FDR, and its actual intent was largely the opposite. It took away the ability of Congresspeople to stuff trade bills with goodies for their donors and districts 4/

And while business interests certainly got a lot of input, it was set up in a way that set different groups against each other -- exporters versus import-competing industries -- and this served the interests of the general public 5/

Without this system we wouldn't have achieved the great opening of world markets after World War II -- and that opening was a very good thing overall, especially for poor countries, and helped promote peace 6/

So what has changed? The key point is that the system pretty much achieved its goals; we're a low-tariff world. And that has had a peculiar consequence: these days "trade negotiations" aren't mainly about trade, they're about intellectual property and regulation 7/

And it's not at all clear that such deals are actually good for the world, which is why I was a soft opponent of TPP 8/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/tpp-at-the-nabe/

TPP at the NABE

Not to keep you in suspense, I'm thumbs down. I don't think the proposal is likely to be the terrible, worker-destroying pact some progressives assert, but it doesn't look like a good thing either for the world or for the United States, and you have to wonder why the Obama administration, in particular, would consider devoting any political capital to getting this through.

So what Warren proposes is that we partially unravel the system FDR built, making trade negotiations more transparent and giving Congress a bigger role in shaping the deals. This sounds more democratic, but that's a bit deceiving 9/

Mainly it would substitute one kind of special interest distortion for another. That would have been a clearly bad thing when trade deals were actually about trade. Today, I think it's ambiguous 10/

Warren would also expand the criteria for trade policy to include a number of non-trade goals, like labor rights and environmental protection. Here again there are arguments on both sides 11/

On one side, the potential for abuse would be large -- we could be slapping tariffs on countries for all kinds of reasons, turning trade policy into global power politics, which would be really bas for smaller, weaker countries 12/

On the other hand, there are some cases where trade policy will almost surely have to be used to enforce some common action. If we ever do act on climate change, carbon tariffs will be needed to discipline free riders 13/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/climate-trade-obama/

Climate, Trade, Obama

I think the president has this wrong:

"President Obama on Sunday praised the energy bill passed by the House late last week as an 'extraordinary first step,' but he spoke out against a provision that would impose trade penalties on countries that do not accept limits on global warming pollution."

And I also think the report gives a false impression of what this is about, making it seem as if it's nothing but dirty politics...

Overall, this is the weakest Warren plan so far. (Still waiting to hear from her on health care! Harris has taken point there, and done it well) But it's not bad enough to change the verdict that she's the strongest contender on policy grounds 14/

Christopher H. , July 30, 2019 at 09:32 AM
Krugman starting to turn on Warren.
Christopher H. said in reply to Christopher H.... , July 30, 2019 at 09:43 AM
He backs Harris's attempt to split difference on health care reform.

The problem with PK and Kurt and EMike is that if you don't deliver better services and rising living standards - no matter the excuses we don't care about your excuses -
you're going to get more racism, demagogues like Trump and toxic politics.

The Dems's track record for the past 40 years is objectively awful. PK lives in a rich man's bubble if he believes corporate trade has been good for humanity and peace.

Look at the world!

Christopher H. said in reply to Christopher H.... , July 30, 2019 at 09:47 AM
Krugman argues trading order was built by FDR. It wasn't.
Plp -> Christopher H.... , July 30, 2019 at 10:48 AM
Krugman has COSMO liberal scruples
About raising nationalist priorities

If he took Dean bakers line
He could avoid taking national sides

Be for the wage class and the toiling masses
Globally

Best possible Trade policy is simplified

Example
Intellectual property
Should not exist
It's bad for emerging systems
And advance systems both
If your frame is best for wage earners

And toiling masses

ilsm -> Christopher H.... , July 30, 2019 at 01:58 PM
Harris is all for keeping FIRE profiting on the US health system, like she is for filling profitable prisons in Cali!

Harris a charter member of the DNC committee to re-elect Trump.

Plp -> Christopher H.... , July 30, 2019 at 09:50 AM
Perhaps he is just revealing why he supported neo liberal trade policy
In the Reagan Clinton era

He's a cormopolite not a nationalist

And his frame is common humanity
Not the us wage class


Now we see what happens when multinational corporations get free reign as they did since the end of Bretton woods

Managed world trade from 1946 to 1971
Is probably the baby PK doesn't want to throw out
With the bath water accumulated since 1971

[Aug 02, 2019] During the debate, Warren argued no first use of neclear weapons policy would make the world safer

Aug 02, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to ilsm... , July 31, 2019 at 12:23 PM

Warren, Bullock spar over 'no first use' nuclear policy https://thehill.com/policy/defense/455472-warren-bullock-spar-over-no-first-use-nuclear-policy

Rebecca Kheel - July 30

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D) sparred Tuesday night over her proposed "no first use" policy on nuclear weapons during the Democratic debate.

In defending the proposed policy, Warren argued for diplomatic and economic solutions to conflict, saying "we should not be asking our military to take on jobs that do not have a military solution."

But Bullock opposed that proposal, saying, "I don't want to turn around and say, 'Well, Detroit has to be gone before we would ever use that.'"

Warren is the lead sponsor of the Senate version of a bill that would make it U.S. policy not to use nuclear weapons first.

It has long been the policy of the United States that the country reserves the right to launch a preemptive nuclear strike.

Former President Obama reportedly weighed changing the policy before leaving office, but ultimately did not after advisers argued doing so could embolden adversaries.

Backers of a no first use policy argue it would improve U.S. national security by reducing the risk of miscalculation while still allowing the United States to launch a nuclear strike in response to an attack.

During the debate, Warren argued such a policy would "make the world safer."

"The United States is not going to use nuclear weapons preemptively, and we need to say so to the entire world," she said. "It reduces the likelihood that someone miscalculates, someone misunderstands."

Bullock argued he wouldn't want to take the option off the table, but that there should be negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons.

"Never, I hope, certainly in my term or anyone else would we really even get close to pulling that trigger," he said. "Going from a position of strength, we should be negotiating down so there aren't nuclear weapons. But drawing those lines in the sand at this point, I wouldn't do."

Warren shot back that the world is closer to nuclear warfare after Trump's presidency, which is seeing the end of a landmark arms control agreement with Russia, the development of a low-yield submarine-launched warhead and the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement.

"We don't expand trust around the world by saying, 'you know, we might be the first one to use a nuclear weapon,'" she said. "We have to have an announced policy that is one the entire world can live with."

Bullock said he agreed on the need to return to nonproliferation standards but that unpredictable enemies such as North Korea require keeping first use as an option.

"When so many crazy folks are getting closer to having a nuclear weapon, I don't want them to think, 'I could strike this country,'" he said. "Part of the strength really is to deter."

----

Long-standing US policy has been to lump chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons in a single
category. So, our guv'mint implicitly reserves the
right to respond to a chemical attack (say) with
nuclear weapons. This was how the US got het up
about Iraq's supposed 'weapons of mass destruction',
which is how the US lumps them together under
the heading 'CBN' weapons. Iraq certainly
had chemical weapons, possibly biological ones,
and much less plausibly a nuclear weapons program.
It was all about those mysterious 'aluminum tubes',
which supposedly could be used for uranium-enriching centrifuges. (Not these tubes, apparently.)

But I digress. Suffice it to say, the US has
quite a few self-serving policies.

Now, the real question is, how much longer
do we want to have Mr Trump in control
of the nuclear football, as the nuke-
authorizing gadget is known?


[Aug 02, 2019] Tulsi doubled down on defending current biden position on Iraq and didn't show any inclination whatsover to attack Biden warmongering and his key role in unleashing Iraq war

Aug 02, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

wokkamile on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 12:28pm

Will repeat here

@Wally as this question is being raised again in a few threads: my guess is Tulsi gives great weight to people who apologize and own up for their mistakes (Joe on his Iraq vote) and she believes in forgiveness, and 2dly she knows she also has made mistakes in her public service career.

Besides the above, she might have felt some of the others on the stage were doing a fair job of going after Joe last night, albeit not on Iraq, and she didn't want to contribute to the pile-on. She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this debate.

There will be future debates to go after Joe on Iraq, if she chooses. Perhaps we might hope for a sponsored debate where the mods spend more than 1% of the air time talking about FP. Last night, unless I missed something, the few minutes on foreign stuff was only about trade, not FP as usually understood.

Wally on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 1:06pm
Sho'me Biden's apology

@wokkamile

I did find this July 9, 2019 article in truthdig calling on him to apologize, tho.

And no matter how it's sliced, Biden's still a warmonger.

I sense something is afoot. Pure speculation but crazier things have happened:

Michelle as Biden's VP. Vote for Joe, get Michelle.

#1 as this question is being raised again in a few threads: my guess is Tulsi gives great weight to people who apologize and own up for their mistakes (Joe on his Iraq vote) and she believes in forgiveness, and 2dly she knows she also has made mistakes in her public service career.

Besides the above, she might have felt some of the others on the stage were doing a fair job of going after Joe last night, albeit not on Iraq, and she didn't want to contribute to the pile-on. She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this debate.

There will be future debates to go after Joe on Iraq, if she chooses. Perhaps we might hope for a sponsored debate where the mods spend more than 1% of the air time talking about FP. Last night, unless I missed something, the few minutes on foreign stuff was only about trade, not FP as usually understood.

wokkamile on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 1:45pm
In an important

@Wally @Wally sense, what matters to the issue and complaint being discussed is not what you or I think of Joe and Iraq (we agree) or even what the objective truth is (I did a full 0.5 sec google search, lazy latte-sipping liberal that I am, and couldn't find an explicit use of the term "apology" from Joe).

What matters is TG's perception or memory of what Joe said about his vote. In the video linked above, she talks about how Joe has said it was a mistake -- true -- and that "he's apologized for it, many times" (I couldn't find a link proving that).

Edit: In Tulsi's forgiving world, she might equate or accept the term "mistake" in lieu of an official, formal expression of regret using the term "apology".

I might be able to give you Tulsi's private # and you could ask her personally, but in the words of that immortal American Statesman Richard Nixon, That Would Be Wrong.

#1.2

I did find this July 9, 2019 article in truthdig calling on him to apologize, tho.

And no matter how it's sliced, Biden's still a warmonger.

I sense something is afoot. Pure speculation but crazier things have happened:

Michelle as Biden's VP. Vote for Joe, get Michelle.

Wally on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 1:49pm
Can you be my campaign manager . . .

@wokkamile
. . . when I run for Pope? I can't wait for you to spin my many wrong thoughts;>).

#1.2.1 #1.2.1 sense, what matters to the issue and complaint being discussed is not what you or I think of Joe and Iraq (we agree) or even what the objective truth is (I did a full 0.5 sec google search, lazy latte-sipping liberal that I am, and couldn't find an explicit use of the term "apology" from Joe).

What matters is TG's perception or memory of what Joe said about his vote. In the video linked above, she talks about how Joe has said it was a mistake -- true -- and that "he's apologized for it, many times" (I couldn't find a link proving that).

Edit: In Tulsi's forgiving world, she might equate or accept the term "mistake" in lieu of an official, formal expression of regret using the term "apology".

I might be able to give you Tulsi's private # and you could ask her personally, but in the words of that immortal American Statesman Richard Nixon, That Would Be Wrong.

gulfgal98 on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 6:16pm
While I had problems with this

@wokkamile IMO, this is not a fatal error by Tulsi.

Despite what we are being sold, Biden is a very weak candidate and many others are working to take him down. No one was willing to take on Harris who was designated as the rising star in the Hamptons. But Tulsi did, based upon principle. Funny thing is that Tulsi told Harris that she was coming after her in advance, but Harris was unprepared.

#1 as this question is being raised again in a few threads: my guess is Tulsi gives great weight to people who apologize and own up for their mistakes (Joe on his Iraq vote) and she believes in forgiveness, and 2dly she knows she also has made mistakes in her public service career.

Besides the above, she might have felt some of the others on the stage were doing a fair job of going after Joe last night, albeit not on Iraq, and she didn't want to contribute to the pile-on. She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this debate.

There will be future debates to go after Joe on Iraq, if she chooses. Perhaps we might hope for a sponsored debate where the mods spend more than 1% of the air time talking about FP. Last night, unless I missed something, the few minutes on foreign stuff was only about trade, not FP as usually understood.

Centaurea on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 9:45pm
It was my impression

@wokkamile
that this is exactly what Tulsi was doing. It seems to have been effective. For one thing, it took everyone, including the CNN hosts, off guard.

She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this debate.

#1 as this question is being raised again in a few threads: my guess is Tulsi gives great weight to people who apologize and own up for their mistakes (Joe on his Iraq vote) and she believes in forgiveness, and 2dly she knows she also has made mistakes in her public service career.

Besides the above, she might have felt some of the others on the stage were doing a fair job of going after Joe last night, albeit not on Iraq, and she didn't want to contribute to the pile-on. She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this debate.

There will be future debates to go after Joe on Iraq, if she chooses. Perhaps we might hope for a sponsored debate where the mods spend more than 1% of the air time talking about FP. Last night, unless I missed something, the few minutes on foreign stuff was only about trade, not FP as usually understood.

[Aug 02, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard has just signed on as a co-sponsor of Audit the Fed bill

Aug 02, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

Joe , July 26, 2019 at 03:28 PM

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-25/presidential-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-co-sponsors-audit-fed-bill

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) told Luke Rudkowski of "We Are Change," a libertarian media organization, that Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has just signed on as a co-sponsor of Audit the Fed bill, officially known as H.R.24 The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2019.

[Aug 02, 2019] Last night Tulsi Gabbard went after Harris on her support of the for profit prison system in Cali at the expense of human beoings

Aug 02, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

ilsm , August 01, 2019 at 11:15 AM

Last night Tulsi Gabbard went after Harris on her support of the for profit prison system in Cali at the expense of human beoings......

soon enough Harris supporters were tweeting that Gabbard is an "Assad apologist".

"Assad apologist is war monger agit prop against anyone who might get in the way of the profitable forever wars for al Qaeda (in Idlib etc) and the Saudi royals.

im1dc": propagandizing for the war profiteers is not limited to the press it is in the diverse democrat campaigns pandering for contributions caring nothing for the US or humans in general. Gabbard being the obvious exception garnering their sound bites.

anne -> ilsm... , August 01, 2019 at 11:38 AM
The Joseph McCarthy-style attack on the Representative by the California Senator and associates is shocking and dangerous and revealing of "character."

[Aug 02, 2019] Gabbard Hammers Harris After Foreign Agent Or Traitor Accusations

Aug 02, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

After Democratic 2020 candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) dressed down Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) over her criminal justice record, Harris hit back - suggesting that Gabbard is somehow 'below her' - and an "apologist" for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

In case you missed the original smackdown:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/VxaRt-LlpEk

In response, Harris thumbed her nose at Gabbard , telling CNN 's Anderson Cooperafter the debate: "This is going to sound immodest, but obviously I'm a top-tier candidate and so I did expect that I'd be on the stage and take some hits tonight ... when people are at 0 or 1% or whatever she might be at , so I did expect to take some hits tonight."

Harris added "Listen, I think that this coming from someone who has been an apologist for an individual , [Syrian President Bashar al] Assad, who has murdered the people of his country like cockroaches. She has embraced and been an apologist for him in the way she refuses to call him a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously, so I'm prepared to move on."

Wait a second...

Tulsi wasn't having it. In a Thursday interview with CNN 's Chris Cuomo, Gabbard punched back - saying "[T]he only response that I've heard her and her campaign give is to push out smear attacks on me, claim that I am somehow some kind of foreign agent or a traitor to my country, the country that I love, the country that I put my life on the line to serve , the country that I still serve today as a soldier in the Army National Guard."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/wO9EV3-fd1o?start=70

Gabbard also made clear that she believes Assad is " a brutal dictator, just like Saddam Hussein, just like Gaddafi in Libya ," adding "The reason that I'm so outspoken on this issue of ending these wasteful regime change wars is because I have seen firsthand this high human cost of war and the impact that it has on my fellow brothers and sisters in uniform. "

[Aug 02, 2019] The Empire Is Coming For Tulsi Gabbard by Tom Luongo

Notable quotes:
"... When Lindsey Graham tweets about Tulsi Gabbard twice after a debate, when the Washington Post neocons like Josh Rogin are attacking her , you know she's got their panties in a bunch. ..."
"... You expect it from the Harris camp, obviously. But when it comes directly from people like Navid Jamali (double agent, navy intelligence, MSNBC contributor) you know the empire is beginning to get worried. ..."
"... Gabbard is now getting the Ron Paul treatment. It will only intensify from here. They will come after her with everything they have. ..."
"... When the Empire is on the line, left and right in the US close ranks and unite against the threat. The good news is that all they have is their pathetic Russia bashing and appeals to their authority on foreign policy. ..."
"... The colonial masters have been forgetting that more and more people are not benefitting from having like 800 military bases/wars/colonies all over and want them dissolved. Go Gabbard. ..."
"... The longer the US acts like a colonial power, the more painful the dismantling will be. ..."
"... Harris is done. Tulsi destroyed her. ..."
Aug 02, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Tom Luongo via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The second debate among Democratic hopefuls was notable for two things. The lack of common decency of most of them and Tulsi Gabbard's immense, career-ending attack on Kamala Harris' (D-Deep State) record as an Attorney General in California.

Harris came out of the first debate the clear winner and Gabbard cut her down to size with one of the single best minutes of political television since Donald Trump told Hillary Clinton, "Because you'd be in jail."

Gabbard's takedown of Harris was so spot on and her closing statement about the irresponsible nature of the Trump Administration's foreign policy was so powerful she had to be actively suppressed on Twitter. And, within minutes of the debate ending the media and the political machines moved into overdrive to smear her as a Russian agent, an Assad apologist and a favorite of the alt-right.

Now, folks, let me tell you something. I write and talk about Gabbard a lot and those to the right of me are really skeptical of her being some kind of plant for Israel or the establishment. If she were truly one of those she wouldn't have been polling at 1% going into that debate.

She would have been promoted as Harris' strongest competition and served up for Harris to co-opt.

That is not what happened.

No, the fact that Gabbard is being smeared as viciously and baselessly as she is by all the right people on both the left and the right is all the proof you need that she is 1) the real deal and 2) they are scared of her.

When Lindsey Graham tweets about Tulsi Gabbard twice after a debate, when the Washington Post neocons like Josh Rogin are attacking her , you know she's got their panties in a bunch.

You expect it from the Harris camp, obviously. But when it comes directly from people like Navid Jamali (double agent, navy intelligence, MSNBC contributor) you know the empire is beginning to get worried.

Gabbard is now getting the Ron Paul treatment. It will only intensify from here. They will come after her with everything they have.

In the past week she's destroyed Kamala Harris on national TV, sued Google for electioneering and signed onto Thomas Massie's (R-KY) bill to audit the Federal Reserve. What does she do next week, end the Drug War?

Tulsi Gabbard is admittedly a work in progress. But what I see in her is something that has the potential to be very special. She's young enough to be both passionately brave and willing to go where the truth takes her.

And that truth has taken her where Democrats have feared to tread for more than forty years: the US Empire.

The entire time I was growing up the prevailing wisdom was Social Security was the third rail of US politics. That, like so many other pearls of wisdom, was nonsense.

The true third rail of US politics is empire. Any candidate that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC.

That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters.

When the Empire is on the line, left and right in the US close ranks and unite against the threat. The good news is that all they have is their pathetic Russia bashing and appeals to their authority on foreign policy.

Foreign policy, by the way, that most people in America, frankly, despise.

And the response to her performance at the second debate was as predictable as the sun rising in the east. It's also easily countered. Gabbard will face an uphill battle from here and we'll find out in the coming weeks just how deep into Trump Derangement Syndrome the average Democrat voter is.

If she doesn't begin climbing in the polls then the Democrats are lost. They will have signed onto crazy Progressivism and more Empire in their lust to destroy Donald Trump. But they will lose because only a principled anti-imperialist like Gabbard can push Trump back to his days when he was the outsider in the GOP debates, railing against our stupid foreign policy.

No one else in the field would be remotely credible on this point. It's the area where Trump is the weakest. He's not weak on women's rights, racism, gay rights or any of the rest of the idiotic identity politics of the rest of the Democratic field.

He's weakest on the one issue that got him elected in the first place, foreign policy. Hillary was the candidate of Empire. Trump was not. It's why we saw an international conspiracy formed to destroy him and his presidency. Now that same apparatus is mobilized against Tulsi Gabbard.

That's good. As a solider she knows that when you're taking flak you are over your target. Now let's hope she's capable of sustaining herself to push this election cycle away from the insanity the elite want to distract us with and make it about the only thing keeping the world from healing, ending the empire of chaos.


uhland62 , 1 hour ago link

Those who benefit from the US being a Colonial Empire are closing ranks and that is certainly a huge endorsement for Gabbard.

The colonial masters have been forgetting that more and more people are not benefitting from having like 800 military bases/wars/colonies all over and want them dissolved. Go Gabbard.

The longer the US acts like a colonial power, the more painful the dismantling will be.

vasilievich , 1 hour ago link

Do politicians control the military, especially the strategic arm and weapons of mass destruction, both here in the US and in Russia? Perhaps only partially, and even that is doubtful given rapidly unfolding emergency situations. A convincing case could be made that it's too late, that war is inevitable.

CashMcCall , 3 minutes ago link

You sound intelligent. Read Herman Kahn's treatise "On Thermonuclear War." It is mathematical. But Basically nuclear war is out of hands of politicians. But it won't start from large nuclear powers. If Iran sunk a US Carrier, there would be NO NUCLEAR WAR PERIOD. But a nuclear war could be caused by an accident of smaller powers but it would be very limited and not spread.

"The more destructive we [America] look, the less they like us and our program. To the extent that some in our midst talk and threaten potential world annihilation as a U.S. defense measure, we focus undeserved attention on ourselves as being dangerous and even irresponsible -- appearing to be willing to risk uncounted hundreds of millions or billions of bystanders as to our selfish ambitions and desires." Herman Kahn...

That quote typifies Trump's cavalier yapping about nuclear weapons and his threats in the last year to expunge North Korea, Iran and most recently Afghanistan. This is the kind of conversation that most people in the world hate and they hate Trump and the United States for it. The US is blamed for Trump's loose cannon conduct. So that generates concern and heightens the potential for a nuclear weapons accident.

As for the world, it would survive a nuclear war. Many people would survive just as the animals of Chernobyl have survived and thrived even though radioactive. Dumb politicians like Trump that talk out their *** and sound imbalanced appear flaky. Rest assured the Joint Chief's would never let Trump near a nuclear weapon.

With nuclear war you also have to mathematically project dud rockets and rockets that land on your own people or detonate at launch.

stilletto2 , 1 hour ago link

Forget Biden, a deadbeat deep state ***. he could never be elected being such a MIC pawn. Just go Tulsi first (with Rand Paul would be good!) . She'll have to dig deep in the shitheap to find another honest Dem to play sidekick. But Tulsi stands out above them all as intelligent and independant. No surprise the Dem and Rep MSM ****-spewers are attacking her. Go tulsi -the only candidate i would vote for (since they'll nobble her candidacy i guess i wont be voting).

Liked Trump when he was anti-swamp. But they nobbled him and now he's just a ***-pawn. So sad he sold his balls.

MaxThrust , 1 hour ago link

I like Tulsi but to be Anti-War and a member of the CFR is a massive contradiction.

Mount Wannahockalugi , 2 hours ago link

Tulsi's predicament if of her own doing. She's to the right for today's Dems, but still too far to the left for the GOP. Her positions on the 2nd Amendment and accusing Trump of being an Al Qaeda sympathizer have pretty much killed her chances with moderates, too. She's not really that sane, she just looks that way because the rest of the Dem candidates are socialist whack jobs.

empire explosives , 2 hours ago link

Ultimately, she does not need the Dems or the GOP. just the people.

Boogity , 2 hours ago link

Newsflash: Trump does support Al Qaeda by virtue his blind support of the Saudi regime which champions, funds, and spreads Sunni Wahhabism, the violent Jihadist core philosophy of both Al Qaeda and Isis.

CashMcCall , 1 hour ago link

She is not a draft dodger like Trump.

StephenHopkins , 2 hours ago link

The new Bernie Sanders. But I think Tulsi is genuine, and honest. That's why they have to neutralize her.

Rufus Temblor , 2 hours ago link

Compare Tulsi Gabbard to Kamala Harris. Harris is a frontrunner for the nomination only because she is a she and is half black. That is all she has going for her. She owes her political career to her willingness to **** an old geezer politician from California (Willie Brown?) As a result, she became state AG. Which shows you just how corrupt politics is at the state level. Now she's a real candidate for the demorat nomination even though she is a a total POS, especially compared to someone like Gabbard, who has served her country, talks straight, and doesn't take **** from the pompous a-holes in the dem establishment. I hope she stays in the race.

CashMcCall , 1 hour ago link

Harris is done. Tulsi destroyed her.

[Aug 02, 2019] Harris' press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets about Gabbard being an "Assad apologist", which was followed by a deluge of establishment narrative managers who sent the word "Assad" trending on Twitter

Aug 02, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

Caitlin Johnstone chimes in link

In the race to determine who will serve as Commander in Chief of the most powerful military force in the history of civilization, night two of the CNN Democratic presidential debates saw less than six minutes dedicated to discussing US military policy during the 180-minute event.

That's six, as in the number before seven. Not sixty. Not sixteen. Six. From the moment Jake Tapper said "I want to turn to foreign policy" to the moment Don Lemon interrupted Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard just as she was preparing to correctly explain how President Trump is supporting Al-Qaeda in Idlib, approximately five minutes and fifty seconds had elapsed.
...
Harris' press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets about Gabbard being an "Assad apologist", which was followed by a deluge of establishment narrative managers who sent the word "Assad" trending on Twitter, at times when Gabbard's name somehow failed to trend despite being the top-searched candidate on Google after the debate. As of this writing, "Assad" is showing on the #5 trending list on the side bar of Twitter's new layout, while Gabbard's name is nowhere to be seen. This discrepancy has drawn criticism from numerous Gabbard defenders on the platform.

"Somehow I have a hard time believing that 'Assad' is the top trending item in the United States but 'Tulsi' is nowhere to be found," tweeted journalist Michael Tracey.

[Aug 02, 2019] On the nature of Trump affilliation with Zionists

Aug 02, 2019 | www.unz.com

Dissident , says: July 29, 2019 at 10:37 pm GMT

@Miro23

Trump wasn't their candidate (which suggests that he's clean), and (so far) he hasn't enabled a war with Iran, so what happens with him is an open question.

I wonder what makes you (or anyone) so sure that "Trump wasn't their candidate". From the time that he announced his candidacy in 2015 to the present moment, I have never found implausible the possibility that the President may be controlled opposition. Or, more mundanely, simply the self-promoting carnival barker that just about all evidence strongly suggests that he always was. How closely have you looked at Mr. Trump's actual record, starting from before he announced?

And, to what extent, since becoming President, has Mr. Trump actually opposed the Globo-Homo agenda?

Miro23 , says: July 30, 2019 at 5:07 am GMT
@Dissident

Trump wasn't their candidate (which suggests that he's clean), and (so far) he hasn't enabled a war with Iran, so what happens with him is an open question.

I wonder what makes you (or anyone) so sure that "Trump wasn't their candidate".

The Deep State, Empire, Zio-Glob, or whatever you want to call it, was obviously 100% behind Hillary Clinton. She and her husband were totally blackmailable, and the media fury when she lost was something to see.

For his part, Trump looked surprised (and not too happy) that he won. It's clear that he has links to the Deep State, but he was set up to lose (the media from the start presenting him as the joke candidate – the irrelevant clown). The script was for serious, boring and ineffectual Jeb Bush to lose to the heroic champion of Social Justice, and first woman President Hillary Clinton.

When Trump actually found himself President (and could see the trouble he was in) – for survival, he fully committed to Israel and the Zionists. The idea was that they would defend him , against their Cultural Bolshevik cousins in the US. The Adelsons and the Israelis love him while the US Cultural Bolshevik Jews hate him.

The US public are just extras in this show. If he cared about them he would do something about 9/11 – which he won't. He's a high rise developer from New York and knows better than anyone that 9/11 was all fakery. Here's his first public reaction (on the day):

[Aug 02, 2019] West asked her about the Mnuchin affair, a rather important matter from Harris' AG tenure.

Aug 02, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

voted.


wokkamile on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 2:00pm

Odd that Huerta

@Wally for Harris complains that maybe Tulsi Gabbard isn't familiar with Harris' full record on crime, yet she claimed ignorance when West asked her about the Mnuchin affair, a rather important matter from Harris' AG tenure.

I used to think much more highly of Huerta and Barbara Lee.

Well, at least Bernie-backing Cornell West hasn't drifted East in his principles.

Huerta is now Co-Chair of the Harris campaign and she responds to Tulsi's observations:



gjohnsit on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 2:22pm
Huerta also lied about Bernie supporters in 2016

@wokkamile

#4 for Harris complains that maybe Tulsi Gabbard isn't familiar with Harris' full record on crime, yet she claimed ignorance when West asked her about the Mnuchin affair, a rather important matter from Harris' AG tenure.

I used to think much more highly of Huerta and Barbara Lee.

Well, at least Bernie-backing Cornell West hasn't drifted East in his principles.

Shahryar on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 2:35pm
oh no, this is true

@gjohnsit

Bernie supporters shouted that while they were throwing chairs. I know it for a fact because somebody who was there told someone else who said something like that and it eventually got back to me.

/s

#4.1

BORG_US_BORG on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 5:38pm
Huerta's facial language

@wokkamile @wokkamile Huerta's facial language was telling she me was lying straight to my face about Mnuchin.
There was a tic, looking down, and a bankers smile.

#4 for Harris complains that maybe Tulsi Gabbard isn't familiar with Harris' full record on crime, yet she claimed ignorance when West asked her about the Mnuchin affair, a rather important matter from Harris' AG tenure.

I used to think much more highly of Huerta and Barbara Lee.

Well, at least Bernie-backing Cornell West hasn't drifted East in his principles.

wokkamile on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 8:59pm
"bankers smile"

@BORG_US_BORG -- I like that phrase. Don't believe I've come across it in my many years on your planet.

#4.1 #4.1 Huerta's facial language was telling she me was lying straight to my face about Mnuchin.
There was a tic, looking down, and a bankers smile.

Centaurea on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 9:51pm
Dolores Huerta

@Wally

was solidly in Hillary's corner in 2016. She carried water for the Dem establishment, including lying through her teeth about Bernie supporters during the Nevada caucuses.

Now she's carrying water for Hillary's heir presumptive, Kamala Harris. Same old same old. I don't trust Huerta one bit.

Huerta is now Co-Chair of the Harris campaign and she responds to Tulsi's observations:



MrWebster on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 3:01pm
Went there and regret it. Moore wants Michele Obama to run.

Have not gone over to TOP for a bit. A front pager was going full Monty smearing Tulsi.

So Michael Moore wants Michele Obama to run against Trump. She is the only one who can crush Trump. If this not some PR stunt to get his name in the press, Moore is truly a mainstream DNC'er. Poll after poll shows Bernie beating Trump. So what would be Michele's policies? The same as her neoliberal husband? Moore is living in a Hollywood bubble. I have never seen Michele ever in venue where she is challenged and debated. How is she going to do against an aggressive Trump on a common stage? Who would be her VP? Lady Gaga?

[Aug 02, 2019] Ben Shapiro sums up Dem debates The Kamala Harris 'moment' is over, it's now a two-person race Fox News

Aug 02, 2019 | www.foxnews.com

Ben Shapiro summed up the two nights of Democratic presidential debates by declaring Sen. Kamala Harris' "moment" has ended and predicted a two-person race between former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren .

Speaking on the "Ben Shapiro Show" podcast, the Daily Wire editor-in-chief said Harris failed to effectively respond to attacks during Wednesday's debate from Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Biden, and could not defend her health care plan.

"The Kamala moment is over. This is now becoming a Joe Biden versus Elizabeth Warren race and it's doing so pretty quickly," he said , likening Harris' previous rise in the polls to a similar point in 2015 when Carly Fiorina had a strong debate performance.

Shapiro emphasized the "brutal" challenge to Harris' record as a California prosecutor from Gabbard, saying Gabbard "brought the hammer about as hard as I've seen someone bring a hammer in a presidential debate since Chris Christie went after Marco Rubio."

"This is the meme from 'The Simpsons': stop, stop, he's already dead."

[Aug 01, 2019] Tulsi Big Donor Gains--Now at 120,228>

Aug 01, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

Tulsi Big Donor Gains--Now at 120,228

apenultimate on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 7:31pm Well, Tulsi for the past couple months had been averaging around 500 new unique donors per day. Early in the day before her 2nd debate performance, her campaign announced she had reached 110,000 unique donors. In 1.5 days, she gained more than 10,000 more.

During the first debate, in the week after the debate Tulsi gained 8,500 donors above her usual donor gains. Tulsi managed to do 9,500 more than average in less than 2 days this time around. This time around seems much better.

She needed a debate boost from the second debate of 8,000 donors above her typical daily donor gain to be ensured to reach the 130,000 unique donor minimum. She has already surpassed that gain.

But, the polling requirements still need to be met . . .

Tulsi is going on an annual 2-week National Guard training pretty much now. She will not be able to personally campaign during this time. That's one reason this debate was so crucial. Let's see if it can elevate her in the coming polls.

A national Economist/YouGov poll had her at 2% through July 30. That one is not qualifying, but it's a good trend.

I have *heard* (but not confirmed) that only one qualifying poll from each of the first 4 states are allowed for qualifying (but all qualifying national polls count). Tulsi has 1 qualifying poll from New Hampshire. If what I heard above is true, this means no other polls from New Hampshire count towards the debate requirements. They must be qualifying polls from Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, or national polls from here on out.

Centaurea on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 7:54pm
I posted this comment

on Snoopydawg's thread about Tulsi confronting Kamala, but I'd like to repost it here. I think the American people are responding not just to what Tulsi is saying, but how she is presenting herself.

Tulsi is a warrior. That's one of the main things she's accomplishing here: letting the voters see that about her.

She's directly confronting and exposing the old guard and their heirs presumptive. She's taking on the "powers that be", right to their faces, with strength and confidence.

And she's demonstrating to the American people that she is fully willing and capable of doing so.

[Aug 01, 2019] Tulsi's Last Stand? The most interesting Democrat running for president could be felled by a party that cares more about wokeness than war by W. James Antle III

Notable quotes:
"... Gabbard has been perhaps the most interesting Democrat running for president and Wednesday night could be her last stand. She gets to share the stage with frontrunner Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton a vote for the Iraq war. There is no guarantee she will get another opportunity: the eligibility criteria for subsequent debates is more stringent and she has yet to qualify. ..."
"... represent our military veterans' sharp turn against forever war, arguably the most important public opinion trend of our time. ..."
"... Tulsi is more experienced and articulate on foreign AND domestic policy than any other Democrat up there (Bernie being an independent). She's also more genuine. ..."
"... being 'woke', as the author failed to point out, is code for having the backing of the still extant Clinton/Obama cartel and hence the idiot US media. ..."
Jul 31, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

... ... ...

Screenshot It was already one of the most memorable moments of the Democratic presidential debates in this young election cycle. "Leaders as disparate as President Obama and President Trump have both said they want to end U.S. involvement in Afghanistan but it isn't over for America," observed moderator Rachel Maddow. "Why isn't it over? Why can't presidents of very different parties and very different temperaments get us out of there? And how could you?"

Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio responded with talking points that could have been ripped out of a George W. Bush speech circa 2004. "[T]he lesson that I've learned over the years is that you have to stay engaged in these situations," he said, later adding, "Whether we're talking about Central America, whether we're talking about Iran, whether we're talking about Afghanistan, we have got to be completely engaged."

Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was having none of it. "Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged?" she asked a sputtering Ryan. "As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan." Gabbard noted that she had joined the military to fight those who attacked us on 9/11, not to nation-build indefinitely in Afghanistan, and pointed out the perfidy of Saudi Arabia.

Some likened Gabbard's rebuke of Ryan to the famous 2007 exchange between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani . Except Paul, then a relatively unknown congressman from Texas, was speaking truth to power against "America's Mayor" and the national GOP frontrunner. Gabbard is polling at 0.8 percent in the national RealClearPolitics average, and was challenging someone at 0.3 percent.

Ryan's asterisk candidacy is unsurprising. But Gabbard has been perhaps the most interesting Democrat running for president and Wednesday night could be her last stand. She gets to share the stage with frontrunner Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton a vote for the Iraq war. There is no guarantee she will get another opportunity: the eligibility criteria for subsequent debates is more stringent and she has yet to qualify.

The huge Democratic field has been a bust. Of the more than 20 declared presidential candidates, only seven are polling at 2 percent or more in the national averages. Two more -- Senators Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar -- are polling at least that well in Iowa. Only four candidates are consistently polling in the double digits: Biden, who recovered from his early debate stumbles and remains comfortably in the lead; Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has nevertheless mostly failed to recapture his 2016 magic; Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who seems ascendant; and Senator Kamala Harris of California, potentially the main threat to Biden's rock-solid black support.

Low-polling candidates have still managed to have an impact. Some, like former secretary of housing and urban development Julian Castro, have helped coax contenders likelier to win the nomination to the left on immigration. We've thus seen Democrats raise their hands in support of decriminalizing illegal border crossings in the midst of a migrant crisis not entirely of the Trump administration's making, expanding Medicare to cover everyone even at the expense of private health insurance, and ensuring that "everyone" includes illegal immigrants. Transgender abortions, also at taxpayer expense, have come up too.

Gabbard has so far been unable to penetrate this madness despite being young (she's 38), attractive, telegenic, a military veteran, a woman of color, and an articulate, passionate opponent of the regime change wars that have brought our country so much pain. While reliably progressive, she has occasionally reached across the political divide on issues like religious liberty and Big Tech censorship, a potent combination that could prove more responsive to Trump voters' concerns than what we've heard from her neocon lite interlocutor from Youngstown.

"None of this seems to matter in a Democratic Party that cares more about wokeness than war. In fact, Gabbard's conservative fans -- The View brought up Ann Coulter -- are often held against her, as is her failure to go all in on Trump-Russia. Ninety-five Democrats stand ready to impeach Trump over mean tweets with nary a peep over the near-bombing of Iran or the active thwarting of Congress's will on Yemen.

That's not to say that no one else running is sound on foreign policy -- Bernie has realist advisers and it took real courage for Warren to back Trump's abortive withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria -- and it required a Democratic House to advance the bipartisan Yemen resolution. But none of them are basing their campaigns on it in the same way Gabbard has. Nor do any of them better represent our military veterans' sharp turn against forever war, arguably the most important public opinion trend of our time.

Liberals remain skeptical of Gabbard's turn away from social conservatism (which admittedly went far beyond sincerely opposing gay marriage while Barack Obama was merely pretending to do so), which she attributes to "aloha." In meeting with Bashar al-Assad, she hurt her credibility as a foe of the Syria intervention, failing to realize that doves are held to a higher standard on these matters than hawks .

A saner Democratic Party might realize the chances are far greater that their nominee will be a covert hawk rather than a secret right-winger. Only time will tell if vestiges of that party still exist.

W. James Antle III is the editor of .


Gyre a spencer 3 hours ago

Tulsi is more experienced and articulate on foreign AND domestic policy than any other Democrat up there (Bernie being an independent). She's also more genuine.

But being 'woke', as the author failed to point out, is code for having the backing of the still extant Clinton/Obama cartel and hence the idiot US media. And that she does not have

interguru 2 days ago
Unfortunately foreign policy and the forever war are not an issue that resonates with voters on either side. Here is an excerpt from NPR .
"That is one finding from the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, which shows that Americans have limited confidence in its public schools, courts, organized labor and banks -- and even less confidence in big business, the presidency, the political parties and the media.
.....
The only institution that Americans have overwhelming faith in is the military -- 87 percent say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military. That is a striking change from the 1970s during and after the Vietnam War."

A military that has been a consistent loser for decades. How depressing

Bill In Montgomey interguru a day ago
"Patriotism" now = "Support for military" (and for wars).
Sigh.
𝙆𝙧𝙖𝙯𝙮 𝙐𝙣𝙘𝙡𝙚 2 days ago
For me, a candidates stance on war will be one of the deciding factors as to their earning my vote -- So far Tulsi's position has my interest.
Vance Shogun Downing bbkingfish a day ago
Given that this magazine was partially founded as a reaction to the Iraq War, why does an article about Tulsi Gabbard, one of the only presidential candidates who takes a mostly non-interventionist foreign policy stance, surprise you? She is a progressive, yes, and a Democrat, but her stance on war is very conservative.

You don't have to be a Republican to be conservative or to hold some conservative views.

James OGallagher bbkingfish 20 hours ago edited
No one with a brain ever believed that Twerp was anti interventionist. Many dopes convinced themselves of that because they wanted to believe
HerrinSchadenfreude fuow a day ago
Warren is a corporate kiss a** and a perfect example of precisely why the person you're talking to might as well be listening to a Chipmunks song for all the ridiculous partisan deflection going on. Literally nothing of value in any of that and the implication that Dumbocraps are any different than Republicans in talking a lot and saying and doing nothing is frankly one of the insults to the intelligence that convinced me very early to reject both "sides" of this Candyland based majik partisan aisle
Brian 2 days ago
I was ready to replace Mike Pompeo with Tulsi Gabbard the day after the first debate. It would be very unfortunate if she got bumped out. I live in California (an open primary state), which means I would have voted for her in the primary
Zaphod Braden a day ago
Tulsi is the only Democrat that could beat Trump . ...makes me wonder is this all a dog & pony show?
Tulsi is a combat vet who could shame Trump.
=marco01= Zaphod Braden a day ago
Trump is incapable of shame
christiansmiller Zaphod Braden a day ago
Very true. She could get enough votes from Independents, Republicans and Ron Paul Libertarians to put her over the top.
Reid Dalton a day ago edited
It doesn't "hurt" Tulsi's "credibility" that she met with Assad. It's been clear from the beginning of the Syrian civil war that he was the sole viable protector of Christian and other religious minorities in the region after the fall of Saddam. The U.S. should never have armed and trained the country's rebels. But it's again apparent that Democrats have no interest in saving Christians from Islamic killers.
cka2nd Reid Dalton 15 hours ago
Have the Republicans been any better at saving Christians from Islamic killers in either Iraq or Syria (or Egypt)?
Sid Finster cka2nd 3 hours ago
Neither Team D nor Team R cares in the slightest about Christians in the Middle East, or, for that matter, in Israel.
Sid Finster a day ago
Team D would rather lose to Trump than reform.

This is entirely consistent with The Iron Law of Oligarchy and especially The Iron Law of Institutions.

FL_Cottonmouth Sid Finster a day ago
To whom do the Democrats/CNN think this appeals? There are large majorities of Americans with zero emotional/ideological attachment to "free-market capitalism" who would eagerly vote for a Bernie Sanders who stuck to economic-populist issues - like me, for example - but who are repelled by cultural/social controversies over "isms" and "phobias." Seriously, "40 acres and a mule" Play Hide
Mark Thomason a day ago
Foreign policy does not elect American presidents.

I like her, and support her, and think she's made valuable points. I hope it is heard. However, there was never any chance that her course would lead to the White House.

Maybe she can get a senior post and shape policy on our endless wars. Or maybe she'll have a louder voice in Congress. However, the best she could do with this is influence.

Bakka ja nai a day ago
I will vote for her in the California primaries, even if I have to write her in as a candidate.
FL_Cottonmouth a day ago
How fitting, because I gave up on Tulsi yesterday - before the debate - when I found out that she voted in favor of that anti-BDS resolution. Play Hide
James OGallagher FL_Cottonmouth 20 hours ago
They all support Israel w/o condition. Unfortunately. None of them are any better than her on this issue, and they are much worse than her on most FP and military issues.
christiansmiller a day ago
I am fully supporting Gabbard's campaign, but few people are concerned about our senseless wars. The issue does not make the top ten voter concerns in recent polls.
James OGallagher christiansmiller 20 hours ago
Sad.
Collin Reid a day ago
For whatever reason the President Primary debates tend to avoid most foreign policy issues. Democrats love getting the gory details of healthcare that sort prove Reagan's joke "They know too much" but there are few question on Foreign Policy. I think it reasonable to ask "What would your administration do with Venezuela?" (And Yes I like really basic Open End questions at debates.)

And yes there are good parts of Tulsi but she does need to campaign things outside of No Wars as that usually does not win Primaries.

cka2nd Collin Reid 14 hours ago edited
The last time it really mattered was 2008, when Hilary's support for the invasion of Iraq really came back to bite her on the butt against Obama.
Zsuzsi Kruska a day ago
Forever wars are driven by Wash. through campaign funds coming from the war industry, foreign states and those in the USA who support other countries over their own. How could an anti-war candidate get those funds necessary for campaigning? And, as I said before, Obama and Trump both campaigned to end the wars but didn't. What makes anyone think the next president, when in office, will do anything different? Plus, one has to take into consideration the DNC's choice, and all the intrigues surrounding that process. Tulsi hasn't paid all those dues necessary for a shot at the presidency.
Alex (the one that likes Ike) Steve Naidamast a day ago edited
Some people were as stupid as to think that Trump would lose by a landslide in 2016. Some people were as stupid as to think that Candidate Five-Year-Old-Girl-in-a-Grown-Up-Woman's-Body, who managed to hijack (or, rather, joyride) Obama's foreign policy and to start two (or, rather, three, given that Yemen is also her legacy) foreign wars yet, knowing about the "nice" legacy of Afghanistan and Iraq, would be any appealing. So I wonder how anyone with both hemispheres functional can believe that discarding Gabbard and Sanders, while picking any of the political reincarnations of the ingnorant, arrogant and, first of all, almost childishly self-righteous moron who managed to wreck the country's entire foreign policy without even being the president can win against the man who cleaned up that child's (despite her physically being his age-mate) mess in Syria and, judging by what the Italian press says, is letting others to clean an even greater mess of hers in Libya.
JPH a day ago
Looks that on foreign policy Tulsi is the only sane option.
That's exactly why the bipartisan establishment, the corrupt corporate media and the MIC hate her vehemently.
Eric a day ago
I am a registered Republican so I can't vote for Tulsi in the MD primaries, but I will consider donating to her campaign to help her get into the third debate.

I can forgive a Democrat for supporting universal healthcare so long as they
don't buy into the identity politics garbage.

Although I'm fairly conservative, I will take a Democrat with character over who we have in the White House today.

Hellprin_fan Eric 20 hours ago
It's not like you have a choice in a Republican primary; why not change your registration to Democratic for the presidential primary?
christiansmiller Eric 19 hours ago
I have never voted for a Democrat in my very long life, but I am a donating heavily to Tulsi because of her stand on foreign policy
blimbax Eric 3 hours ago
Eric, you can change your registration for long enough to vote for someone you obviously think is worth voting for.

I was a registered Democrat for all of my voting life, although I often voted for Republicans. As a result of Bush Jr.'s war against Iraq, I swore never to vote for a Republican again.

But when Ron Paul was on the ballot in the Republican primary, I re-registered, as a Republican, just so I could vote for him. (In California, the party determines whether its primary is open or closed.) After 6 weeks, following the primary, I re-registered again, this time as a no-party-preference voter.

It's not that I liked everything Ron Paul believed in (but I did like the fact that he was genuine and truthful). But I agreed with him on the really important issues involving foreign policy.

So you have options, Eric. It won't soil you to change party registration temporarily if it allows you to vote for someone you might vote for in the general election. In fact, you might feel good about it. I know I did. Voting for Ron Paul was the first time in a long time that I felt good about my vote. And this time, I'll vote for Tulsi Gabbard in the primary even if I have to write her name in.

Salt Lick 19 hours ago
Tulsi is not running for President. She's running for running mate for either Bernie or Warren. Both need her foreign policy chops and military cred.
She will bring voters to the ticket, unlike most V.P. picks.

Given Bernie age, should he pick her, she could end up President after all.
Works for me.

cka2nd 14 hours ago
The Democratic Party uber alles types over at Daily Kos are supporting Gabbard's primary challenger for her Congressional seat, attacking her for her previous stands on abortion and same sex marriage, and really laying into her for playing footsies with a dictator like Assad. And while Bernie has some support over there, especially among the readers who take their polls, there are others who still won't forgive him for not actually joining the Dems officially (and who buy all of the "he cost Clinton the election" stupidity).
Alex (the one that likes Ike) cka2nd 3 hours ago
The most tragic thing is not that they simply buy that stupidity. It is that they still buy it. After almost three years. Bernie didn't cost Clinton the election. Clinton cost Democrats the election. Much like any of her political reincarnations they are about to pick will.
Jonathan Dillard Lester 14 hours ago
I thought she did just fine in the debate tonight, and there is the matter of her lawsuit against Google, so I wouldn't count her out just yet.
CJL_1976 9 hours ago
As a non-interventionist lefty, why am I aligned with paleoconservatives on so many issues?

[Aug 01, 2019] Liberal Media Is Freaking Out Over Gabbard's Destruction Of Harris by Caitlin Johnstone

Notable quotes:
"... Attacking the authoritarian prosecutorial record of Senator Kamala Harris to thunderous applause from the audience, Gabbard criticized the way her opponent "put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana," "blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the court's forced her to do so," "kept people in prisons beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California," and "fought to keep the cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way." ..."
"... That was all it took. Harris' press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets about Gabbard being an "Assad apologist", which was followed by a deluge of establishment narrative managers who sent the word "Assad" trending on Twitter, at times when Gabbard's name somehow failed to trend despite being the top-searched candidate on Google after the debate. As of this writing, "Assad" is showing on the #5 trending list on the side bar of Twitter's new layout, while Gabbard's name is nowhere to be seen. This discrepancy has drawn criticism from numerous Gabbard defenders on the platform . ..."
"... It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into mainstream consciousness all at the same time. ..."
"... "Beware the Russian bots and their promotion of Tulsi Gabbard and sowing racial dischord [sic], especially around Kamala Harris," tweeted New York Times and CNN contributor Wajahat Ali. ..."
"... All the usual war cheerleaders from Lindsey Graham to Caroline Orr to Jennifer Rubin piled on, because this feeding frenzy had nothing to do with concern that Gabbard adores Bashar al-Assad and everything to do with wanting more war. Add that to the fact that Gabbard just publicly eviscerated a charming, ambitious and completely amoral centrist who would excel at putting a friendly humanitarian face on future wars if elected, and it's easy to understand why the narrative managers are flipping out so hard right now. ..."
"... War is the glue that holds the empire together . A politician can get away with opposing some aspects of the status quo when it comes to healthcare or education, but war as a strategy for maintaining global dominance is strictly off limits. This is how you tell the difference between someone who actually wants to change things and someone who's just going through the motions for show; the real rebels forcefully oppose the actual pillars of empire by calling for an end to military bloodshed, while the performers just stick to the safe subjects. ..."
"... The shrill, hysterical pushback that Gabbard received last night was very encouraging, because it means she's forcing them to fight back. In a media environment where the war propaganda machine normally coasts along almost entirely unhindered in mainstream attention, the fact that someone has positioned themselves to move the needle like this says good things for our future. If our society is to have any chance of ever throwing off the omnicidal, ecocidal power establishment which keeps us in a state of endless war and soul-crushing oppression, the first step is punching a hole in the narrative matrix which keeps us hypnotized into believing that this is all normal and acceptable. ..."
Aug 01, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via CaitlinJohnstone.com,

In the race to determine who will serve as Commander in Chief of the most powerful military force in the history of civilization, night two of the CNN Democratic presidential debates saw less than six minutes dedicated to discussing US military policy during the 180-minute event.

That's six, as in the number before seven. Not sixty. Not sixteen. Six. From the moment Jake Tapper said "I want to turn to foreign policy" to the moment Don Lemon interrupted Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard just as she was preparing to correctly explain how President Trump is supporting Al-Qaeda in Idlib , approximately five minutes and fifty seconds had elapsed. The questions then turned toward the Mueller report and impeachment proceedings.

Night one of the CNN debates saw almost twice as much time, with a whole eleven minutes by my count dedicated to questions of war and peace for the leadership of the most warlike nation on the planet. This discrepancy could very well be due to the fact that night two was the slot allotted to Gabbard, whose campaign largely revolves around the platform of ending US warmongering. CNN is a virulent establishment propaganda firm with an extensive history of promoting lies and brazen psyops in facilitation of US imperialism , so it would make sense that they would try to avoid a subject which would inevitably lead to unauthorized truth-telling on the matter.

But the near-absence of foreign policy discussion didn't stop the Hawaii congresswoman from getting in some unauthorized truth-telling anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Cfp_IIdVnXs

Attacking the authoritarian prosecutorial record of Senator Kamala Harris to thunderous applause from the audience, Gabbard criticized the way her opponent "put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana," "blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the court's forced her to do so," "kept people in prisons beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California," and "fought to keep the cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way."

Harris, who it turns out fights very well when advancing but folds under pressure, had no answer for Gabbard's attack, preferring to focus on attacking Joe Biden instead . Later, when she was a nice safe distance out of Gabbard's earshot, she uncorked a long-debunked but still effective smear which establishment narrative managers have been dying for an excuse to run wild with.

"This, coming from someone who has been an apologist for an individual, Assad, who has murdered the people of his country like cockroaches," Harris told Anderson Cooper after the debate.

"She who has embraced and been an apologist for him in a way that she refuses to call him a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously and so I'm prepared to move on."

That was all it took. Harris' press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets about Gabbard being an "Assad apologist", which was followed by a deluge of establishment narrative managers who sent the word "Assad" trending on Twitter, at times when Gabbard's name somehow failed to trend despite being the top-searched candidate on Google after the debate. As of this writing, "Assad" is showing on the #5 trending list on the side bar of Twitter's new layout, while Gabbard's name is nowhere to be seen. This discrepancy has drawn criticism from numerous Gabbard defenders on the platform .

"Somehow I have a hard time believing that 'Assad' is the top trending item in the United States but 'Tulsi' is nowhere to be found," tweeted journalist Michael Tracey.

It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into mainstream consciousness all at the same time.

The Washington Post 's Josh Rogin went on a frantic, lie-filled Twitter storm as soon as he saw an opportunity, claiming with no evidence whatsoever that Gabbard lied when she said she met with Assad for purposes of diplomacy and that she "helped Assad whitewash a mass atrocity", and falsely claiming that " she praised Russian bombing of Syrian civilians ".

In reality all Gabbard did was meet with Assad to discuss the possibility of peace, and, more importantly, she said the US shouldn't be involved in regime change interventionism in Syria. This latter bit of business is the real reason professional war propagandists like Rogin are targeting her; not because they honestly believe that a longtime US service member and sitting House Representative is an "Assad apologist", but because she commits the unforgivable heresy of resisting the mechanics of America's forever war .

MSNBC's Joy Reid gleefully leapt into the smearing frenzy, falsely claiming that "Gabbard will not criticize Assad, no matter what." Gabbard has publicly and unequivocally both decried Assad as a "brutal dictator" and claimed he's guilty of war crimes, much to the irritation of anti-imperialists like myself who hold a far more skeptical eye to the war propaganda narratives about what's going on in Syria. At no time has Gabbard ever claimed that Assad is a nice person or that he isn't a brutal leader; all she's done is say the US shouldn't get involved in another regime change war there because US regime change interventionism is consistently and predictably disastrous. That's not being an "Assad apologist", that's having basic common sense.

"Beware the Russian bots and their promotion of Tulsi Gabbard and sowing racial dischord [sic], especially around Kamala Harris," tweeted New York Times and CNN contributor Wajahat Ali.

All the usual war cheerleaders from Lindsey Graham to Caroline Orr to Jennifer Rubin piled on, because this feeding frenzy had nothing to do with concern that Gabbard adores Bashar al-Assad and everything to do with wanting more war. Add that to the fact that Gabbard just publicly eviscerated a charming, ambitious and completely amoral centrist who would excel at putting a friendly humanitarian face on future wars if elected, and it's easy to understand why the narrative managers are flipping out so hard right now.

War is the glue that holds the empire together . A politician can get away with opposing some aspects of the status quo when it comes to healthcare or education, but war as a strategy for maintaining global dominance is strictly off limits. This is how you tell the difference between someone who actually wants to change things and someone who's just going through the motions for show; the real rebels forcefully oppose the actual pillars of empire by calling for an end to military bloodshed, while the performers just stick to the safe subjects.

The shrill, hysterical pushback that Gabbard received last night was very encouraging, because it means she's forcing them to fight back. In a media environment where the war propaganda machine normally coasts along almost entirely unhindered in mainstream attention, the fact that someone has positioned themselves to move the needle like this says good things for our future. If our society is to have any chance of ever throwing off the omnicidal, ecocidal power establishment which keeps us in a state of endless war and soul-crushing oppression, the first step is punching a hole in the narrative matrix which keeps us hypnotized into believing that this is all normal and acceptable.

Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. Whoever disrupts that narrative control is doing the real work.

* * *

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I've written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2


John Law Lives , 4 minutes ago link

"It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into mainstream consciousness all at the same time." - C.J.

I think we see evidence of this sort of thing all the time. "Russian collusion" was thrust upon MSM consumers in coordinated fashion for many months. Now that it has largely fizzled out, "racism" has taken its place. "Racism". "Racism". "Racism". It seems as if MSM drones plug into the Mothership to get their talking points. This sort of behavior was featured in the 1939 film, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", when the Establishment decided Mr. Smith needed to be crushed.

Harris's deflection of Gabbard's attacks are right in line with the Establishment's treatment of people who don't tow the line. Harris is trying to dismiss Gabbard as if her opinion has no weight. Harris is probably wishing hard that Gabbard won't make the next round of debates.

throw the bum out , 10 minutes ago link

Horrible Harris got her *** handed to her by Tulsi.

I would love to see someone say to Kamala, "your panties came down for Willie Brown"...that's how you got your first break.

http://www.limitstogrowth.org/ltg-uploads/2018/02/KamalaHarrisWillieBrownPatronageJob.png

vienna_proxy , 18 minutes ago link

if Tulsi is nominee, i'll vote for her and vote republican for house/senate etc. her anti-war policy is what i was hoping Trump would do. in reality if the republicans hold a chamber in congress then any anti-gun and healthcare bills won't get through. but on day one Tulsi can start removing our troops from Ukraine, Syria, Afghan, Iraq, Saudi, Turkey, and wherever the hell else they are

Terminaldude , 19 minutes ago link

Tulsi Gabbard is the real thing. She has seen the results of WAR and the pain that comes with it through lost limbs, PTSD, etc..

The rest of them are shills for the MIC as well as NWO... .I wonder how many of them know a certain J. Epstein?

Ignorance is bliss , 16 minutes ago link

Tulsi Gabbard is no cankles. She is a veteran, she's female, and she has some good policies. Buyer beware her site mentions nothing about gun control. Liberals always make me nervous.

As president I'll end the failed war on drugs, legalize marijuana, end cash bail, and ban private prisons and bring about real criminal justice reform. ( link )

Everyone talks a big game..but Trump's actually delivered on a few good policies. Example he ended Trans-Pacific partnership. He is renegotiating bad deals with NAFTA and China. He's able to take the heat form the deep state and criminals all around him. He's kept the stock market up. I suspect the stock market is the tide lifting all boats. So far Trump's been pretty good.

But Gabbard has a lot of appeal.

Someone Else , 17 minutes ago link

The only thing I have against Tulsi Gabbard is that she recently voted for the ridiculous Democrat sponsored Defense budget that was even more than the Pentagon requested.

Till then I supported her 100%.

Now, more like 90%.

eleventwelve , 23 minutes ago link

Tulsi Gabbard should be the Democratic Nominee. I support Trump, voted for him, but he is too distracted, too much of an overactive schmoe. He made all of these promises and yes the attacks have been relentless, but nothing is being accomplished. Trump has deep state clowns all around him including Bolton and Pompeo. The deficit is going through the roof, the artificial, superficial manipulated stock market is going to eventually hurt a lot of people.

I don't agree with many of her policies but Tulsi Gabbard is a sane and a thoughtful thinker. She will think before reacting. Her Ron Paul approach to our overreach in the world is absolutely appropriate. Think about this, we spend $850 Billion Dollars on defense so we can feed the war industry. That is more than all the countries of the world combined literally!!! If we brought all the troops home, closed up most bases outside the US, and protected our borders, our deficit would plummet, we could rebuild the infrastructure, we could figure out the health care B.S. We would get along with the rest of the world instead of being looked at as an enemy.

Everybody is coming out of the woodwork because she knows, like most, that Assad did not pepper spray his own people. Cripes, when does this insanity end?

Publicus_Reanimated , 2 minutes ago link

Drawing down the US military to the point you describe will put 1 million American men and women between the ages of 18 and 40 out of work. Do you not realize in addition to feeding the MIC the military is one giant jobs program? Those young men and women, the vast majority of whom do not want to learn to code, would find themselves competing against foreigners and teenagers for $15 minimum wage jobs.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world would openly laugh at us and secretly plot how to take advantage of the power vacuum. Evil does not rest when unopposed, it becomes stronger.

When half the world's population (= all Chinese plus all Muslims) wants to destroy your country, "insanity" is defined as beating your swords into ploughshares.

giovanni_f , 25 minutes ago link

The enemies of Tulsi Gabbard are not the Zionazis who helped Trump win the elections or MAGA hat wearing hillbillies who have no clue whats the difference between Hong Kong and King Kong. It is the liberals who voted for Hillary and went berserk after their beloved mafia bitch lost who hate Tulsi Gabbard. Because she makes them look like what they are, i.e. scum. Sure, conservatives will never vote for a intelligent woman. But they are not the problem.

kudocast , 21 minutes ago link

"Liberals who voted for Hillary" is a false premise. The Democratic National Committee forced Hillary Clinton on liberals, they fixed the primaries so she would win. Liberals and progressives wanted Bernie Sanders who would have kicked Trump's ***.

[Aug 01, 2019] A suggested explanation off Tulsi's strategy: Why go after Biden? He's already imploding; she would only look cruel, beating up on a senile old man

Notable quotes:
"... On top of the cake Kamala Not-The-Wrestler responded as expected, with a neoMcCarthyite slander, which will only work with Tulsi's haters and make Harris look like a tool to everyone else. ..."
"... @doh1304 ..."
"... Harris' record was both fair game and easy pickings because no one had gone there yet. It gained Tulsi the maximum impact because those who don't follow politics had not heard about any of these issues. ..."
"... Joe is so far down in the actual REAL polls, (not the land line polls as has been exposed), that the oligarchy has given up on him. Tulsi senses Joe is low hanging fruit. The DNC is going to cheat Bernie with either Kamala or Liz. Tulsi just took out Kamala. ..."
"... @k9disc ..."
Aug 01, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

Why go after Biden? He's already imploding; she would only look cruel, beating up on a senile old man for her own aggrandizement. Harris, OTOH, is a clear enemy, perpetrator of obvious crimes. Exposing her could only make her look like a paladin.

On top of the cake Kamala Not-The-Wrestler responded as expected, with a neoMcCarthyite slander, which will only work with Tulsi's haters and make Harris look like a tool to everyone else.

Harris is sort of right, it is a strategy only used by someone trying to come from behind, but that's because people with Tulsi's integrity are not allowed to start at the "Top-tier". up 14 users have voted. --

A PROUD Hillary hater since 1993

gjohnsit on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 3:29pm

One thing is for certain

@doh1304
Harris' record was both fair game and easy pickings because no one had gone there yet. It gained Tulsi the maximum impact because those who don't follow politics had not heard about any of these issues.

Battle of Blair... on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 6:31pm
Joe is so far down in the

Joe is so far down in the actual REAL polls, (not the land line polls as has been exposed), that the oligarchy has given up on him. Tulsi senses Joe is low hanging fruit. The DNC is going to cheat Bernie with either Kamala or Liz. Tulsi just took out Kamala.

Don't be surprised if she goes after Pocahontas in the next debates.

k9disc on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 7:58pm
I Saw the Set Up for Warren as Shepherd. Delaney's "Can't Do"

attitude certainly was smacked down in righteous fashion. Hollywood level righteous.

Having those extras on stage feature so prominently in the debates certainly was interesting.

snoopydawg on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 8:33pm
I'm seeing the same thing

@k9disc

The crisis actors are just there to say what the democrats can't do or to derail anyone who thinks they are going to change the system. Delaney, Bullock, DeBlasio and everyone else who doesn't stand a chance have all been negative on Warren and Bernie pushing their MFA. Did Delaney set himself up for Warren to smack him down? The silly ass smile on his face made me think that. Then he was all over Twitter the next day saying how good he did in the debate. And after 24 hours he finally had a comeback to Warren's response.

The other reason for so many candidates of course is to split the votes during the first part so that the super delegates can come in and play.

attitude certainly was smacked down in righteous fashion. Hollywood level righteous.

Having those extras on stage feature so prominently in the debates certainly was interesting.

#7

[Aug 01, 2019] Kamala Harris problem with Russian bots

Bingo. Calling Harris out for her horrendous tenure as AG isn't coming from the Russians. How people can't see through that is beyond me.
Aug 01, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

Can't believe Russian bots conspired to make Kamala implement an anti-truancy program, force prisoners into slave labor, withhold evidence that would have released a death row inmate, and keep cops unaccountable for police shootings. Those Russians are diabolical.

-- Row some OJ (@EdwinMcelwain) August 1, 2019

[Aug 01, 2019] Harris's spokesman explains Tulsi's takedown of Kamala It was Russia! caucus99percent

Aug 01, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

Harris's spokesman explains Tulsi's takedown of Kamala: It was Russia!

gjohnsit on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 11:47am Snoopydawg has got the takedown covered , so I won't duplicate it.
Instead I'd like to show you how TOP has gone into a full-throated whine party over it.

On Wednesday night, that meant that Gabbard got to go after Kamala Harris on her actions as attorney general, using loaded phrases and selected statements to paint Harris as someone who was ready to throw pot-smokers behind bars for eternity and personally throw the execution switch for death row inmates after hiding evidence of their innocence.

There's no doubt that Harris will face more kicks about her AG role during this campaign, and she certainly expected to receive some blows. But Gabbard knew she could square off with Harris in the certainty that no one, but no one, came into the Wednesday night debate thinking, "I need to prepare some talking points against Tulsi Gabbard." And even if she had, CNN gave Harris little time to muster her thoughts before calling in more witnesses to bolster Gabbard's attacks.

It wasn't just the tools on GOS that Tulsi knocked off balance, it was Harris herself . Even CNN noticed.

Worse than that -- for Harris -- is the fact that it became crystal clear in the aftermath of the debate that Gabbard had gotten under her skin. In a post-debate interview, CNN's Anderson Cooper asked Harris about the moment with Gabbard.
"This is going to sound immodest, but obviously I'm a top-tier candidate and so I did expect that I'd be on the stage and take some hits tonight," Harris said. "When people are at 0 or 1% or whatever she might be at, so I did expect to take some hits tonight."
Woof.
First of all, if you are running for president and you hear the words, "This is going to sound immodest" come out of your mouth, it may be best to recalibrate what you are going to say.
Second, what Harris is actually saying is, basically, this: The dork took a shot at the most popular kid in school. Big whoop.
That is not a good look. For any candidate. Ever. (And, yes, politics is a LOT like high school.)

That's gonna leave a mark.
But never fear, because there is a reason for Harris getting taken down by Gabbard - Russia .

The #KamalaHarrisDestroyed hashtag had disappeared from the list of trending U.S. terms by 9:30 a.m. Thursday.

Harris's spokesman, Ian Sams, responded to the hashtag, noting that at least some of the accounts promoting it appeared to be bots.

"The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat," he said.

Reporters writing their stories with eyes on the modern-day assignment desk of Twitter, read this:

"The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat" https://t.co/2kpKQqW3Ir

-- Ian Sams (@IanSams) August 1, 2019

Damn! Putin was on the debate stage and no one noticed?
That has got to be the weakest response in recent history.

Here's the thing, the Harris campaign is already guilty of crying wolf over Russia.

Harris has already been caught misrepresenting alleged Russian propaganda activity. She claimed in a radio interview on July 12 that she had been subjected to Russian bot attacks on social media sites like Twitter.

But CNN debunked the claim days later, reporting that Twitter saw no evidence that Russian bots were targeting Harris.

[Aug 01, 2019] Voodoo candidate Williamson

Aug 01, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Williamson (D)(1): "Marianne Williamson isn't funny. She's scary." [ Vox ]. "In her book A Return to Love, Williamson wrote that "sickness is an illusion and does not exist," and that "cancer and AIDS and other physical illnesses are physical manifestations of a psychic scream.'"

[Aug 01, 2019] I could live with Gabbard replacing Bolton or Pompeo in a second Trump administration

Aug 01, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

spyware-free , 13 minutes ago link

I could live with Gabbard replacing Bolton or Pompeo in a second Trump administration.

AKKadian , 12 minutes ago link

You never Know, right!

Someone Else , 9 minutes ago link

A cancerous tumor would be preferable to Bolton or Pompeo, but then I repeat myself.

[Aug 01, 2019] Elizabeth Warren could hit the mark as the candidate best placed to beat Trump.

Aug 01, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com

Katherine1984 , 31 Jul 2019 13:44

Like it or not, beating Donald Trump is no easy task.

A candidate too far to the left and they just won't get sufficient support from an electorate which inclines to the right (by UK standards).

Too establishment and "entitled" and some will hesitate to give them even a get-Trump-out vote.

Elizabeth Warren could hit the mark as the candidate best placed to beat Trump.

But she will have to brace herself for him to play a very nasty campaign against her.

MohammedS , 31 Jul 2019 13:24
Who gives a monkeys? The real issue is that the selfish, disorientated and cowardly way the Dems are conducting this race is handing Trump a winning platform for 2020.
After long hard thinking I have come to the sad conclusion that Trump is right and that he is indeed a genius. He has achieved what he had set out to do. He has polarised the standard bearer for democracy in the world. He has enriched himself and his family. He has broken American society, possibly irreversibly. He has brought about change in the worlds economies. He has also managed to set the debate and the stage to win in 2020. Now some may say he has been an awful president, but looking at his strategy he has been highly successful. He may not be what we want but he has certainly been better at feeling the pulse of America and deciding which medicine to give. A truly evil genius indeed.
TheMediaSux , 31 Jul 2019 13:15
Sanders and Warren are the only two with some kind of personality. The others look like they were created by lobbyists and corporate donors in a lab on a computer like Kelly Lebrock from Weird Science.
TremoluxMan , 31 Jul 2019 13:08
The point about taxes going up is a red herring and a straw man argument. If you get insurance through your employer, you pay anywhere from $300/month to $1200/month for yourself and family. Through a Medicare for all plan, that payment would disappear. Yes, you'd pay more in taxes to cover your health insurance, but it would likely be lower than private insurance, a net gain, with better coverage, no deductible or co-pays. Even if it was the same, it's still a wash. You're eliminating an expense for a tax. Plus, you're not paying for some executive's perks and exorbitant salary.

Personally, I'd feel better paying $50,000-$75,000/year to a government administrator than $10M-$20M/year + perks to a CEO.

ColoradoJack -> Andy Womack , 31 Jul 2019 12:10
Obama was simply being honest there. By any standard, Obama, both Clinton's, Gore (except for climate change) and Biden are at best moderate Republicans. Each would qualify as being to the right of Richard Nixon (leaving aside the issue of integrity).
In the case of Bill Clinton, Americans had not got woken to the fact that, while a little less by Democrats, the middle class was nontheless being screwed by both parties. Obama's rhetoric was enough cover to fool the public into thinking he would fight for real change. Both Gore and especially Hillary showed what the public now thinks of "moderates". Bernie Sanders and/or Elizabeth Warren are the only chances to beat Trump in 2020.
Eisenhower , 31 Jul 2019 11:13
Reparations for slavery, the elimination of private insurance, free health care for anyone who overstays a visa or walks over from Mexico, and a crystal lady.

We are in trouble. My nightmare of a Trump re-election is more and more likely.

MoonlightTiger -> BaronVonAmericano , 31 Jul 2019 11:13
I believe it is. Ha
BaronVonAmericano -> thepianist , 31 Jul 2019 11:11
The general election poses an obvious vote against Trump.

Virtually 100% of the decision-making you have about what future we might want is in the primary.

Staying out of the primary debates is tantamount to abandoning all political power.

BaronVonAmericano , 31 Jul 2019 11:05
Warren and Sanders clearly demonstrated that a party wanting to win should nominate one of them.

They enthralled the audience, and showed they possess a vision for the future that every other Democratic candidate claims to eventually want, when there's time, maybe, perhaps if they get a majority someday.

Cmank1 , 31 Jul 2019 10:54
Clearly Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were the clear winners of the night! They shamed the listless other candidates, none of whom exhibited a similar energy, excitement & vision for the future of the country. Despite a definite veneer of displeasure by your account, both the audience at the event, and those watching at home felt the excitement of progressive proposals won the day.
KMdude , 31 Jul 2019 10:46
The winner of the debate was Trump.

When Sanders declared he's in favor of free healthcare and free education for illegal immigrants there was -at best - muted criticism from the other candidates.

Most Americans are likely outraged by this suggestion and this will play in Trump's favor.

DontFanMeBro , 31 Jul 2019 10:39
It's obvious that John Delaney is simply a plant by Big Business (which has both the centrist Democrats and all of Republicans in its pocket) to troll and derail the candidacy of progressives Sanders and Warren. His sole function is to throw a monkey wrench in their path and be a "nattering nabob of negativism" (to quote Agnew) regarding their policies. That's all he does all day and all night, and the centrist-loving moderators and journalists love giving him infinite time to do his damage
Haigin88 , 31 Jul 2019 04:42
The answer is obvious: if you want your best shot at 86-ing the orange pestilence, then it has to be Warren/Sanders or Sanders/Warren. You're not supposed to signal your vice-president until after you've got the nomination, I know, but surely having Trump as president has shredded all previous norms? Go now, right now, and say that it'll be you two. You can even keep it open and say that you don't know who'll head the ticket but it will be Warren and Sanders. That would crush all opposition and keep churning interesting as a guessing game.

Maybe Warren should head the ticket. I know that Sanders is very sharp and he plays basketball but if he was president then he'd be asking for a second term and to get sworn in when he's 83 and being in one's eighties might be too much of a psychological barrier. My suggestion, though, would be it's Sanders/Warren but on the promise that Sanders will step aside during his first term, after two years and one day (meaning that Warren could serve out the rest of the term and still then run for two more terms under her own steam).

That would guarantee the first female president and so quieten down the phoney-baloney identity politics drones; better, it would mean that the US would get an excellent leader in Elizabeth Warren, no matter her bodily organs; it would pull together the Crooked H. adherents and get them on side, if they truly care about getting female in there and if it doesn't it will expose them as the phonies they are. And it would keep matters on policy, when Trump is weak, rather than personalities, which is the territory on which Trump wants to fight.

[Aug 01, 2019] A poorly paid actor for the ruling class

Aug 01, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com

BaronVonAmericano -> overtheseaandfaraway , 31 Jul 2019 08:28

Delaney is not a moderate, he is a poorly paid actor for the ruling class. He had a miserable debate performance, like his peers in the second tier set of candidates. That any of the press is attempting to rehabilitate his performance is a sign of extreme bias, not an accurate portrayal of the car crash that transpired last night for his campaign.
BaronVonAmericano , 31 Jul 2019 08:19
Post debate analysis is breathtaking in it's unanimity: everyone in the establishment press is doing what they can to ignore the fact that Sanders and Warren knocked it out of the park.

Contrary to the mandatory company line, this was not a debate between moderates and progressives; this was a debate between people who want to do something and those who have been hired to stall progress, and it has never been so apparent as it was in this lively debate.

I think the corporate media knows this, which is why they are desperately spinning this in any other way but that Warren and Sanders were the most viable and competent candidates on the stage.

Without question, their performance killed the candidacy of every other person on the stage.

clarityofthought -> ID9742876 , 31 Jul 2019 08:19
Thanks for a serious response (most of the others were just reactions founded on confirmation bias)

You make a good point. Even the conservatives here are on that socialist spectrum in that there is extensive state intervention (NHS, welfare, care, regulation etc). That intervention is to stay irrespective of some of the scare stories for the simple reason no one will get elected on a platform of doing away with it.

In basic terms terms the key difference between "right" and "left" is how to best pay for that state intervention. Incentives and a degree of market freedom versus a state controlled economy and more radical distribution.

So yes the term socialist is often used to scare people by the right - just as the left use "tories" to scare people ["24 hours to save the NHS" anyone?].

There is a reason why centrism has largely prevailed in the west. Its evolved in a Darwin like way as being the best balance for peoples views and expectations. I suspect radical change - left or right - will end up as a major disappointment

[Aug 01, 2019] Medicare is not healthcare. It is health insurance.

Aug 01, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com

DanceswithSkunks , 31 Jul 2019 09:39

Sanders and Warren harp on about medicare for all being "free health care".

Let me make one thing clear: Medicare is not healthcare. It is health insurance.

Medicare administrators never touch a patient, they push paperwork around and oversee payment for services rendered by medical professionals. Throwing a third of a billion people onto a system that currently administers care for a hundred million is a recipe for disaster, especially if providers, unable to make a profit, decide to get out of the business. We already have a shortage of doctors and nurses and care facilities in many parts of the country, this is certain to make the problem worse.

What do the candidates propose to do about funding for advanced care if all people are entitled to free organ transplants? There are new cancer therapies, taylor-made for each patient, which show astonishing promise, but cost half a million dollars per patient. Medical care already eats up a sixth of our economy, want to double that? Remember, we also have to tackle climate change at the same time.

Much of Europe has socialized medicine and most European countries permit private insurance, usually as a supplement to the public system. Private patients may receive better, or at least more luxurious, care, but they also take a load off the public system. If the democrats really wanted to make life better for those on the bottom of the income spectrum, they might consider government financing of existing urgent care facilities which are popping up all over the place (there are four in my town of 35,000). Imagine being able to walk in to a "doc-in-a-box", pay $20 and get diagnosed for your flu, high blood pressure, sutures for a cut, or an X-ray for that twisted/possibly broke ankle. Currently, many such patients go to ERs where they receive treatment at many times the $90 walk-in cost of the average urgent care shop.

Consider delivering minor care at schools. Why do I have to take my kids to a doctor to get the immunizations required to attend school or sports physicals. The kids are at school, give 'em their shots and exams there. That way there will be less weaseling out.

This wouldn't be the all encompassing solution that Sanders and Warren are dreaming of, but it would represent a solid start and might intercept unwell patients before they become acute or chronic cases.

By the way, Mr Sanders, stop waving your arms about. The WSJ has a photo of you on its online edition that has you looking like an ape in a cage.

AmericanAnglo , 31 Jul 2019 09:36
Health care in the US is the most bloated, wasteful and needlessly complex issue facing US citizens today. As Bernie says it should be a human right for each citizen of the wealthiest country on earth. Americans need to understand what a socialized health system is, indeed, they need to understand what socialism is, they conflate it with communism, no one seems to want to explain the difference which would go a long way to gaining wide spread acceptance. Education is another monumental waste of resources. Far too many kids go to college who are not suited to academic endeavor, many take more than four years to graduate an undergraduate degree if they graduate at all, that is not to say they should not be provided a vocational option if they wish. A healthy and educated workforce makes social, economic, and political sense.
diesel02 -> GERALD710 , 31 Jul 2019 09:33
"Many Americans love the quality of healthcare they get."

They may love it for now but as drug prices climb, co pays climb and heaven help us ACA gets repealed then what? At least the dems, particularly the "progressives" are pulling out of the business as usual model.

Lots of folks decried FDR's New Deal, even hated it - until it put a paycheck in their hand. They could yell all they wanted about government programs but their children appreciated not starving.

Vincent Gallagher , 31 Jul 2019 06:11
Neither Warren or Sanders is advocating 'outlawing' private healthcare. That is a disingenuous term. They are offering what is common to all western democracies, universal healthcare. Obamacare is a gift to the insurance industry and not a platform for anything other than increased profit by the insurance industry. It was taken from a plan by the Heritage Foundation. It is not a legacy worth preserving, Medicare for all is the alternative and a very good one. Rich people can keep their expensive plans and continue to pay-out-the-ass, which they can easily afford.
All the blather by the conservative corporate Democrats posing as moderates is, of course, self-serving and the nonsense about concerns for union healthcare plans is absurd. I was a Union member, a chief steward, sat on the bargaining committee and was a representative to the national: universal healthcare or Medicare for all is an excellent idea, as Mr. Sanders asserts it would allow wage increases ans eliminate the biggest obstacle in contract negotiations which is the cost of health insurance. The cost of which continually was increasing by double digits, along with increases in co-pays. In fact, the increased costs forced the abandonment of what was a superior insurance plan to one that was inferior.
Delaney, is the former CEO of CapitalSource, essentially a loan-sharking operation (a testament by Forbes), involved in foreclosure scams. HealthCare Financial Partners is another Delaney entity worth examining for its less than ethical practices, which in the business world where Delaney dwells, is an unspoken word or determinant.
Delaney bundled together $800,000 for HRC, which bought him the endorsement of Bill Clinton when Delaney ran for higher office. He is conservative and wedded to the profit motive and could care less about ordinary citizens. The current businessman inhabiting the presidency is more than a cautionary tale, which applies to Delaney. He is a conservative Clintonite and embraces the rather malleable ethics of the Clintons, essentially amoral.
butmaroo -> chunkychips , 31 Jul 2019 06:11
Surely.
Douglas White , 31 Jul 2019 06:10
Honestly, only the very dimmest of dimwits would categorize ELIMINATING the $400/month average middle class families pay for Health Insurance Premiums and replacing it with a $250/Month Average payment to the government as 'raising taxes' on those people. If you doubt that, ask yourself why the largest corporations AREN'T screaming about 'raised taxes' if we go to Medicare for All.... it's because they can do the math, and they know that eliminating the $750/month average that THEY pay in Premium contributions PER EMPLOYEE will benefit them much more than the accompanying 'tax increase for M4A...

When the OVERALL COST of the system goes down around 15% (Private Insurance 'overhead' increases costs 20%+, Medicare is just under 6%), EVERYONE saves in the long run....

[Aug 01, 2019] Biden's key advantage is his appeal to the affluent white middle class secret Trump supporters who came out in droves.

Aug 01, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com

ID9059125 -> Uriel238 , 31 Jul 2019 10:14

You're wrong. A Neocon will bridge the divide between what we have now (Full on Crazy Town Heading for WW3) and what a Biden/Klobuchar could lead to: Eg - a Warren or a Beto.
Gives people time to realize "hey. this cheaper health care and no student fees and $15 dollar minimum wage aint so bad!!!" <face palm>
ID9059125 -> jaytjohnson , 31 Jul 2019 10:11
Biden's key advantage is his appeal to the affluent white middle class secret Trump supporters who came out in droves.
A Biden/Klobuchar ticket could be the strongest "right wing" combination for the Dems.
ID9059125 , 31 Jul 2019 10:02
As an overall observation and the way these debates are promoted and run, how depressing they are as a commentary on America. It's turned into a sporting, showbiz event, each candidate given one pesky minute to try and get something across.
Short doses for America's short attention span. Let's just be done with it and combine the f****** election with an episode of The Bachelor or f****** Kardashians. It makes me sick.
SamDobermann -> ScoundrelDaysSon , 31 Jul 2019 09:59
Before a "Medicare for All" (M4A) bill got near a vote there would be massive negative advertising against it. Don't you remember when we were working on getting the ACA passed how the "Tea Party" was formed -- with plenty of $$ from those opposed to any changes in health care provisioning & financing -- & they went into insane rages & attacks? We got the T-Party Republicans out of it who still bedevil us today.

The NHS was born out of WWII when Britain had to provide hospitals & clinics all around the country because so many people were pushed out of London & into the boonies. More building occurred centrally to care for the military & vets so there were government owned facilities everywhere.

Here in the US the veteran's Medical facilities are totally separate & jealously held so & if Bernie wants to fold them into his scheme he'll have to go over or through the bodies of all the Vets in America who feel they've earned their care.

A third of all the people in Medicare have *chosen to use a privatized version* which while it limits choice of providers has some added goodies like health clubs. They will fight change as will people with retirement programs that they "earned."

Your last statement actually is astute: "I genuinely believe that unless the slate is completely wiped clean in the short to medium term you'll never have Medicare for all work, last, or garner public support in the way of the NHS, say."

That's true. Truly you can't get there from here. Britain had no system provisioning health care for people in general. They had an almost blank slate. They didn't have to take away something of value from millions of people. That is what Obama knew. You can add on, you can work on underlying problems, you can augment and improve coverage but you can't trash the whole system that so many people rely on.

We need universal coverage for all that want it. There will always be some left out. (Can you mention Trumps & other ultra rich taking part in any insurance for the peasantry). Medicare which has been in existence for 50 years (with much tinkering along the way) covers just 95% of seniors; 5% are completely left out. If you use that as an analogy we would find 5% of 330 million or about 16 million won't be covered AT BEST.

[Aug 01, 2019] Biden thinks we can win a war with Russia. That is insane.

Aug 01, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com

curiouswes -> ildfluer , 31 Jul 2019 07:29

Please


As much as I have stated how badly I want Trump impeached, I honestly think Biden would be worse for America and the world, than Trump. Biden thinks we can win a war with Russia. That is insane. No sane person wants nuclear holocaust. However Biden thinks these neoliberal propensities can continue without consequence.

Tulsi understands that you can't keep poking Russia with a stick. If you recall, HRC wanted to set up a no fly zone over Syria while Russia was flying combat missions in Syria. That is the type of neoliberal bullshit that can lead to nuclear holocaust. If you have the time watch this old video

If you took the time to watch the video, you should be able to see how the CIA will resume its effort under Biden and Biden's vision is clear from this article he wrote just last year .

[Jul 31, 2019] ET TU, TULSI???

The far left wants too much form Tulsi. You can't fight on two fronts when attacking the the neocon foreign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... Israel is the litmus test issue in American politics for a lot of good reasons. It may or may not be the worst regime in the world. There are a lot of bad ones competing for that title, many of whom we support. But Israel is the candidate we not only support but sponsor and champion to the point where it is at times very very hard to tell who is leading and who is following, between Israel and the US. This seems to have a lot to do with the end-times preoccupations that seem to have been at the heart of what passes for American spirituality since the earliest colonial days. ..."
Jul 31, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Circe , Jul 29 2019 17:07 utc | 34

ET TU, TULSI???

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51998.htm

I should always trust my instincts. Attending an event hosted by the Adelsons was disturbing enough, but I trusted people here instead and brushed off my suspicions.

She's finished!

paul , Jul 29 2019 19:17 utc | 38

Israel is the litmus test issue in American politics for a lot of good reasons. It may or may not be the worst regime in the world. There are a lot of bad ones competing for that title, many of whom we support. But Israel is the candidate we not only support but sponsor and champion to the point where it is at times very very hard to tell who is leading and who is following, between Israel and the US. This seems to have a lot to do with the end-times preoccupations that seem to have been at the heart of what passes for American spirituality since the earliest colonial days.

Gabbard has now broken a lot of hopes. She has jumped the shark spectacularly, shamelessly craving the support of the 'Israel Lobby'. Her claims to be against the regime change wars when these wars are relentlessly pushed by the Israel Lobby she is now shamelessly courting?!!!

I suppose we can hope that Tulsi takes a flying leap back over the shark, say by visiting Gaza the way she recently visited Puerto Rico. If she doesn't now make a huge point of it, in words and actions, that she will NOT be yet another tool of the Israel Lobby, the neocons, the neolibs, etc., then she must be opposed as the turncoat shill she now seems to be.

Jason , Jul 29 2019 21:51 utc | 42
No use wasting breath on Gabbard. Trump vs. Biden in 2020 with Trump taking the Midwest and the electoral college like 2016 is unavoidable. If undermining Gabbard is your deal, I'd wait until 2024.
Jackrabbit , Jul 29 2019 21:54 utc | 43
Circe, Paul, Nottheonly1, and everyone

I took a lot of flak when I pointed out the simple truth that Gabbard is not against war and not against US/NATO imperialism but simply against "regime change wars" that USA failed to win.

Trump was also against dumb wars and his imperialist detractors called him an isolationist - but that was merely a neat way to burnish his populist credentials. Trump has acted much like his imperialist predecessors who hedge their peace talk with exceptionalist morality that requires utmost strength in a "dangerous world". And these faux democratic leaders are all-too-willing to lead the propaganda effort when called upon to support Deep State objectives.

Democracy Works! (no, not for YOU)

It's for the children! (no, not YOUR children)

Welcome to the rabbit hole.

OutOfThinAir , Jul 29 2019 22:40 utc | 45
Gabbard reminds me that the leaders of every nation should be watching re-runs of Mister Roger's Neighborhood and apply its lessons to the abstract and Alpha-male dominated world of international relations.

I'm only half-joking. In a world of technological parity, real-time communication, and rapid travel the importance of being a good neighbor has never been more important. At the minimum, that means doing no harm and, at the max, doing nice things with no expectations.

Alas, we're stuck with countries building walls, using prosperity as a weapon, and thinking that power never waxes and wanes. Shame that human wisdom hasn't kept up with material progress.

Pft , Jul 29 2019 22:47 utc | 46
I had an uneasy interest/hope in/for Gabbard. No more after she sold herself to Israeli interests.

Lets face it, nobody worth his/her salt can get close to the Presidency without being backed by one or more factions of the elite. The unrepresented bottom 90% (non military/vet) simply has no representation, and more than half are too stupid to know it.

Change for the better will never happen under the present system. The US and the world will continue falling into the abyss. One day soon the people find out what that means. Thats when the gloves come off. Nowhere to hide then. Serve your masters well or be disappeared.

Jackrabbit , Jul 29 2019 23:38 utc | 47
Jason @42 is right. Gabbard was never going to make it anyway. She's there because fake democratic choice is the establishment's way of cementing their control.

As in:

=

Democracy Works! (no, not for YOU)

It's for the children! (no, not YOUR children)

Welcome to the rabbit hole.

SteveK9 , Jul 30 2019 13:33 utc | 84
Gabbard: One can either give up participating (definitely an option) or look for the best alternative to doing nothing. As pointed out by others there is a power structure in America, which cannot be opposed in totality.

On the other hand, politicians are famous for not keeping their promises. There is the possibility of not keeping promises to Adelson as well. One person can only do so much, even the President. So, we have to keep supporting alternatives, if there is any chance at all to change direction. Outside forces are definitely going to help here ... Russia and China are busy building a new 'World Order' which will be very good for America, when we finally give up the Empire.

Environmental fanatics: The two essential factors in preserving Earth's ecosystem are: 1) limit to human population ... I believe this is happening and human population will reach a peak and begin to decline I think best estimates are ~ 2050 at 10 billion, 2) widespread, near total replacement of fossil energy use by nuclear power, which can easily be made to have virtually zero environmental impact, while allowing a high standard of living for Earth's entire population.

[Jul 31, 2019] Gabbard says she will end these endless regime-change wars and use the "trillions of dollars we have been wasting on these wars and these weapons" on domestic spending.

Jul 31, 2019 | www.bloomberg.com

Jodi Schneider Senior International Editor Gabbard says she will " end these endless regime-change wars " and use the "trillions of dollars we have been wasting on these wars and these weapons" on domestic spending.

Gabbard
Photographer: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

[Jul 31, 2019] Kamala Harris discovered that roasting Establishment candidate Biden early on didn't help her in the end.

Jul 31, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com

ildfluer -> Canajin , 31 Jul 2019 22:26

They're trying to get rid of Harris and Biden. I'm not sure it's a bad thing. Harris was always going to get drowned by her own record as California's AG. And Biden... meh.
ildfluer -> SilverTui , 31 Jul 2019 20:03
One of them. Warren eviscerating Delaney was another. Or her saying that Democrats are not the Republicans, wanting to take healthcare away... Then, there was Buttigieg saying that no matter what they do, the Republicans would call them socialists anyway, so who cares.
Aldous0rwell , 31 Jul 2019 19:55
Kabaservice's comment:

...whether the Democrats will end up moving too far to the left to be able to defeat Trump in 2020...

reflects a poorly conceived (false) dichotomy about what "the left" is. When he says "the left" what does he even mean?

There's the socialist left , which seeks to provide good working conditions and pay, and better wealth distributions among the populace. This could be a huge boon to any group suffering under the current economic system - including groups which Trump appealed to in the last election but has utterly failed to do anything for.

There's the identity politics left which Hillary and the Neo-liberals (and the Republicans, actually) embrace as a form of marketing strategy and use to promote free-market ideology.

There's the "Democrat Party" (DNC) left which really stands for little more than party rhetoric any more and vehemently supports Neo-liberalism.

And there's the environmentalist left which sees Global Climate destabilization as the #1 issue facing the planet (a position loathed by the Neo-liberals and identitarians).

There are also combinations and permutations of all these "lefts".

So when Kabaservice says he fears the Democrats moving too far to the left, he's conflating all sorts of things, murkily hiding his intents behind his ill-defined terminology.

ildfluer -> goulot , 31 Jul 2019 19:55
He was about to drop out of the race before the debate. He should've done so, Warren eviscerated him.
ildfluer -> MohammedS , 31 Jul 2019 19:36
There are over 20 candidates. They need to tread carefully. Kamala Harris discovered that roasting Establishment candidate Biden early on didn't help her in the end.
ildfluer -> jimmsfairytales0com , 31 Jul 2019 19:30
The weirdos/corporate-shrills in the media are all slamming Sanders for his grumpiness and 'shouting'. I mean, the man is angry that people are dying because the Govt isn't looking after them. How's that a minus against Sanders's personality??? Everyone should be mad as hell. I'm a big fan of Warren but no-one can dispute that Sanders is a good man.
salsabil , 31 Jul 2019 18:50
Delaney - the multi millionaire - looked like he had been entrusted by CNN (and probably the DNC) to be the first of many attack dogs against Sanders and Warren. He was probably meant to appear the voice of reason, speaking rational politics to make make them seem like extremists, but he came across as dumb and sounded like a spokesperson for the very vested interests that will be threatened most by Sanders´ and Warren´s plans. And that gormless face will surely be the subject of memes for years to come!

I think I read somewhere that 87% of US elections are won by the candidate with the most money. And since most money comes from the millionaires and their lobbyists the DNC establishment clearly would rather work for those with most, than for those in most need. A bit like the Blairite nest within Corbyn´s Labour Party. And what John Delaney was saying was exactly why ordinary people are so disillusioned with regular politicians - especially those of the so-called ´left´- and why they become so easily taken-in by populists like Trump.

When the right get in they always do stuff for their paymasters. Big stuff. They steal public funds through tax cuts for the rich and the corporations. They repeal protections for workers, and allow Big Oil to destroy the environment. They bloat the budget for the military industrial complex and allow the US Military machine to be used as a private army for the corporations´insatiable resource grab. And they let Wall Street do what it wants.

When the so called parties of the left get in - be they Democrats, Labour, SPD or whoever -they usually do diddly squat. Because deals have usually been made not to shake anything up. Not even to correct the injustices enacted by their predecessors. I saw a stat about US government tax revenues that showed how 50 years ago 33% came from companies and only about 10% came from incomes; today those numbers are reversed. It´s no wonder millions are becoming desperate for change.

I´m sure the DNC and its paymasters will no doubt try to learn something from the debate, to better prep Joe Biden when he steps into the ring, probably against Sanders OR Warren. I can´t see him going up against both of them. But also to better rig future debates against Sanders and Warren, perhaps to try to divide them. Though, to be fair to CNN, they did a pretty good job. But it clearly failed.

What will be interesting will be watching how the adult-in-room MSM switches from incessant Trump bashing to doing everything it can to stop Sanders and Warren. I fear that it will get dirty, and relentless, and both will be attacked, labelled and misrepresented. But if a moderate candidate - like Honest Joe Biden - is jerrymandered into position up against Trump in 2020 then I fear that we are all fucked.

This is the last chance.

That goes for you too Guardian.

circuit -> daguard41 , 31 Jul 2019 14:31
Warren/Sanders. Everyone else looks Republican-Lite, or corporate shill.

[Jul 31, 2019] Biden's closing was really awkward. He looks semi-senile and ends night with gaffe after gaffe

Jul 31, 2019 | www.bloomberg.com

Derek Wallbank Senior Breaking News Editor dwallbank Biden's closing was really awkward.
First, he talked about eight more years of Trump (which isn't possible because of term limits), then he seemed to confuse a text-message donation appeal with his web address. Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 10:52:00 PM Steven Dennis Congressional Reporter StevenTDennis "If you agree with me, go to Joe 3-0-3-0 and help me in this fight," Biden said. That's going to blow up on Twitter. Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 10:50:04 PM Ari Natter Energy and Environment Reporter AriNatter Biden tries to encourage viewers to text "JOIN" to 30330 to get involved, but he flubs the ask. Awkward . Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 10:48:33 PM Steven Dennis Congressional Reporter StevenTDennis " Eight more years of Donald Trump" would change America in a fundamental way -- a bit of a flub there. Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 10:48:08 PM Jodi Schneider Senior International Editor "The America we know will no longer exist ," if Trump is re-elected, Biden says. Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 10:47:50 PM Daniel Flatley Congress Reporter DanielPFlatley "We're in a battle for the soul of America," Biden says.

Biden
Photographer: Scott Olson/Getty Images

[Jul 31, 2019] Lambert Strether

Jul 31, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

July 30, 2019 at 9:59 pm

Sanders: "Elizabeth is exactly right." On trade.

Adding, Warren keeps saying "suck profits out." Vivid!

Reply

DonCoyote , July 30, 2019 at 10:03 pm

"You're gonna hear a giant sucking sound ". Yup, Ross, we heard it

Lambert Strether Post author , July 30, 2019 at 10:05 pm

Guardian editorializing in the photo at the top of their live blog . Accurately, I would say.

Of course, it's "just business." Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Lambert Strether Post author , July 30, 2019 at 10:45 pm

Warren: "We beat it by being the party of big structural change." The issue is whether "regulation" is big enough and structural enough.

Sanders: "To stand with the working class* of American that for the last 45 years has been decimated." Then the Canada bus trip. "We need a mass political movement. Take on the greed and the corruption of the ruling class of this country." Plugs website.

Sanders was better; working the bus trip in was good.

NOTE * Guardian paraphrase : "Bernie Sanders pledged to stand by the US middle class , recounting his recent trip to Canada to emphasize the high price of insulin in America." Lol.

WheresOurTeddy , July 31, 2019 at 4:24 am

The allergy to the phrase "working class" is not accidental. They want as many Americans as possible thinking they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

As someone who has spent most of my life in the working class, made it to the middle, got knocked down again, and made my way back up to the middle again, there is most certainly a difference.

Jessica , July 31, 2019 at 4:49 am

When was the last time (if ever) that someone said the words "ruling class" in a presidential debate? (I assume that Eugene Debs was never invited to any presidential debate.)
Even that Bernie said "working class" won points with me. Typical of the Guardian to change it to "middle class".
Williamson was impressive.
I liked that Warren showed fire and guts. Her policies would be a real change for the better, especially if pushed farther. My real question about her is whether she would stand up to the other side and fight to win.
For me, the biggest difference between Bernie and Warren is that I am starting to hope that Warren would really fight, but I know Bernie would.

Spring Texan , July 31, 2019 at 10:37 am

I like Bernie better, but I like Warren too, and I *DO* trust her to fight.

The big tell was when she went to Washington as a Senator and Larry Summers said don't criticize us in public if you want to be part of the club, and she not only ignored that but told on him publicly!

Two actually GOOD people! They were my dream team last night.

nippersmom , July 30, 2019 at 10:46 pm

Warren paraphrased Sanders stump speech.

Lambert Strether Post author , July 30, 2019 at 10:50 pm

In academic terms, yes.

Watching Warren's reactions was really interesting. I think the sheer stupidity of centrist arguments really ticks her off, which speaks well of her.

scarn , July 30, 2019 at 11:07 pm

I agree. I'm highly skeptical of Warren delivering anything (especially a victory), and I don't really trust her to try very hard to implement her plans. Watching her in this debate opened a thin crack in my icy wall of distrust. I hope she proves me wrong.

skippy , July 31, 2019 at 4:28 am

Eh . Warren for all her sociopolitical baggage is a completely different animal to the Blue Dog Corporatist DNC fundie or the Free Market Conservative slash Goat picked me to administrate reality for everyone dilemma.

But yeah feel [tm] free [tm] to play curricular firing squad and then wonder why ones head is sore from the effects of banging on an sacrilegious edifice .

Lambert Strether Post author , July 30, 2019 at 10:47 pm

And now the spin doctors!

I think a photo finish by Sanders and Warren, Buttigieg in the running followed by Klobuchar, Beto fading, the centrists losing big, Williamson a dark horse coming up on the outside.

[Jul 31, 2019] Democratic Debate Warren and Sanders Stand Pat, but Look Out for Marianne by
Jim Geraghty

By one key metric -- Google interest -- Marianne Willamson was the dominant figure of the debate. and that's tells a lot about debate aorgnizers which are not interested in real political debase. Just interested in the debate as a political show. They are too interested in promoted identity politics to devide the electorate, to allow discussion of really important for the nation question such as rampant militarism.
Notable quotes:
"... A lot of liberals will love her for her quip, "I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running to the president of the United States to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for." ..."
"... Of course, she's celebrating one of the big problems in our political system -- no presidential candidate wants to acknowledge the limits of the power of the office, the presence of the opposition party, judicial review, the inherent difficulties of enacting sweeping changes through legislation, or the limit of government policy to solve problems in society. ..."
"... One of the reasons Americans are so cynical is that they've seen plenty of politicians come and go, with almost every one of them promising the moon and very few living up to the hype. ..."
Jul 31, 2019 | www.nationalreview.com

A lot of liberals will love her for her quip, "I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running to the president of the United States to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for."

Of course, she's celebrating one of the big problems in our political system -- no presidential candidate wants to acknowledge the limits of the power of the office, the presence of the opposition party, judicial review, the inherent difficulties of enacting sweeping changes through legislation, or the limit of government policy to solve problems in society.

One of the reasons Americans are so cynical is that they've seen plenty of politicians come and go, with almost every one of them promising the moon and very few living up to the hype.

Advertisement

Warren shamelessly insisted that the government could pay for quality health care for every American -- and illegal immigrants, too! -- just by raising taxes on billionaires and big corporations. Warren made clear tonight that she's not going to let a little thing like fiscal reality get in between her and the nomination.

... ... ...

Tonight was another night where you could easily forget Amy Klobuchar was on stage. Back when Klobuchar's campaign was in the nascent stage, people wondered how "Minnesota nice" would play on a national debate stage. We can now declare it boring, predictable, and forgettable.

[Jul 31, 2019] Second, Sanders extracted several billion dollars for community health centers as his price for supporting the Obamacare bill. That was the benefit of Sanders being "there," unmentioned by Axelrod. He wasn't a passive observer, he improved the Obamacare bill.

Jul 31, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Lambert Strether Post author , July 30, 2019 at 11:32 pm

During the hot takes, Axelrod, of Sanders on #MedicareForAll. Basically, this is hard, Obama wanted a public option and couldn't do it. Then:

He [Sanders] was there, he knows that what he's talking about won't happen any time soon.

First, Obama was never serious about the public option (itself an unserious bait-and-switch operation by liberals). He cut a deal with Big Pharma to drop it in exchange for some now forgotten price breaks -- and kept it secret, so his deluded followers could pretend it was still on the table.

Second, Sanders extracted several billion dollars for community health centers as his price for supporting the bill. That was the benefit of Sanders being "there," unmentioned by Axelrod. He wasn't a passive observer, he improved the bill.

Third, Sanders does not know #MedicareForAll will "not happen anytime soon." Axelrod cannot accept Sanders's theory of change, partly because it was destroy his personal business model, partly because the professional base of the Democrats opposes expanding the base to working class voters tooth and nail.

Fourth, Axelrod just outright said Sanders is a liar. Hopefully, the campaign calls him out for that.

[Jul 31, 2019] Did you hear what this other candidate said about your mother??!!?!?"

Jul 31, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

JohnnyGL , July 30, 2019 at 9:37 pm

Seriously, some of these questions are like, "Did you hear what this other candidate said about your mother??!!?!?"

Mark Gisleson , July 31, 2019 at 11:29 am

This is the David Yepsen School of Reporting. Yepsen was a DM Register political analyst whose stock question formula was:

"[People whose names I won't mention] say [some horrible thing for which there is no proof and so legitimate media has been ignoring it] and what is your response to that?"

Yepsen single-handedly laundered countless specious rightwing attacks on Democrats in Iowa by inserting rumors into interviews and even debate questions, and when the candidates responded, the rumors became legit "news" stories. He then became the Dean of Iowa Reporters which meant that every four years, the national press corps kissed his ass for Iowa Caucus stories.

No longer reporting, he now teaches reporting.

[Jul 31, 2019] I always thought that it a weakness on Bernie's part that he never says that he stands for traditional American values. Stuff like being able to give your opinion, the right to vote and have it counted,

Bernie: I do know it. I wrote the damn bill! The Guardian live blog is good
Most of the "Democrats" on the stage are Republicans in disguise. Bernie is one of the few who is not.
"By calling yourself a capitalist are you trying to convince voters you are a safer choice than Senator Sanders?" Great.
Jul 31, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

The Rev Kev , July 30, 2019 at 8:34 pm

From my Antipodean seat, I always thought that it a weakness on Bernie's part that he never says that he stands for traditional American values. Stuff like being able to give your opinion, the right to vote and have it counted, not to be harassed by a militarized police, having an opportunity to get a decent paying job and be protected by a union, being able to earn enough to have a home, to seek education without being subjected to a lifetime of debt enslavement for your choice. Stuff like that.
Not so much a Norman Rockwell version of America but making America a land of opportunity for all and not just a wealthy minority. That would grab a lot of people's attention. Maybe he should come out and say; "Hey, wages in this country have not gone up in forty years. So just where exactly did all those trillions of dollars go that should have gone into your pockets over all those years?" Put his opposition on the spot trying to defend the indefensible.

mejimenez , July 31, 2019 at 9:37 am

It's a tough call. Bernie has been hugely successful in moving the Overton Window much further to the left in 4 years than I thought possible. That progress is at least partially due to his consistent dogmatism about terminology. For a good analysis of how that works, see https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/320907-dems-worry-too-much-about-upsetting-others-that-needs .

But I wonder if the very important work of educating the public via a reframing of fundamental concepts is the same work as getting elected and actually leading the country. Bernie on occasion explains that what he means by socialism is close to FDR's vision, but that's not how the vast majority of the electorate understands the term. It's unlikely that there is enough time before the 2020 election to change the typical voter's default definitions for that and related words.

Map/territory confusion is the root of idolatry. Getting stuck on the word comes off as stubbornness, or worse. AOC, for example, is much looser when pressed with the typical neoliberal talking points and quickly shifts to the underlying policies and values.

There are aspects to the M4A disagreements among the Democratic candidates that seem to revolve around a similar confusion, that between the destination and the path.

ambrit , July 30, 2019 at 9:48 pm

... My idea of a "Unity Candidate" is that it will be Hillary again. Hillary channeling Sisyphus; "Roll away the stone!"
Got another DCCC begging letter today. The title of it was "2019 Official Democratic Unity Survey."
The fix is in already.

Grant , July 30, 2019 at 8:42 pm

I place no value in this, no matter how well Bernie does. It is theater, and if Bernie does well, he does well at theater. Maybe it matters, it shouldn't, but it is a horrible forum to focus on policy and the fact that CNN can host this debate is infuriating. I would love just one debate to be hosted by the DSA, or at least an actually leftist media outlet. You know, pretending that the Democrats are on the left and could take questions from leftists on policy. I know it would never happen, but imagine how the questions would be framed if it was. Biden would be toast, as he would have no real defense of his horrific record in office. As it is, some overpaid hack will ask questions framed in a misleading way and will not give enough time to the candidate to flesh out an answer, especially if the issue is complex. If the USSR had elections and one party member vs another could take power if enough people voted in what was clearly a rigged process, would it be radically different than this? They might have had Pravda moderating it, we have CNN. Is there a huge difference there too?

Librarian Guy , July 30, 2019 at 8:46 pm

You are completely correct. CNN wants to pit the Dems against each other and run the clock out, drain as much substance possible from the arguments. Delaney and Frackenlooper (along w/ Klobuchar) also have a 100% corporate orientation. "Pravda" redux, you nailed it.

Carey , July 30, 2019 at 9:25 pm

Sanders-Warren 2020? Nice to see her supporting him here.

Lambert Strether Post author , July 30, 2019 at 9:27 pm

I think that's the story of the debate so far; centrists smacked down. Warren and Sanders have both had the best lines (besides, I would urge, the best policy).

Adding, Warren, unlike Harris, did not betray Sanders on #MedicareForAll. That speaks well of her.

Monty , July 30, 2019 at 9:31 pm

Bernie looks much better tonight. Warren too. The rest of these characters look pathetic and should wrap up their campaigns at once.

flora , July 30, 2019 at 9:57 pm

Think this Gravel tweet captures the debate's dynamics.

https://twitter.com/MikeGravel/status/1156380051266506752

anon in so cal , July 30, 2019 at 9:59 pm

Yes, Gravel nails it:

"This stage perfectly captures the conflict in our politics today: Scions of wealth and power teaming up to face down the few true progressives this nation has -- they are fighting their hardest against progress, we need to hit back ten times harder."

[Jul 31, 2019] Kamala Harris is bad news both for crimate change and for low income folk

Jul 31, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

fake doctor in commercial: "do you or a loved one suffer from divisiveness"


mle in detroit ,

, July 30, 2019 at 10:32 pm

I just got this beg from AOC (who, btw, turns 35 on October 13, 2024). We'll probably hear about it tomorrow night:

That's why we're proud to announce the Climate Equity Act, a new bill that Alexandria will be introducing in the Fall with Kamala Harris, that would ensure that our work to combat the climate crisis is centered on social, racial, and economic justice for all.

Lambert Strether Post author , July 30, 2019 at 10:52 pm

Oy. AOC shouldn't get anywhere near Harris.

No Gig , July 30, 2019 at 11:19 pm

Absolutely, Kamala Harris is bad news. At this moment she is actively cosponsoring an immigration bill to further outsourcing of US professional jobs to the Indian slave traders.

Lambert Strether Post author , July 31, 2019 at 1:15 am

I saw a Harris poster a few cycles back where Harris ran as an [x] Indian [x] woman, not a [x] black [x] woman; I should dig it out. Trump will eat her for breakfast.

https://acdn.adnxs.com/ib/static/usersync/v3/async_usersync.html

https://c.deployads.com/sync?f=html&s=2343&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2019%2F07%2Flive-blog-democrat-presidential-primary-debate-3-in-detroit-first-night.html

https://eus.rubiconproject.com/usync.html <img src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=52041

ewmayer , July 30, 2019 at 11:30 pm

This story was in my Reuters feed this morning. Don't think much of the plan – it's basically a hypothetical piece of legislation which would be dependent on an improbable future one – but strictly based on the amusing wording of the headline Reuters used: "Harris, Ocasio-Cortez float plan to lift low-income communities in climate plans".

https://acdn.adnxs.com/ib/static/usersync/v3/async_usersync.html

https://c.deployads.com/sync?f=html&s=2343&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2019%2F07%2Flive-blog-democrat-presidential-primary-debate-3-in-detroit-first-night.html

https://eus.rubiconproject.com/usync.html <img src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=52041

lordkoos , July 31, 2019 at 1:24 am

Ugh doesn't AOC realize that Harris is just using her for some progressive cred?

[Jul 31, 2019] Beware of Mayor Pete

Jul 31, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

bruce , July 30, 2019 at 11:47 pm

Beware of Mayor Pete. I just saw a clip of him that reinforced my opinion that he's a smart guy. He does have the one potentially unfavorable demographic attribute, but it's 2019 and a lot of us have moved beyond that. I would pay money to see his first state visit to Saudi Arabia, and his husband stretching forth his hand to shake with Mohammed bin Bonesaw. Whatcha gonna do, Mohammed? Allah is watching! Is homosexuality contagious? [If it were, there would probably be a pickup subculture on this blog]. There's a good lad!

WheresOurTeddy , July 31, 2019 at 4:41 am

"He does have the one potentially unfavorable demographic attribute "

I know, he is polling at 0% with African Americans. ZERO!

pretzelattack , July 31, 2019 at 7:20 am

being a neoliberal shill is also potentially unfavorable.

[Jul 31, 2019] Team D would rather lose to Trump than reform. This is entirely consistent with The Iron Law of Oligarchy and especially The Iron Law of Institutions.

Notable quotes:
"... Only four candidates are consistently polling in the double digits: Biden, who recovered from his early debate stumbles and remains comfortably in the lead; Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has nevertheless mostly failed to recapture his 2016 magic; Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who seems ascendant; and Senator Kamala Harris of California, potentially the main threat to Biden's rock-solid black support. ..."
"... Gabbard has so far been unable to penetrate this madness despite being young (she's 38), attractive, telegenic, a military veteran, a woman of color, and an articulate, passionate opponent of the regime change wars that have brought our country so much pain. While reliably progressive, she has occasionally reached across the political divide on issues like religious liberty and Big Tech censorship, a potent combination that could prove more responsive to Trump voters' concerns than what we've heard from her neocon lite interlocutor from Youngstown. ..."
"... That's not to say that no one else running is sound on foreign policy -- Bernie has realist advisers and it took real courage for Warren to back Trump's abortive withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria -- and it required a Democratic House to advance the bipartisan Yemen resolution. But none of them are basing their campaigns on it in the same way Gabbard has. Nor do any of them better represent our military veterans' sharp turn against forever war, arguably the most important public opinion trend of our time. ..."
"... Unfortunately foreign policy and the forever war are not an issue that resonates with voters on either side. Here is an excerpt from NPR . ..."
"... The most important public opinion of our time is not the military realizing that forever war is bad, it's that climate change is occurring now. It is the only issue that will matter to our grandchildren and we haven't begun to deal with it. We need to get serious about this. "A stitch in time saves 9" comes to mind. ..."
"... Foreign policy does not elect American presidents. I like her, and support her, and think she's made valuable points. I hope it is heard. However, there was never any chance that her course would lead to the White House. ..."
Jul 31, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

It was already one of the most memorable moments of the Democratic presidential debates in this young election cycle. "Leaders as disparate as President Obama and President Trump have both said they want to end U.S. involvement in Afghanistan but it isn't over for America," observed moderator Rachel Maddow. "Why isn't it over? Why can't presidents of very different parties and very different temperaments get us out of there? And how could you?"

Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio responded with talking points that could have been ripped out of a George W. Bush speech circa 2004. "[T]he lesson that I've learned over the years is that you have to stay engaged in these situations," he said, later adding, "Whether we're talking about Central America, whether we're talking about Iran, whether we're talking about Afghanistan, we have got to be completely engaged."

Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was having none of it. "Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged?" she asked a sputtering Ryan. "As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan." Gabbard noted that she had joined the military to fight those who attacked us on 9/11, not to nation-build indefinitely in Afghanistan, and pointed out the perfidy of Saudi Arabia.

Some likened Gabbard's rebuke of Ryan to the famous 2007 exchange between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani . Except Paul, then a relatively unknown congressman from Texas, was speaking truth to power against "America's Mayor" and the national GOP frontrunner. Gabbard is polling at 0.8 percent in the national RealClearPolitics average, and was challenging someone at 0.3 percent.

Ryan's asterisk candidacy is unsurprising. But Gabbard has been perhaps the most interesting Democrat running for president and Wednesday night could be her last stand. She gets to share the stage with frontrunner Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton a vote for the Iraq war. There is no guarantee she will get another opportunity: the eligibility criteria for subsequent debates is more stringent and she has yet to qualify.

The huge Democratic field has been a bust. Of the more than 20 declared presidential candidates, only seven are polling at 2 percent or more in the national averages. Two more -- Senators Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar -- are polling at least that well in Iowa. Only four candidates are consistently polling in the double digits: Biden, who recovered from his early debate stumbles and remains comfortably in the lead; Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has nevertheless mostly failed to recapture his 2016 magic; Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who seems ascendant; and Senator Kamala Harris of California, potentially the main threat to Biden's rock-solid black support.

Low-polling candidates have still managed to have an impact. Some, like former secretary of housing and urban development Julian Castro, have helped coax contenders likelier to win the nomination to the left on immigration. We've thus seen Democrats raise their hands in support of decriminalizing illegal border crossings in the midst of a migrant crisis not entirely of the Trump administration's making, expanding Medicare to cover everyone even at the expense of private health insurance, and ensuring that "everyone" includes illegal immigrants. Transgender abortions, also at taxpayer expense, have come up too.

Gabbard has so far been unable to penetrate this madness despite being young (she's 38), attractive, telegenic, a military veteran, a woman of color, and an articulate, passionate opponent of the regime change wars that have brought our country so much pain. While reliably progressive, she has occasionally reached across the political divide on issues like religious liberty and Big Tech censorship, a potent combination that could prove more responsive to Trump voters' concerns than what we've heard from her neocon lite interlocutor from Youngstown.

The Tulsi Effect: Forcing War Onto the Democratic Agenda Memo to Trump: Trade Bolton for Tulsi

"None of this seems to matter in a Democratic Party that cares more about wokeness than war. In fact, Gabbard's conservative fans -- The View brought up Ann Coulter -- are often held against her, as is her failure to go all in on Trump-Russia. Ninety-five Democrats stand ready to impeach Trump over mean tweets with nary a peep over the near-bombing of Iran or the active thwarting of Congress's will on Yemen.

That's not to say that no one else running is sound on foreign policy -- Bernie has realist advisers and it took real courage for Warren to back Trump's abortive withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria -- and it required a Democratic House to advance the bipartisan Yemen resolution. But none of them are basing their campaigns on it in the same way Gabbard has. Nor do any of them better represent our military veterans' sharp turn against forever war, arguably the most important public opinion trend of our time.

Liberals remain skeptical of Gabbard's turn away from social conservatism (which admittedly went far beyond sincerely opposing gay marriage while Barack Obama was merely pretending to do so), which she attributes to "aloha." In meeting with Bashar al-Assad, she hurt her credibility as a foe of the Syria intervention, failing to realize that doves are held to a higher standard on these matters than hawks .

A saner Democratic Party might realize the chances are far greater that their nominee will be a covert hawk rather than a secret right-winger. Only time will tell if vestiges of that party still exist.

W. James Antle III is the editor of .


a spencer15 hours ago

I generally like Tulsi, but she's a mixed bag for Democrats and an easy mark for her Beltway opponents. She needs more time, but could be a very effective member of a Democrat's cabinet.
interguru15 hours ago
Unfortunately foreign policy and the forever war are not an issue that resonates with voters on either side. Here is an excerpt from NPR .
"That is one finding from the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, which shows that Americans have limited confidence in its public schools, courts, organized labor and banks -- and even less confidence in big business, the presidency, the political parties and the media.
.....
The only institution that Americans have overwhelming faith in is the military -- 87 percent say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military. That is a striking change from the 1970s during and after the Vietnam War."

A military that has been a consistent loser for decades. How depressing!

𝙆𝙧𝙖𝙯𝙮 𝙐𝙣𝙘𝙡𝙚15 hours ago
For me, a candidates stance on war will be one of the deciding factors as to their earning my vote -- So far Tulsi's position has my interest.
Brian13 hours ago
I was ready to replace Mike Pompeo with Tulsi Gabbard the day after the first debate. It would be very unfortunate if she got bumped out. I live in California (an open primary state), which means I would have voted for her in the primary.
polistra2412 hours ago
Doesn't matter. Candidates and presidents are puppets. Some puppets are more interesting than others.
blimbax 10 hours ago
Anyone who wants to keep as much focus on foreign policy issues as possible during the Democratic Party primary campaigns should contribute to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign. It looks like she needs another 20,000 unique contributors in order to qualify for the third debate in September. Even contributing a dollar or two is sufficient.
Alex (the one that likes Ike)8 hours ago
Fortunately, she is yet so young. She has many years before her, and, when the old Democratic Party dies, much like its old Republican counterpart did in 2016, Tulsi and people like her will be able to take over.

Also, covert hawks are either critically endangered or extinct in the wild. They're all open now in both parties.

Zaphod Braden7 hours ago
Tulsi is the only Democrat that could beat Trump . ...makes me wonder is this all a dog & pony show?
Tulsi is a combat vet who could shame Trump.
deepdiver5 hours ago
tulsi needs to make a stand and and pull away from the leftists..she will not so "aloha tulsi, see ya" sistah"
Hank Linderman4 hours ago
Tulsi will be the leading progressive / conservative on the stage this evening, looking forward to seeing how she handles being asked to criticize Bernie. (I'm a Tulsi fan.)

Btw, a saner American Conservative would realize a big field almost always looks like this. Can you name the 20 or so who ran as Republicans a few years ago?

The most important public opinion of our time is not the military realizing that forever war is bad, it's that climate change is occurring now. It is the only issue that will matter to our grandchildren and we haven't begun to deal with it. We need to get serious about this. "A stitch in time saves 9" comes to mind.

What you seem to be missing about the Democratic Party is that the rift between progressives (extremists asking for higher wages for those who work, etc.) and establishment types (let's fix the ACA) is ultimately more significant than the upcoming Presidential election.

This is why I tell anyone who askes that I don't have a favorite for the Democratic Presidential nominee yet, but I know exactly who I want for VP. That person is whoever comes in second. If HRC had chosen Bernie for VP, she would be President today and no Republican Congress would have dared to impeach her for fear of seating the first Democratic Socialist President in America's history.

After multiple *change* elections that have failed to deliver, change will once again be on the ballot in 2020. This time, for the sake of our Nation and our world, let's hope it's real change this time. Tulsi would certainly be part of that, maybe not as a nominee, but in the Cabinet.

Sid Finster3 hours ago
Team D would rather lose to Trump than reform. This is entirely consistent with The Iron Law of Oligarchy and especially The Iron Law of Institutions.
Mark Thomason3 hours ago
Foreign policy does not elect American presidents. I like her, and support her, and think she's made valuable points. I hope it is heard. However, there was never any chance that her course would lead to the White House.

Maybe she can get a senior post and shape policy on our endless wars. Or maybe she'll have a louder voice in Congress. However, the best she could do with this is influence.

Bakka ja nai2 hours ago
I will vote for her in the California primaries, even if I have to write her in as a candidate.

[Jul 30, 2019] I believe Warren has authenticity as far as being anti-Wall Street

Notable quotes:
"... I like Elizabeth Warren, I would vote for her, . Not fond of some of her foreign policy positions, and I don't like how worked up Trump gets her. Forget about Trump, lets here what you plan on doing with the presidency E. Warren! ..."
"... Biden and Harris are both IMO DNC monsters like Clinton who will get us into nuclear war due to a combination of excessive hubris and flat out neocon/neolib stupidity. ..."
"... Warren's okay but it's hard to get past her support for Hillary in 2016 and not for Sanders whose policies reflect hers. So for me, Sanders is still the best, Warren 2nd. However, Trump will destroy him with Socialist scaremongering. ..."
"... Biden is older and will not want war (with any country) complicating his Presidency, and may choose a VP ready to succeed him if he decides not to run for a second term. He will return to the JCPOA. I don't like Biden's ingratiation with Zionists, but the reality is that Biden and Trump will be the choices, so hold your nose, because it's Biden or war and further regime change ambitions with Trump and maybe even a manipulated Trump 3rd term using war as the excuse to prolong his mandate! ..."
"... Biden has no conception of giving up office. As to war he will be as ready to start wars as he was when he and Obama and Hillary were all part of the same administration. ..."
Jul 30, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jason , Jul 30 2019 1:20 utc | 51

I like Elizabeth Warren, I would vote for her, . Not fond of some of her foreign policy positions, and I don't like how worked up Trump gets her. Forget about Trump, lets here what you plan on doing with the presidency E. Warren!

In the primaries I will support Gabbard, I believe she is as real of an anti-war candidate as there is, not perfect, but it is all relative.

Sanders would get my vote, too, although I do fear he is a bit of a "sheep-dog" but I'd give him a shot.

If not one of those candidates, oddly, I'll vote for Trump. Biden and Harris are both IMO DNC monsters like Clinton who will get us into nuclear war due to a combination of excessive hubris and flat out neocon/neolib stupidity.

I see a repeat of the 2016 election on the horizon, with the DNC doubling down on idiocy and losing in a similar fashion. They haven't learnt a thing from 2016 and think hyperventilating while screaming Trump, Trump, Trump is going to win the election.

Circe , Jul 30 2019 13:37 utc | 85

Warren's okay but it's hard to get past her support for Hillary in 2016 and not for Sanders whose policies reflect hers. So for me, Sanders is still the best, Warren 2nd. However, Trump will destroy him with Socialist scaremongering.

My bet is that the nominee will be Biden, because Biden can beat Trump in the election and Democrats, at the last minute, will vote out of fear of running someone who might lose to Trump.

My feeling is that there will be war in Trump's second term. Trump will be much bolder and more fascist after getting another mandate and having nothing to lose. Trump will be a war President having invested more than any other President on military hardware and itching to show it off. He hasn't fired his hawks for a reason. He will be more full of himself and his own importance in history. His Zionist financiers will get their money's worth in spades. His agenda will be more hostile on Iran and China and he'll finish what he started in Venezuela. He will lose the detente with NK, and after the election, he will no longer give friendly lip service to Russia especially on Syria and Venezuela and will expect Russia to go along with what he has planned for Iran.

Biden is older and will not want war (with any country) complicating his Presidency, and may choose a VP ready to succeed him if he decides not to run for a second term. He will return to the JCPOA. I don't like Biden's ingratiation with Zionists, but the reality is that Biden and Trump will be the choices, so hold your nose, because it's Biden or war and further regime change ambitions with Trump and maybe even a manipulated Trump 3rd term using war as the excuse to prolong his mandate!

nottheonly1 , Jul 30 2019 13:44 utc | 86

I wonder when people will start to call the executive of the US what it has been for some time now:

The Fascist US Regime

Does anybody believe this is going to end well?

bevin , Jul 30 2019 15:29 utc | 93
"My bet is that the nominee will be Biden, because Biden can beat Trump in the election and Democrats, at the last minute, will vote out of fear of running someone who might lose to Trump....."

Biden is Hillary without the feminist support. No way that he could beat Trump.

"Biden is older and will not want war (with any country) complicating his Presidency, and may choose a VP ready to succeed him if he decides not to run for a second term. .."

Biden has no conception of giving up office. As to war he will be as ready to start wars as he was when he and Obama and Hillary were all part of the same administration.

There is only one Democrat, among the announced candidates, who can beat Trump and his name is Sanders.

[Jul 30, 2019] The -Existential Battle- Is for Control of the Democratic Party

The purpose of the "Clintonized" Democratic Party is to diffuse public dissent to neoliberal rule in an orderly fashion. The militarization of US economy and society means that by joining the war coalition, the Democratic party doesn't have to win any presidential elections to remain in power. Because military-industrial complex rules the country.
Yes Clinton neoliberals want to stay in control and derail Sanders, much like they did in 2016. Biden and Harris are Clinton faction Trojan horses to accomplish that. But times changed and they might have to agree on Warren inread of Biden of Harris.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump fought the swamp, and the swamp won. Trump campaigned on ending our stupid pointless wars and spending that money on ourselves and it looked at first like he might actually deliver (how RACIST of the man!) but not to worry, he is now surrounded by uber hawks and the defense industry dollars are continuing to flow. Which the Democrats are fine with. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on a populist platform, but once elected the only thing he really pushed for was a big juicy tax cut for himself and his billionaire buddies which the Democrats are fine with (how come they can easily block attempts to stop the flow of cheap labor across the southern border, but not block massive giveaway tax cuts to the super rich? Because they have their priorities). ..."
"... So yeah, Trump is governing a lot like Hilary Clinton would have. ..."
"... I think it's much more likely that a Sanders victory would see the Clintonistas digging even further into the underbelly of the Democratic Party. There they would covertly and overtly sabotage Sanders, brief against him in the press and weaken, corrupt and hamstring any legislation that he proposes ..."
"... electing Sanders can not be the endgame, only the beginning. I think Nax is completely right that a Sanders win would bring on the full wrath of all its opponents. Then the real battle would begin. ..."
"... The notion that real change could happen in this country by winning an election or two is naive in the extreme. But that doesn't make it impossible. ..."
"... Lots of people hired by the Clintons, Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Cuomo, etc. will have to be defenestrated. Lose their public sector jobs, if not outright charged with crimes. No one must be left in a position to hurt you after the election. Anyone on the "other side" must lose all power or ability to damage you, except those too weak. These people can be turned and used by you; they can be kept in line with fear. But all the leaders must go. ..."
"... In order for Sanders to survive the onslaught that will surely come, he must have a jobs program ready to go on day one of his administration- and competent people committed to his cause ready to cary out the plan. ..."
"... Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done and continue to do this in four key ways: ..."
"... i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power; ..."
"... (ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;" ..."
"... (iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders; ..."
"... iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly. ..."
"... It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us. ..."
"... Obama spent tens of trillions of dollars saving Wall Street at the expense of Main Street so that nothing got resolved about the problems that caused the crash in the first place. Trump's policies are doubling down on these problems so there is going to be a major disruption coming down the track. A major recession perhaps or maybe even worse. ..."
"... The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts. ..."
"... By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background. ..."
"... When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end. ..."
"... This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry ..."
"... By owning the means of production, the Oligarchs will be able to produce the machinery of oppression without the resort to 'money.' In revolutionary times, the most valuable commodity would be flying lead. ..."
"... Could that be why "our" three-letter agencies have been stocking up on that substance for awhile, now? ..."
"... " The purpose of the Democratic Party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion." ..."
"... Yes, this election is starting to remind me of 2004. High-up Dems, believing they're playing the long game, sacrifice the election to maintain standing with big biz donors. ..."
"... Sadly, when Sanders speaks of a "revolution", and when he is referred to as a revolutionary, while at the same time accepting that the Democratic Party is a Party of the top 10%, puts into context just how low the bar is for a political revolution in America. ..."
"... actual democracy is an impediment to those who wield power in today's America, and in that respect the class war continues to be waged, primarily through divisive social issues to divert our attention from the looting being done by and for the rich and the decline in opportunity and economic security for everyone else. ..."
"... the Democratic Party consultant class, I call them leeches, is fighting for its power at the expense of the party and the country. ..."
"... The DLC-type New Democrats (corporatists) have been working to destroy New Deal Democrats and policies as a force in the party. The New Deal Democrats brought in bank regulations, social security, medicare, the voting rights act, restraint on financial predation, and various economic protections for the little-guy and for Main Street businesses. ..."
"... The DLC Dems have brought deregulation of the banks and financial sector, an attempt to cut social security, expansion of prisons, tax cuts for corporations and the billionaires, the return of monopoly power, and the economic squeeze on Main Street businesses forced to compete with monopolies. ..."
Jul 30, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

... ... ...

That 2020 existential battle, of course, is always cast as between the Democrats and the Republicans.

But there's another existential battle going on, one that will occur before the main event -- the battle for control of the Democratic Party. In the long run, that battle may turn out to be more important than the one that immediately follows it.

... ... ...

Before mainstream Democrats can begin the "existential battle" with the forces of Trump and Republicanism, they have to win the existential battle against the force that wants to force change on their own party.

They're engaged in that battle today, and it seems almost all of the "liberal media," sensing the existential nature of the threat, is helping them win it. Katie Halper, in a second perceptive piece on the media's obvious anti-Sanders bias, " MSNBC's Anti-Sanders Bias Is Getting Truly Ridiculous ," writes: "When MSNBC legal analyst Mimi Rocah ( 7/21/19 ) said that Bernie Sanders 'made [her] skin crawl,' though she 'can't even identify for you what exactly it is,' she was just expressing more overtly the anti-Sanders bias that pervades the network."

... ... ...

MSNBC is clearly acting as a messaging arm of the Democratic Party mainstream in its battle with progressives in general and Sanders in particular, and Zerlina Maxwell, who's been variously employed by that mainstream, from her work with Clinton to her work on MSNBC, is an agent in that effort.

Let me repeat what Matt Taibbi wrote: " [Sanders'] election would mean a complete overhaul of the Democratic Party, forcing everyone who ever worked for a Clinton to look toward the private sector. "

... ... ...


TG , July 30, 2019 at 1:45 pm

Agreed. Trump fought the swamp, and the swamp won. Trump campaigned on ending our stupid pointless wars and spending that money on ourselves and it looked at first like he might actually deliver (how RACIST of the man!) but not to worry, he is now surrounded by uber hawks and the defense industry dollars are continuing to flow. Which the Democrats are fine with.

Trump campaigned on enforcing the laws against illegal immigration and limiting legal immigration, but he's now pretty much given up, the southern border is open full "Camp of the Saints" style and he's pushing for more legal 'guest' workers to satisfy the corporate demands for cheap labor and the Democrats are for this (though Sanders started to object back in 2015 before he was beaten down).

Trump campaigned on a populist platform, but once elected the only thing he really pushed for was a big juicy tax cut for himself and his billionaire buddies which the Democrats are fine with (how come they can easily block attempts to stop the flow of cheap labor across the southern border, but not block massive giveaway tax cuts to the super rich? Because they have their priorities).

Soon I expect that Trump will propose massive regressive tax increases on the working class which of course the Democrats will be fine with ('to save the planet').

So yeah, Trump is governing a lot like Hilary Clinton would have.

And elections are pretty much pointless. Even if Sanders does win, he'll get beaten down faster even than Trump was.

Redlife2017 , July 30, 2019 at 4:52 am

I think people have a hard time with real inflection points. Most of life uses more short-term linear decision making. But at inflection points we have multiple possibilities that turn into rather surprising turns of events, such as Brexit and Trump. We still have people saying in the UK "but they wouldn't do that!" The hell "they" won't. Norms are thrown out of the window and people start realising how wide the options are. This is not positive or negative. Just change or transformation.

That is my philosophical way of agreeing with you! It is easy to point at the hostility of the mainstream media and DNC as there being no way for Sanders to win. After all in 2004, look what the media and DNC did to Howard Dean. But people weren't dying then like they are now. The "Great Recession" wasn't on anyone's radar. People felt rich, like everything would be fine. We are not in that situation the facts on the ground are so wildly different that the DNC and mainstream media will find it hard to stay in control.

Nax , July 30, 2019 at 2:42 am

I think it's much more likely that a Sanders victory would see the Clintonistas digging even further into the underbelly of the Democratic Party. There they would covertly and overtly sabotage Sanders, brief against him in the press and weaken, corrupt and hamstring any legislation that he proposes.

If Sanders should win against Trump expect the establishment to go into full revolt. Capital strike, mass layoffs, federal reserve hiking interest rates to induce a recession, a rotating cast of Democrats siding with Republicans to block legislation, press comparing him to worse than Carter before he even takes office and vilifying him all day every day.

I wouldn't be shocked to see Israel and the Saudis generate a crisis in, for example, Iran so Sanders either bends the knee to the neocons or gets to be portrayed as a cowardly failure for abandoning our 'allies' for the rest of his term.

Tyronius , July 30, 2019 at 4:59 am

You've just convinced me that the American Experiment is doomed. No one else but Sanders can pull America out of its long slow death spiral and your litany of the tactics of subversion of his presidency is persuasive that even in the event of his electoral victory, there will be no changing of the national direction.

JCC , July 30, 2019 at 9:05 am

I'm reading a series of essays by Morris Berman in his book "Are We There Yet". A lot of critics complain that he is too much the pessimist, but he presents some good arguments, dark though they may be, that the American Experiment was doomed from the start due to the inherent flaw of Every Man For Himself and its "get mine and the hell with everybody else" attitude that has been a part of the experiment from the beginning.

He is absolutely right about one thing, we are a country strongly based on hustling for money as much or more than anything else, and both Trump and the Clintons are classic examples of this, and why the country often gets the leaders it deserves.

That's why I believe that we need people like Sanders and Gabbard in the Oval Office. It is also why I believe that should either end up even getting close, Nax is correct. Those with power in this country will not accept the results and will do whatever is necessary to subvert them, and the Voter will buy that subversion hook, line, and sinker.

Left in Wisconsin , July 30, 2019 at 11:32 am

No. The point is that electing Sanders can not be the endgame, only the beginning. I think Nax is completely right that a Sanders win would bring on the full wrath of all its opponents. Then the real battle would begin.

The notion that real change could happen in this country by winning an election or two is naive in the extreme. But that doesn't make it impossible.

Big River Bandido , July 30, 2019 at 7:16 am

Lots of people hired by the Clintons, Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Cuomo, etc. will have to be defenestrated. Lose their public sector jobs, if not outright charged with crimes. No one must be left in a position to hurt you after the election. Anyone on the "other side" must lose all power or ability to damage you, except those too weak. These people can be turned and used by you; they can be kept in line with fear. But all the leaders must go.

Norb , July 30, 2019 at 6:09 am

In order for Sanders to survive the onslaught that will surely come, he must have a jobs program ready to go on day one of his administration- and competent people committed to his cause ready to cary out the plan.

The high ground is being able to express a new vision for the common good, 24/7, and do something to bring it about. You win even if you suffer losses.

Without that, life in the USA will become very disruptive to say the least.

g3 , July 30, 2019 at 4:08 am

Mainstream Dems are performing their role very well. Most likely I am preaching to the choir. But anyways, here is a review of Lance Selfa's book "Democrats: a critical history" by Paul Street :

https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/hope-killers-by-paul-street/

Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done and continue to do this in four key ways:

i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power;

(ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;"

(iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders;

iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly.

It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us.

The Rev Kev , July 30, 2019 at 4:43 am

Pretty bad optics on MSNBC's part being unable to do simple numbers and I can fully believe that their motto starts with the words "This is who we are". Jimmy Dore has put out a few videos on how bad MSNBC has been towards Bernie and Progressives lately so it is becoming pretty blatant. Just spitballing a loose theory here but perhaps the Democrats have decided on a "poisoned chalice" strategy and do want not to win in 2020.

After 2008 the whole economy should have had a major re-set but Obama spent tens of trillions of dollars saving Wall Street at the expense of Main Street so that nothing got resolved about the problems that caused the crash in the first place. Trump's policies are doubling down on these problems so there is going to be a major disruption coming down the track. A major recession perhaps or maybe even worse.

Point is that perhaps the Democrats have calculated that it would be best for them to leave the Republicans in power to own this crash which will help them long term. And this explains why most of those democrat candidates look like they have fallen out of a clown car. The ones capable of going head to head with Trump are sidelined while their weakest candidates are pushed forward people like Biden and Harris. Just a theory mind.

Norb , July 30, 2019 at 7:18 am

The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts.

By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background.

I have little faith in my fellow citizens as the majority are too brainwashed to see the danger of this political theatre. Most ignore politics, while those that do show an interest exercise that effort mainly by supporting whatever faction they belong. Larger issues and connections between current events remain a mystery to them as a result.

Military defeat seems the only means to break this cycle. Democrats, being the fake peaceniks that they are, will be more than happy to defer to their more authoritarian Republican counterparts when dealing with issues concerning war and peace. Look no further than Tulsi Gabbard's treatment in the party. The question is really should the country continue down this Imperialist path.

In one sense, economic recession will be the least of our problems in the future. When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end.

This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.

notabanker , July 30, 2019 at 9:17 am

This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.

When their fiat money is worthless, we'll see how effective that "wrath" really is.

ambrit , July 30, 2019 at 12:55 pm

By owning the means of production, the Oligarchs will be able to produce the machinery of oppression without the resort to 'money.'
In revolutionary times, the most valuable commodity would be flying lead.

Carey , July 30, 2019 at 3:49 pm

Could that be why "our" three-letter agencies have been stocking up on that substance for awhile, now?

Phil in KC , July 30, 2019 at 1:09 pm

" The purpose of the Democratic Party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion."

Wow! I'm going to be keeping that little nugget in mind as I watch the debates. Well-stated, Norb.

DJG , July 30, 2019 at 8:43 am

If the nation wishes true deliverance, not just from Trump and Republicans, but from the painful state that got Trump elected in the first place, it will first have to believe in a savior.

No, no, no, no, no. No oooshy religion, which is part of what got us into this mess. Cities on a hill. The Exceptional Nation(tm). Obligatory burbling of Amazing Grace. Assumptions that everyone is a Methodist. And after Deliverance, the U S of A will be magically re-virginated (for the umpteenth time), pure and worthy of Manifest Destiny once again.

If you want to be saved, stick to your own church. Stop dragging it into the public sphere. This absurd and sloppy religious language is part of the problem. At the very least it is kitsch. At its worst it leads us to bomb Muslim nations and engage in "Crusades."

Other than that, the article makes some important points. In a year or so, there will be a lot of comments here on whether or not to vote for the pre-failed Democratic candidate, once the Party dumps Bernie Sanders. There is no requirement of voting for the Democrats, unless you truly do believe that they will bring the Deliverance (and untarnish your tarnished virtue). Vote your conscience. Not who Nate Silver indicates.

mle in detroit , July 30, 2019 at 10:30 am

+100

ptb , July 30, 2019 at 9:21 am

Yes, this election is starting to remind me of 2004. High-up Dems, believing they're playing the long game, sacrifice the election to maintain standing with big biz donors. The leading issue of the day (Iraq/GWOT/Patriot Act) was erased from mainstream US politics and has been since. Don't for a minute think they won't do a similar thing now. Big donors don't particularly fear Trump, nor a 6-3 conservative supreme court, nor a Bolton state dept, nor a racist DHS/ICE those are not money issues for them.

KYrocky , July 30, 2019 at 9:32 am

Sadly, when Sanders speaks of a "revolution", and when he is referred to as a revolutionary, while at the same time accepting that the Democratic Party is a Party of the top 10%, puts into context just how low the bar is for a political revolution in America.

The candidate who would fight and would govern for the 90% of Americans is a revolutionary.

The fact that it can be said as a given that neither major Party is being run specifically to serve the vast majority of our country is itself an admission for that the class war begun by Reagan has been won, in more of a silent coup, and the rich have control of our nation.

Sadly, actual democracy is an impediment to those who wield power in today's America, and in that respect the class war continues to be waged, primarily through divisive social issues to divert our attention from the looting being done by and for the rich and the decline in opportunity and economic security for everyone else.

Sanders is considered a revolutionary merely for stating the obvious, stating the truth. That is what makes him dangerous to those that run the Democratic Party, and more broadly those who run this nation.

Sanders would do better to cast himself not as a revolutionary, but as a person of the people, with the belief that good government does not favor the wants of the richest over the needs of our country. That is what makes him a threat. To the rich unseen who hold power, to the Republican Party, and to some Democrats.

freedomny , July 30, 2019 at 11:28 am

Good read:

https://eand.co/why-the-21st-century-needs-an-existential-revolution-c3068a10b689

dbk , July 30, 2019 at 11:45 am

Perhaps another indication of internal discord that's getting out of hand:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/5-more-top-dccc-staffers-out-in-ongoing-diversity-saga

I agree with the thesis here, and confess to being puzzled by comments on LGM (for example) politics threads of the ilk "I'm with Warren but am good with Buttigieg too," or "I'm with Sanders but am good with Harris, too," etc.

Really?

Matthew G. Saroff , July 30, 2019 at 11:55 am

I love reading Taibbi, but in his article , that quote, " Sanders is the revolutionary. His election would mean a complete overhaul of the Democratic Party, forcing everyone who ever worked for a Clinton to look toward the private sector ," should be the lede, and its buried 2/3 of the way down.

This primary season is about how the Democratic Party consultant class, I call them leeches, is fighting for its power at the expense of the party and the country.

flora , July 30, 2019 at 1:07 pm

Yves writes: it is unfortunate that this struggle is being personified, as in too often treated by the media and political operatives as being about Sanders.

I agree. Sanders represents the continuing New Deal-type policies. The DLC-type New Democrats (corporatists) have been working to destroy New Deal Democrats and policies as a force in the party. The New Deal Democrats brought in bank regulations, social security, medicare, the voting rights act, restraint on financial predation, and various economic protections for the little-guy and for Main Street businesses.

The DLC Dems have brought deregulation of the banks and financial sector, an attempt to cut social security, expansion of prisons, tax cuts for corporations and the billionaires, the return of monopoly power, and the economic squeeze on Main Street businesses forced to compete with monopolies.

The MSM won't talk about any of the programmatic differences between the two sides. The MSM won't recognize the New Deal style Democratic voters even exist; the New Deal wing voters are quickly labeled 'deplorable' instead voters with competing economic policies to the current economic policies.

So, we're left with the MSM focusing on personalities to avoid talking about the real policy differences, imo.

sharonsj , July 30, 2019 at 2:53 pm

When Bernie talks about a revolution, he explains how it must be from the grassroots, from the bottom up. If he manages to get elected, his supporters have to make sure they get behind the politicians who also support him and, if they don't, get rid of them.

Without continuing mass protests, nothing is going to happen. Other countries have figured this out but Americans remain clueless.

[Jul 30, 2019] Warren targets corporate power with plan to overhaul trade policy TheHill

Jul 30, 2019 | thehill.com

Sen. Elizabeth Warren Elizabeth Ann Warren Poll: Beto O'Rourke leads 2020 Democrats in Texas by 3 points, followed by Biden Coalition to air anti-Medicare for All ads during Democratic debates Marianne Williamson: I am not a 'wacky new-age nutcase' MORE (D-Mass.) on Monday released a plan to use trade policy as a tool to create stronger safeguards for labor, the environment and regions of the country harmed by globalization.

Warren's plan would overhaul the process by which the U.S. proposes, writes, finalizes and enforces trade deals while imposing strict standards for any nation seeking or currently in a free trade deal with the U.S.

ADVERTISEMENT

In a Medium post outlining the extensive trade proposal, Warren said her approach to trade is centered on using the United States' immense leverage to protect domestic industries and workers.

Warren argued U.S trade policy has ceded too much power to international corporations, squandering the country's ability to defend its manufacturers, farmers and laborers.

"As President, I won't hand America's leverage to big corporations to use for their own narrow purposes," Warren wrote. "We will engage in international trade -- but on our terms and only when it benefits American families."

Warren's plan is among the most comprehensive proposals to replace President Trump Donald John Trump Professor installs seesaws across US-Mexico border to form connection 'on both sides' What the world can expect from the Boris Johnson government Marianne Williamson: I am not a 'wacky new-age nutcase' MORE 's tariff-based trade policy with a holistic protectionist agenda.

Trump has imposed more than $250 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods, foreign steel and aluminum, solar panels, and washing machines since taking office in 2017. The president has used import taxes as leverage in trade talks and inducement for companies to produce goods in the U.S., but manufacturing job gains and activity have faded throughout the year.

U.S. farmers and ranchers have also lost billions of dollars in foreign sales due to retaliatory tariffs imposed on American agricultural goods.

Warren acknowledged that while tariffs "are an important tool, they are not by themselves a long-term solution to our failed trade agenda and must be part of a broader strategy that this Administration clearly lacks."

Warren said she instead would pursue deals and renegotiate current agreement to "force other countries to raise the bar on everything from labor and environmental standards to anti-corruption rules to access to medicine to tax enforcement."

To do so, Warren would expand the ability of Congress and noncorporate advocates to see and shape trade deals as their being negotiated, not after they have been submitted to lawmakers for approval

Warren proposed staffing trade advisory panels with a majority of representatives from labor and environmental and consumer advocacy groups. She also called for special advisory panels for consumers, rural areas and each region of the country, "so that critical voices are at the table during negotiations."

Under Warren's plan, trade negotiators would be required to submit drafts of pending agreements to Congress and submit them for public comment through the same process used by federal regulators to propose and finalize rules.

Warren's plan also raises the bar for entry into a trade deal with the U.S. and seizes more power for the federal government to enforce agreements.

Warren proposed a list of nine standards required of any country seeking a U.S. trade deal including several international tax, climate and human rights treaties. She noted that the U.S. "shamefully" does not comply with some of these standards, but would do so under her presidency.

The plan also excludes any nation on the Treasury Department's currency manipulation monitoring list from a potential U.S. trade deal. As of May, that list includes China, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam.

Nations in trade deals with the U.S. would also be required to support subsidies for green energy, follow U.S. food inspection standards, pay a fee on goods produced using "carbon-intensive" processes and agree to stricter anti-trust standards.

[Jul 30, 2019] Trump is not welcome to the hotel California

Notable quotes:
"... Then there are the primaries, in which each party selects a party candidate for you to vote for. All your vote does is ratify their selection they have made for you. Case in point, was the 2016 election where the Democratic party threw Bernie Sanders under the Bus in favor of Hillary Clinton, denying you the right to vote for any other candidate other than Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... America has a very corrupted system of elections. It really isn't fair in the least. Even the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has criticized the United States for its ballot access laws. So, don't go away thinking you live in a democracy in the U.S.,. Far from it! ..."
"... Public release of taxes is political ********. These hacks sit down years in and advance and create their taxes for public consumption. They all make millions anyway from "book deals" and "speeches"- their preferred method of cleaning up corrupt cash. ..."
Jul 30, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

On Tuesday, Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill requiring President Trump to either release his tax returns or he won't appear on the ballot in the state.

Under SB 27, called the "Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act," any candidate running for president or governor in California must file copies of their tax returns from the previous five years to the California secretary of State, or their names will be stricken from the ballot, the Hill reports.

... ... ...

He–Mene Mox Mox , 27 seconds ago link

There is really nothing unconstitutional about it. As a matter of fact, the constitution doesn't say anything about states disallowing candidates on ballots, nor does it say anything about qualifications, other than a presidential candidate must be 35 years of age or older, and a U.S. citizen. Otherwise, any idiot can run for president.

Besides, there has been times before when candidates were denied a place on the ballots. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln did not show up on most of the southern states ballots, but when he got elected, the southern voters were scratching their heads, wondering how he won, when he was not listed on their ballots.

Then you have the notorious "Ballot Access Laws in a lot of states, which literally puts up roadblocks for any third party candidates to run in the elections. Any wonder why you only have a 2 party system?

Then there are the primaries, in which each party selects a party candidate for you to vote for. All your vote does is ratify their selection they have made for you. Case in point, was the 2016 election where the Democratic party threw Bernie Sanders under the Bus in favor of Hillary Clinton, denying you the right to vote for any other candidate other than Hillary Clinton.

America has a very corrupted system of elections. It really isn't fair in the least. Even the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has criticized the United States for its ballot access laws. So, don't go away thinking you live in a democracy in the U.S.,. Far from it!

USAllDay , 5 minutes ago link

Public release of taxes is political ********. These hacks sit down years in and advance and create their taxes for public consumption. They all make millions anyway from "book deals" and "speeches"- their preferred method of cleaning up corrupt cash.

[Jul 30, 2019] Sanders vs McGovern

Money rule in the USA politics. And that was true for a very long time. Candidate who is hates by big business has tremendous disadvantages even if he/she has all the popular support. Party apparatus will try to sabotage every their move.
Notable quotes:
"... Nixon: "a radical socialist" or "an unrealistic leftist"! Wow. That says all that needs be said about the slide to the right in our politics and it happened in large part because of inertia and self-satisfaction among the Democrats; they were the majority party after all while the right beginning with Bill Buckley and the National Review and their think tanks and their economists and their money began and continued the counter-revolution against FDR and the New Deal. ..."
"... Take a hypothetical. Biden wins, the House stays Democratic narrowly, the Senate is evenly divided. What exactly is going to change other than the rhetoric. I would not expect Biden to continue the racist and xenophobic pronouncements of Trump, but the finance weenies would still be in charge domestically, the Israelis and the donors would be running foreign policy and any and all billionaires would continue to be treated as demigods. ..."
"... in 1972, the working class was solidly behind the status quo, now, almost fifty years later, the working class has seen the end of the road coming up and is starting to ask the pointed questions they were incapable of even contemplating then. ..."
"... In 1972, it seemed only derelicts died of drug overdoses, and hard-hats were throwing things at hippies, now those people who were so defensive about the American dream, are unemployed and increasingly questioning whether there's an alternative. ..."
"... I turned 21 in 1968. The violence in the streets was coming from the police not the protesters. The local sheriff department in my locale (Isla Vista; UCSB) was deemed "riotous" in its performance during anti-war protests by a subsequent grand jury investigation. ..."
"... "McGovern never had a lead in the polls over Nixon" ..."
"... The Establishment Dems hated McGovern for several reasons. While his anti-war stance enraged the Dem neocons like the Scooper, his commission's reforms that put the most women and minorities ever in the convention hall gave some serious heartburn to party bosses like Daley and labor bosses like Meany. ..."
Jul 30, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com


g3 , , July 30, 2019 at 4:20 am

The last time a "rogue" candidate got the Dem nomination, this is what happened.

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html

As soon as McGovern was nominated, party leaders began systematically slurring and belittling him, while the trade union chieftains refused to endorse him on the pretense that this mild Mr. Pliant was a being wild and dangerous.

A congressional investigation of Watergate was put off for several months to deprive McGovern's candidacy of its benefits. As an indiscreet Chicago ward heeler predicted in the fall of 1972, McGovern is "gonna lose because we're gonna make sure he's gonna lose" So deftly did party leaders "cut the top of the ticket" that while Richard Nixon won in a "landslide," the Democrats gained two Senate seats.

Yves Smith , , July 30, 2019 at 5:59 am

Not comparable. McGovern never had a lead in the polls over Nixon, even before his party undermined him.

Nixon emphasized the strong economy and his success in foreign affairs, while McGovern ran on a platform calling for an immediate end to the Vietnam War, and the institution of a guaranteed minimum income. Nixon maintained a large and consistent lead in polling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_presidential_election Nixon had put forward a bill for a guaranteed minimum income in 1969 , so I am at a loss as to how this position helped McGovern.

Arizona Slim , , July 30, 2019 at 6:30 am

By modern standards, Nixon would be considered a radical socialist.

John , , July 30, 2019 at 8:10 am

Nixon: "a radical socialist" or "an unrealistic leftist"! Wow. That says all that needs be said about the slide to the right in our politics and it happened in large part because of inertia and self-satisfaction among the Democrats; they were the majority party after all while the right beginning with Bill Buckley and the National Review and their think tanks and their economists and their money began and continued the counter-revolution against FDR and the New Deal.

This is not news to the politically aware. It could be a starting point for a rebirth of a real democratic party as opposed to whatever shambles along in the tattered garments of the old.

Take a hypothetical. Biden wins, the House stays Democratic narrowly, the Senate is evenly divided. What exactly is going to change other than the rhetoric. I would not expect Biden to continue the racist and xenophobic pronouncements of Trump, but the finance weenies would still be in charge domestically, the Israelis and the donors would be running foreign policy and any and all billionaires would continue to be treated as demigods.

The status quo is destroying the country. The corporoids, the professionals, the suave sophisticated urbanites do not notice and would not care. The USA needs revolutionary change just to discover that it really has a soul. Then the hard work of generations could begin.

Watt4Bob , , July 30, 2019 at 8:01 am

And in 1972, the working class was solidly behind the status quo, now, almost fifty years later, the working class has seen the end of the road coming up and is starting to ask the pointed questions they were incapable of even contemplating then.

In 1972, it seemed only derelicts died of drug overdoses, and hard-hats were throwing things at hippies, now those people who were so defensive about the American dream, are unemployed and increasingly questioning whether there's an alternative.

Witness the peaceful 'confrontation' that met Trumps aborted campaign rally in Chicago in 2016, in 1972 there would have been riot police and blood in the streets.

In 2016 the anti-Trump protestors and Trump supporters stood on opposite sides of the street with a scant force of cops, sans riot gear between them and there was virtually no violence.

Anon , , July 30, 2019 at 1:22 pm

I turned 21 in 1968. The violence in the streets was coming from the police not the protesters. The local sheriff department in my locale (Isla Vista; UCSB) was deemed "riotous" in its performance during anti-war protests by a subsequent grand jury investigation.

I do agree that the current general population (working class) now sees itself as the "protesters".

Henry Moon Pie` , , July 30, 2019 at 8:18 am

"McGovern never had a lead in the polls over Nixon"

Very true, but it's important to remember that up until Wallace was wounded by Bremer in May, another three-way race with Wallace was anticipated. Polling in early May (and this is from memory) had Nixon and McGovern within the margin of error in a three-way race. There was a realistic possibility that things would have ended up in the House as they almost did in '68.

The Establishment Dems hated McGovern for several reasons. While his anti-war stance enraged the Dem neocons like the Scooper, his commission's reforms that put the most women and minorities ever in the convention hall gave some serious heartburn to party bosses like Daley and labor bosses like Meany.

Very shortly after the convention, I went before my border state's Dixiecrat-flavored Dem county committee to plead for their support in the general. We got nowhere. McGovern's campaign in my county consisted of some of us young folks and a few dissidents who opened some storefronts and did some canvassing. The party regulars probably all voted for Nixon.

[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

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways: ..."
"... i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power; ..."
"... (ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;" ..."
"... (iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders; ..."
"... iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly. ..."
"... It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us. ..."
"... The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts. ..."
"... By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background. ..."
"... When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end. ..."
"... This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry ..."
Jul 30, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

g3 , July 30, 2019 at 4:08 am

Mainstream Dems are performing their role very well. Most likely I am preaching to the choir. But anyways, here is a review of Lance Selfa's book "Democrats: a critical history" by Paul Street :

https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/hope-killers-by-paul-street/

Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways:

i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power;

(ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;"

(iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders;

iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly.

It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us.

Norb , July 30, 2019 at 7:18 am

The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts.

By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background.

I have little faith in my fellow citizens as the majority are too brainwashed to see the danger of this political theatre. Most ignore politics, while those that do show an interest exercise that effort mainly by supporting whatever faction they belong. Larger issues and connections between current events remain a mystery to them as a result.

Military defeat seems the only means to break this cycle. Democrats, being the fake peaceniks that they are, will be more than happy to defer to their more authoritarian Republican counterparts when dealing with issues concerning war and peace. Look no further than Tulsi Gabbard's treatment in the party. The question is really should the country continue down this Imperialist path.

In one sense, economic recession will be the least of our problems in the future. When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end.

This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.

[Jul 29, 2019] Peace in Ukraine by Stephen F. Cohen

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... His electorally repudiated predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, backed by supporters in Washington, thwarted almost every preceding opportunity for negotiations both with the Donbass rebels and with Moscow, ..."
"... But the struggle for peace has just begun, with powerful forces arrayed against it in Ukraine, Moscow, and Washington. In Ukraine, well-armed ultra-nationalist -- some would say quasi-fascist -- detachments are terrorizing supporters of Zelensky's initiative, including a Kiev television station that proposed broadcasting a dialogue between Russian and Ukrainian citizens. ..."
"... Which brings us to Washington and in particular to President Donald Trump and his would-be opponent in 2020, former vice president Joseph Biden. Kiev's government, thus now Zelensky, is heavily dependent on billions of dollars of aid from the International Monetary Fund, which Washington largely controls. Former president Barack Obama and Biden, his "point man" for Ukraine, used this financial leverage to exercise semi-colonial influence over Poroshenko, generally making things worse, including the incipient Ukrainian civil war. Their hope was, of course, to sever Ukraine's centuries-long ties to Russia and even bring it eventually into the US-led NATO sphere of influence. ..."
"... Biden, however, has a special problem -- and obligation. As an implementer, and presumably architect, of Obama's disastrous policy in Ukraine, and currently the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Biden should be asked about his past and present thinking regarding Ukraine. The much-ballyhooed ongoing "debates" are an opportunity to ask the question -- and of other candidates as well. Presidential debates are supposed to elicit and clarify the views of candidates on domestic and foreign policy. And among the latter, few, if any, are more important than Ukraine, which remains the epicenter of this new and more dangerous Cold War. ..."
Jul 29, 2019 | www.thenation.com

The election of Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who won decisively throughout most of the country, represents the possibility of peace with Russia, if it -- and he -- are given a chance. His electorally repudiated predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, backed by supporters in Washington, thwarted almost every preceding opportunity for negotiations both with the Donbass rebels and with Moscow, notably provisions associated with the European-sponsored Minsk Accords. Zelensky, on the other hand, has made peace (along with corruption) his top priority and indeed spoke directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, on July 11. The nearly six-year war having become a political, diplomatic, and financial drain on his leadership, Putin welcomed the overture.

But the struggle for peace has just begun, with powerful forces arrayed against it in Ukraine, Moscow, and Washington. In Ukraine, well-armed ultra-nationalist -- some would say quasi-fascist -- detachments are terrorizing supporters of Zelensky's initiative, including a Kiev television station that proposed broadcasting a dialogue between Russian and Ukrainian citizens. (Washington has previously had some shameful episodes of collusion with these Ukrainian neo-Nazis .) As for Putin, who does not fully control the Donbass rebels or its leaders, he "can never be seen at home," as I pointed out more than two years ago , "as 'selling out' Russia's 'brethren' anywhere in southeast Ukraine." Indeed, his own implacable nationalists have made this a litmus test of his leadership.

Which brings us to Washington and in particular to President Donald Trump and his would-be opponent in 2020, former vice president Joseph Biden. Kiev's government, thus now Zelensky, is heavily dependent on billions of dollars of aid from the International Monetary Fund, which Washington largely controls. Former president Barack Obama and Biden, his "point man" for Ukraine, used this financial leverage to exercise semi-colonial influence over Poroshenko, generally making things worse, including the incipient Ukrainian civil war. Their hope was, of course, to sever Ukraine's centuries-long ties to Russia and even bring it eventually into the US-led NATO sphere of influence.

Our hope should be that Trump breaks with that long-standing bipartisan policy, as he did with policy toward North Korea, and puts America squarely on the side of peace in Ukraine. (For now, Zelensky has set aside Moscow's professed irreversible "reunification" with Crimea, as should Washington.) A new US policy must include recognition, previously lacking, that the citizens of war-ravaged Donbass are not primarily "Putin's stooges" but people with their own legitimate interests and preferences, even if they favor Russia. Here too Zelensky is embarking on a new course. Poroshenko waged an "anti-terrorist" war against Donbass: the new president is reaching out to its citizens even though most of them were unable to vote in the election.

Biden, however, has a special problem -- and obligation. As an implementer, and presumably architect, of Obama's disastrous policy in Ukraine, and currently the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Biden should be asked about his past and present thinking regarding Ukraine. The much-ballyhooed ongoing "debates" are an opportunity to ask the question -- and of other candidates as well. Presidential debates are supposed to elicit and clarify the views of candidates on domestic and foreign policy. And among the latter, few, if any, are more important than Ukraine, which remains the epicenter of this new and more dangerous Cold War.

This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the host of The John Batchelor Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com .

[Jul 28, 2019] Tulsi, Israel and BDS movement

Jul 28, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Fluff The Cat , 1 hour ago link

Gabbard is more controlled opposition. Remember, she voted for the anti-BDS resolution, more sanctions and is anti-2nd Amendment. Don't be fooled by her shtick.

serotonindumptruck , 1 hour ago link

The Saker exposes Gabbard as the charlatan that she is.

https://thesaker.is/what-tulsi-gabbards-caving-in-to-the-israel-lobby-really-shows/

JD Rock , 50 minutes ago link

shes going after our guns first😡

CatInTheHat , 1 hour ago link

I will not support her.

She says she is against forever wars yet she voted to pass the monstrosity that is the new defense bill. She is also a friend to Israhell as she voted for anti BDS.

I don't listen to what politicians say but what they do that falls in line with the most important elements of empire.

[Jul 27, 2019] Elizabeth Warren The woman who predicted last financial crisis is sounding alarm again by Ros Krasny

Notable quotes:
"... But Dean Baker, the co-founder of the liberal Centre for Economic and Policy Research, said that the increase in corporate debt has corresponded with higher profits and manageably low interest rates. "The idea that you're going to have this massive cascade of defaults - it's very hard to see," Baker said. ..."
"... Michael Madowitz, an economist at the Centre for American Progress, said that most predictions about recessions were wrong, not just those offered by politicians. ..."
"... But he interpreted Warren's essay as a broader warning about how Trump's efforts to support growth by curbing regulations and attacking government institutions might eventually be destructive ..."
"... With my total lack of understanding of world economics I predict a stock market crash sometime between May 2020 and October 2020 and a recession, including Australia (worse than the unofficial one we have really been in here in Australia for the last 10 years), over following few years. ..."
Jul 27, 2019 | smh.com.au

Elizabeth Warren became a household name thanks to her prescient warning of what became a global financial crisis. Now she's staking her credentials on another forecast of fiscal trauma ahead. The Democratic presidential candidate published an online essay this week saying that a rise in consumer and corporate debt is imperilling the longest expansion in US history.

"Whether it's this year or next year, the odds of another economic downturn are high - and growing," Warren wrote.

Her prediction could help her win over primary voters by tapping into anxieties about middle-class economic stability despite broad gains over the past decade. But Warren's opponents could seize on her warning to undermine her credibility should a crash fail to materialise before next year's election, and some economists sympathetic to her agenda say that - for the moment - her conclusion of a looming recession is overblown. Recessions are notoriously difficult to forecast. Warren first warned in 2003 about subprime mortgage lending, yet it was roughly five years later when the US housing market fully collapsed.

And although her dire forecast echoed in style some warnings made by Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, Warren hasn't aligned with him in portraying her potential election to the White House as the only way to avert disaster. "I went through this back in the years before the 2008 crash, and no one wanted to listen.

So, here we are again," Warren said on Capitol Hill last week. "I'm trying to point out where the warning signs are. I hope our regulators and Congress listen, make changes, and that the economy strengthens."

Even economists who like her prescription are skeptical about her diagnosis. Warren rooted her concerns about the economy in a Federal Reserve report that found a 6.8 per cent increase in household debt over the past decade, allowing the Massachusetts senator to write that American families are "taking on more debt than ever before." But that figure is not adjusted for inflation, nor is it adjusted for population growth - and the number of US households has risen by 9.5 per cent during the same period, meaning that Fed data also shows debt levels have fallen on a per capita basis.

"I don't see a huge bubble on the other side of household debt that is going to savage people's assets," said Josh Bivens, director of research at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. At the moment, families can afford their debt because of low interest rates, and that minimises the risks to the economy. American households are devoting less than 10 per cent of their disposable income to debt service, down from roughly 13 per cent in 2008, according to the Fed. This doesn't mean that Warren is wrong to conclude that families are burdened by student debt and childcare costs, just that data suggests the debt produced by those expenses is unlikely to cause a downturn.

Part of Warren's forecast hinges on a spike in interest rates that seems unlikely as most benchmark rates have declined since November. Warren has assembled a litany of proposals aimed at bringing down household debt, through student loan forgiveness and affordable childcare availability as well as a housing plan designed to lower rent costs. She touted her policy agenda - which has propelled her higher in the polls - as ways to avert her predicted crash.

Warren's warning of a downturn is a somewhat unique maneuver for a presidential candidate. Past White House hopefuls have waited for the downturns to start before capitalising on them. Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992, for example, on a post-recession message summed up by then-adviser James Carville's edict to focus on "the economy, stupid."

Warren also warned this week that an increase in corporate borrowing could crush the economy.

But Dean Baker, the co-founder of the liberal Centre for Economic and Policy Research, said that the increase in corporate debt has corresponded with higher profits and manageably low interest rates. "The idea that you're going to have this massive cascade of defaults - it's very hard to see," Baker said.

Related Article Bumpy road ahead for US financial reforms

While the US economy may not be entering into a recession, many economic forecasters say growth is still slowing because of global and demographic pressures. Evidence of this has already caused Fed officials to signal that they plan to cut interest rates at their meeting next week. Trump has repeatedly called for the Fed to make even steeper cuts to improve his economic track record.

Michael Madowitz, an economist at the Centre for American Progress, said that most predictions about recessions were wrong, not just those offered by politicians.

But he interpreted Warren's essay as a broader warning about how Trump's efforts to support growth by curbing regulations and attacking government institutions might eventually be destructive. "It's hard to say what a debt-driven problem would look like until it happens," Madowitz said.

"I think it's also reasonable to elevate concern at the moment given how politicised Trump has made apolitical economic institutions like the Fed. That's not a free lunch. It creates real risks, so it's more important than usual to think about what happens if things go bump in the night."

AP Mick 8 hours ago

I really have no idea about economics - seriously the mechanics of world financing, where every country seems to in debt baffles me. But if you look at the last 40 years or so - my adult life - there seems to be a stock market crash about each 10 years and a recession in the USA about each 10 years. From memory, stock markets in 1987, 1997, 2008 (I suppose also dot com stuff in around 1999/2000 as well). Recessions in the US in early 90's, early 2000's, 2009 into 2010's.

With my total lack of understanding of world economics I predict a stock market crash sometime between May 2020 and October 2020 and a recession, including Australia (worse than the unofficial one we have really been in here in Australia for the last 10 years), over following few years.

I wonder how my predictions will stand up to the experts. Gillespie 8 hours ago No facts seem to be the hallmark of your post. "Warren first warned in 2003 about subprime mortgage lending" shshus 10 hours ago The incoming economic meltdown in a insanely indebted global ponzi scheme is a no brainer. Despite Trump's usual bombast, the US economy is hardly growing and manufacturing is already in recession. The lunatic policies of central banks to offer free money at almost zero interest rates has caused a greed based credit frenzy that is simply unsustainable. The coming economic collapse will be far worse as the trade wars between US and China and rest of the world will simply compound the problem. Australia is particularly vulnerable in both economic and strategic terms. Time to batten the hatches, rather than pile on more consumer debt.

[Jul 27, 2019] Luongo Gabbard Going After Google Is Double Plus Good

Notable quotes:
"... Any candidate that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC. That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters. ..."
"... This represents an intervention into her ability to speak to voters and, as such, is a violation of not only her First Amendment rights but also, more critically, campaign finance law. ..."
"... On a day when it became clear to the world that Robert Mueller led an investigation to affect the outcome of the 2018 mid-term elections (and beyond) while attempting to overthrow an elected President, Gabbard attacking the one of the main pillars of the information control system is both welcome and needed. ..."
"... Her filing this lawsuit is making it clear that even a fairly conventional Democrat on most all other issues is to be marginalized if she criticizes the empire. ..."
"... You can disagree with Tulsi on many things but she is absolutely right and the only one who gets the real problem.Military Industrial Complex & The Empire. ..."
Jul 27, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Tom Luongo,

Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is suing Google . It's about time someone did. It's one thing to for conservatives and libertarians to be outraged by their treatment by the tech giant, it's another for them to go after a female Democrat.

Since Trump's election the campaign to curtail free speech has went into overdrive and we are now far beyond Orwell's dystopian vision in 1984 in terms of technological infrastructure.

Google makes Big Brother look like George Carlin's the Hippy Dippy Weather Man with the "hippy dippy weather, man." The drive to stamp out all forms of political division has only one thing animating it, protecting the drive of the elites I call The Davos Crowd to erect a transnational superstate to herd humanity to their vision of sustainability.

Gabbard is the only person running for the Democratic nomination worth any amount of my time. Her fundamental criticisms of the U.S. warfare state are spot on. She's sincere about this. It's costing her stature within her own party.

She's a committed anti-imperialist. She's also young, inexperienced and a little bit naive. But that, to me, is part of her charm. It means she is still malleable. She's smart enough to be outraged about where we are headed and young enough to be flexible about what the solutions are to stop it from happening.

So, as such, she's the perfect champion for the defenders of free speech and critics of the U.S. empire. A young, attractive, intelligent woman of mixed-race heritage with a service record who stands athwart the mainstream on the most important issue in politics today: the U.S. empire.

The entire time I was growing up the prevailing wisdom was Social Security was the third rail of U.S. politics. That, like so many other pearls of wisdom, was nonsense.

The true third rail of U.S. politics is empire.

Any candidate that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC. That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters.

For that crime Google acted to blunt interest in her campaign in the critical hours after the first democratic debate. So, Gabbard, rightly, sued them.

The two main points of her lawsuit are:

1) suspending her Google Ad account for six hours while search traffic for her was spiking and

2) Gmail disproportionately junked her campaign emails.

This represents an intervention into her ability to speak to voters and, as such, is a violation of not only her First Amendment rights but also, more critically, campaign finance law.

Whether this lawsuit goes anywhere or not is beside the point. Google will ignore it until they can't and then settle with her before discovery. Gabbard doing this is good PR for her as it sets her on the right side of an incredibly important issue, censorship and technological bias/de-platforming of political outsiders.

It's also good because if she does pursue this principally, it will lead to potential discovery of Google's internal practices, lending the DoJ a hand in pursuing all the big tech firms for electioneering.

On a day when it became clear to the world that Robert Mueller led an investigation to affect the outcome of the 2018 mid-term elections (and beyond) while attempting to overthrow an elected President, Gabbard attacking the one of the main pillars of the information control system is both welcome and needed.

Her filing this lawsuit is making it clear that even a fairly conventional Democrat on most all other issues is to be marginalized if she criticizes the empire.

As libertarians and conservatives it is irrelevant if she is conventional in other areas. It doesn't matter that she's been to a CFR meeting or two or that she's anti-gun. She's not going to be president.

This is not about our virtue-signaling about the purity of essence of our political figures. They are tools to our ends. And on now two incredibly important issues leading up to the 2020 election Tulsi Gabbard is on the right side of them.

She is someone we can and should reach out to and support while she makes these issues the centerpiece of her campaign. Her timing is even more excellent than what I've already stated.

Filing this lawsuit is a pre-emptive strike at Google now that she's qualified for the next two Democratic debates. And it may assist her in breaking out of the bottom tier of the Democratic field, Ron Paul style if she gets her opportunity.

Shedding light on Google's anti-free speech practices is a fundamental good, one we should celebrate. Dare I say, it's double plus good.

* * *

Join my Patreon and install Brave if you both hate big tech censorship and the empire in equal measure.


Thordoom , 8 minutes ago link

You can disagree with Tulsi on many things but she is absolutely right and the only one who gets the real problem.Military Industrial Complex & The Empire.

If you won't kill this problem you can virtue signal about your left and right opinions about your perfect candidate as much as you want without getting anything done ( Trump). Purism won't help you. It only gets you distracted and controlled by the elites.

otschelnik , 11 minutes ago link

The point of this article is that Gabbard is taking on GOOGLE, for screwing with her account. See Google demonitizes, deboosts, deplatforms people without them even knowing it, and diddles their search algorythms NOT ONLY against conservatives, but for independent democrats like Gabbard. THAT'S THE POINT, not who or what Gabbard stands for. The dem party did the same to Gabbard during the 2016 election, cut her off from financing, because she supported Bernie Sanders.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3609

This is the sort of **** things dim's do, and progressive companies like Fakebook, Twatter and Goolag. Now Gabbard may not have views that we can support, but if she is taking on GOOLAG, than we should stand like a wall behind her. This is a big threat to 1st amendment rights.

chunga , 1 hour ago link

I hope this girl switches to an Independant. A lot of people are sick to death of the blues and the reds.

GoldHermit , 52 minutes ago link

Blues and reds is a sham used by the poliicians to divide the populace.

espirit , 48 minutes ago link

Throw in some greens and purples...

LetThemEatRand , 1 hour ago link

Good point, chunga. She is already being given the Ron Paul treatment by MSM (they either slam her as basically a naive fool, or just ignore her), so no way does she rise to the top of the **** pile of Blue Team candidates. Would make a good run as an independent, and maybe wake some people up.

[Jul 26, 2019] Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard Co-Sponsors Audit The Fed Bill

Jul 26, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard Co-Sponsors "Audit The Fed" Bill

by Tyler Durden Fri, 07/26/2019 - 15:50 0 SHARES

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) told Luke Rudkowski of " We Are Change ," a libertarian media organization, that Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has just signed on as a co-sponsor of Audit the Fed bill, officially known as H.R.24 The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2019 .

The bill authorizes the General Accountability Office to perform a full audit of the Fed's conduct of monetary policy, including the Fed's mysterious dealings with Wall Street, central banks and governments.

During the interview, Massie said the latest development in attempting to audit the Federal Reserve is that Gabbard signed on as co-sponsor. He believes the topic will "get some airtime" in the upcoming presidential debates.

He said there are four Democratic co-sponsors and 80 Republican co-sponsors for the bill; it was recently passed in the House of Representatives as it heads to the Senate. Massie said:

"We have passed it in the House but have never passed it in the Senate. Because of a lot of these people in the House of Representatives who vote for it and support it in the House go to the Senate and decide it's not such a good idea."

Rudkowski then tells Massie about interesting parallels between some presidential candidates (Gabbard and Bernie Sanders), who have an anti-interventionists view along with being critical of the Federal Reserve.

Massie responds by saying, "Well if you're just trying to sorta tie the anti-war people to the Federal Reserve. I think the closest connection is the Federal Reserve enables the endless Wars that are being funded by controlling the value of our currency and without the massive borrowing and printing of money and controlling of interest rates - we wouldn't be able to sustain a permanent state of war. "

https://www.youtube.com/embed/WQEbGkzy6Sk

Last week, Ron Paul recently wrote that Massie needs to "expedite passage of their Audit the Fed legislation should the Federal Reserve decide to disobey the will of its creator Congress by involving itself in real-time payments. After all, their bipartisan legislation came just seven votes shy of passing not long ago. With the Fed extending its wings even further and the president finally making good on his promise to push the bill through, it should be all but certain of arriving on his Oval Office desk for signing."

With the US infected by a global industrial slowdown, and in President Trump's view a Federal Reserve-caused economic downturn, support for auditing the Fed will continue to increase among Americans across all political ideologies. It's not just Republicans who demand the audit, but now Gabbard and even Sanders (Democrats).

Auditing the Fed is the first step in changing monetary policy that has created a debt-and-bubble-based economy; promoted the welfare-warfare state; created the most massive wealth inequality crisis in history; led to an affordable housing crisis; transferred all the wealth to the top 1% of America, and could lead to the collapse of the American empire if not corrected in the next several years.

[Jul 26, 2019] Kamala Harris' Kaepernick Comments Is Latest Example of Blaming Real American Problems on Russia by Alan MacLeod

Notable quotes:
"... Democratic presidential hopeful Kamala Harris claimed that the furor surrounding San Francisco 49ers star Colin Kaepernick's protest was artificially generated by Russia. "Remember bend the knee and Colin Kaepernick?" she said on influential New York-based radio show The Breakfast Club , "it actually was not a thing. The Russian bots started taking that over." ..."
"... "They test out a couple of things to see what can get the American public going at each other, pointing fingers at each other," the California senator said. "Guess what gains the most heat? Race." Harris did not mention whether she believed Russians were responsible for ensuring Kaepernick did not get another job in the NFL again. ..."
Jul 26, 2019 | ahtribune.com
Democratic presidential hopeful Kamala Harris claimed that the furor surrounding San Francisco 49ers star Colin Kaepernick's protest was artificially generated by Russia. "Remember bend the knee and Colin Kaepernick?" she said on influential New York-based radio show The Breakfast Club , "it actually was not a thing. The Russian bots started taking that over."

"They test out a couple of things to see what can get the American public going at each other, pointing fingers at each other," the California senator said. "Guess what gains the most heat? Race." Harris did not mention whether she believed Russians were responsible for ensuring Kaepernick did not get another job in the NFL again.

Her comments surprised many, as however many Russian Twitter bots may have retweeted the story, their influence surely pales in comparison to that of the mainstream media or the President himself in stoking the fire of the controversy. There are 278 articles on CNN when searching for "Kaepernick protest" since 2016, 364 in the New York Times and nearly 800 on Fox News . Meanwhile, at an Alabama rally, President Trump called for his dismissal. "Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out, he's fired. He's fired!'" Mr Trump said. "You know, some owner is going to do that. He's going to say, 'That guy that disrespects our flag, he's fired.' And that owner, they don't know it [but] they'll be the most popular person in this country." Thus, that certain Russian bots added their weight to the outrage may technically be correct, it is a matter of emphasis.

... ... ...

The Value of Blaming Russia

For mainstream, corporate Democrats like Harris, Russia is a useful excuse as to why they lost to the most unpopular presidential candidate in history. If it was largely Putin's fault, there is no need for self-reflection, to address campaign flaws, and certainly not to cede ground to a left-wing insurgency speared by Bernie Sanders. Instead they can present a rosy picture of America free from strife and not have to tackle so many of the problems they helped create. As Hillary Clinton said, "America is already great".

... ... ...

Alan MacLeod is a member of the Glasgow University Media Group. His latest book, Bad News From Venezuela: 20 Years of Fake News and Misreporting, was published by Routledge in April.

[Jul 26, 2019] The Dems Have No Trump

Notable quotes:
"... The upcoming Horowitz and Durham reports on their respective probes into "meddling into the meddling" will target many people in the Democratic Party, US intelligence services, and the media. In that order. Can the Dems survive such a thing? It's hard to see. ..."
"... After the opening credits, [Dominic] Cummings rejects an offer in 2015 by UKIP MP Douglas Carswell and political strategist Matthew Elliott to lead the Vote Leave campaign due to his contempt for "Westminster politics", but accepts when Carswell promises Cummings full control. ..."
"... The next sequences show Cummings outlining the core strategy on a whiteboard of narrow disciplined messaging delivered via algorithmic database-driven micro-targeting tools . Cummings rejects an approach by Nigel Farage and Arron Banks of Leave.EU to merge their campaigns, as his data shows Farage is an obstacle to winning an overall majority. ..."
"... [..] In a eureka moment, Cummings refines the core message to "Take Back Control", thus positioning Vote Leave as the historical status quo, and Remain as the "change" option . Cummings meets and hires Canadian Zack Massingham, co-founder of AggregateIQ, who offers to build a database using social media tools of [3 million] voters who are not on the UK electoral register but are inclined to vote to leave. ..."
"... [..] In the final stages, high-profile senior Tory MPs Michael Gove and Boris Johnson join the Vote Leave campaign emphasising the need to "Take Back Control", while Penny Mordaunt is shown on BBC raising concerns over the accession of Turkey. Gove and Johnson are shown as having some reticence over specific Vote Leave claims (e.g. 350 million for NHS, and 70 million potential Turkish emigrants) but are seen to overcome them. ..."
"... And now Cummings is back to finish the job. ..."
"... "algorithmic database-driven micro-targeting tools" ..."
"... They were sending targeted personalized messages to individual voters, by the millions. Algorithms. AI. Tailor made. If you're the opposition, and you don't have those tools, then what do you have exactly? ..."
Jul 26, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

It's a development that has long been evident in continental Europe, and that has now arrived on the shores of the US and UK. It is the somewhat slow but very certain dissolution of long-existing political parties, organizations and groups. That's what I was seeing during the Robert Mueller clown horror show on Wednesday.

Mueller was not just the Democratic Party's last hope, he was their identity. He was the anti-Trump. Well, he no longer is, he is not fit to play that role anymore. And there is nobody to take it over who is not going to be highly contested by at least some parts of the party. In other words: it's falling apart.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's a natural process, parties change as conditions do and if they don't do it fast enough they disappear. Look at the candidates the Dems have. Can anyone imagine the party, post-Mueller, uniting behind Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris? And then for one of them to beat Donald Trump in 2020? I was just watching a little clip from Sean Hannity, doing what Trump did last week, which is going after the Squad. Who he said are anti-Israel socialists and, most importantly, the de facto leaders of the party, not Nancy Pelosi. That is a follow-up consequence of Mueller's tragic defeat, the right can now go on the chase. The Squad is the face of the Dems because Trump and Hannity have made them that.

The upcoming Horowitz and Durham reports on their respective probes into "meddling into the meddling" will target many people in the Democratic Party, US intelligence services, and the media. In that order. Can the Dems survive such a thing? It's hard to see. The Dems have no Trump. They do have a DNC that will stifle any candidate they don't like (Bernie!), though. Just think what they would have done if Trump had run as a Democrat (crazy, but not that crazy).

The UK's issues are remarkably similar to those of the US. Only, in their case, the socialists have already taken over the left-wing party (if you can call the Dems left-wing). This has led to absolute stagnation. Tony Blair had moved Labour so far to the right (which he and his Blairites call center, because it sounds so much better), that injecting Jeremy Corbyn as leader was just too fast and furious.

So they labeled Corbyn an anti-semite, the most successful and equally empty smear campaign since Julian Assange was called a rapist. Corbyn never adequately responded, so he couldn't profile himself and now the Blairites are again calling on him to leave. Oh, and he never gave a direct answer to the question of Brexit yes or no either. Pity. Corbyn's support among the people is massive, but not in the party.

Which is why it's now up to Boris Johnson to 'deliver the will of the people'. And apparently the first thing the people want is 20,000 more policemen. Which were fired by the very party he at the time represented first as first mayor of London and then foreign minister, for goodness sake. His very own Tories closed 600 police stations since 2010 and will have to re-open many now.

Some survey must have told him it polled well. Just like polling was an essential part of pushing through Brexit. There's a very revealing TV movie that came out 6 months ago called Brexit: The Uncivil War, that makes this very clear. The extent to which campaigns these days rely on data gathering and voter targeting will take a while yet to be understood, but they're a future that is already here. Wikipedia in its description of the film puts it quite well:

After the opening credits, [Dominic] Cummings rejects an offer in 2015 by UKIP MP Douglas Carswell and political strategist Matthew Elliott to lead the Vote Leave campaign due to his contempt for "Westminster politics", but accepts when Carswell promises Cummings full control.

The next sequences show Cummings outlining the core strategy on a whiteboard of narrow disciplined messaging delivered via algorithmic database-driven micro-targeting tools . Cummings rejects an approach by Nigel Farage and Arron Banks of Leave.EU to merge their campaigns, as his data shows Farage is an obstacle to winning an overall majority.

[..] In a eureka moment, Cummings refines the core message to "Take Back Control", thus positioning Vote Leave as the historical status quo, and Remain as the "change" option . Cummings meets and hires Canadian Zack Massingham, co-founder of AggregateIQ, who offers to build a database using social media tools of [3 million] voters who are not on the UK electoral register but are inclined to vote to leave.

[..] In the final stages, high-profile senior Tory MPs Michael Gove and Boris Johnson join the Vote Leave campaign emphasising the need to "Take Back Control", while Penny Mordaunt is shown on BBC raising concerns over the accession of Turkey. Gove and Johnson are shown as having some reticence over specific Vote Leave claims (e.g. 350 million for NHS, and 70 million potential Turkish emigrants) but are seen to overcome them.

Dominic Cummings, played in the movie by Benedict Cumberbatch, is an independent political adviser who belongs to no party. But guess what? He was the first adviser Boris Johnson hired after his nomination Wednesday. Cummings didn't want Nigel Farage as the face of Brexit, because he polled poorly. He wanted Boris, because his numbers were better. Not because he didn't think Boris was a bumbling fool, he did.

And now Cummings is back to finish the job. Far as I can see, that can only mean one thing: elections, and soon (it's what Cummings does). A no-deal Brexit was voted down, in the same Parliament Boris Johnson now faces, 3 times, or was it 4? There is going to be a lot of opposition. Boris wants Brexit on October 31, and has practically bet his career on it. But there is going to be a lot of opposition.

He can't have elections before September, because of the summer recess. So perhaps end of September?! But he has Dominic Cummings and his "algorithmic database-driven micro-targeting tools" . Without which Brexit would never have been voted in. So if you don't want Brexit, you better come prepared.

Cummings and his techies weren't -just- sending out mass mails or that kind of stuff. That's already arcane. They were sending targeted personalized messages to individual voters, by the millions. Algorithms. AI. Tailor made. If you're the opposition, and you don't have those tools, then what do you have exactly?

Already thought before it all happened that it was funny that Boris Johnson's ascension and Robert Mueller's downfall were scheduled for the same day. There must be a pattern somewhere.

You can find the movie at HBO or Channel 4, I'm sure. Try this link for Channel 4. Seeing that movie, and thinking about the implications of the technology, the whole notion of Russian meddling becomes arcane as well. We just have no idea.


RoyalDraco , 1 minute ago link

The Demoncrats have one candidate who could beat Trump, namely Tulsi Gabbard. I disagree with her economics and her 2nd amendment stance, but enough Chump voters who based their vote on his promise to stop the continuous war on everyone, would switch to Tulsi if she were nominated, particularly if the Chump plays his Zio directive and starts a war with Iran which will not go well for anybody. But Tulsi will never have a fair shot at the nominations as the MIC Google has demon-strated in her law suit. **** the election. The people and their opinions are not a factor. **** the left right hatred division while the Owners just laugh from the shadows at us for being so easily manipulated.

freedommusic , 3 minutes ago link

The upcoming Horowitz and Durham reports on their respective probes into "meddling into the meddling" will target many people in the Democratic Party, US intelligence services, and the media. In that order. Can the Dems survive such a thing? It's hard to see.

Can criminals survive a functioning DOJ working under the Law?

Klassenfeind , 4 minutes ago link

Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

Another ***, peddling the best FOREIGN AGENT Israel ever had in the White House!

Sp4Ce F@rCe , 16 minutes ago link

'Pied Piper' anyone?

In its self-described "pied piper" strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new "mainstream of the Republican Party" in order to try to increase Clinton's chances of winning.

Trump is using Hillary's Pied Piper strategy against AoC and the Squid.

Elevate the radical leftists...they'll be seen as the face of the Democrat party...then 2020 is a sure Trump win.

Not that I care...I never consented to being governed by anyone.

It does make for good entertainment, however.

Automatic Choke , 21 minutes ago link

For decades, the Democratic party has been a joke: a weakly bound coalition of liberals and labor -- two groups with nothing in common, and a fair degree of hate for each other.

For decades, the Republican party has also been a joke: a weakly bound coalition of religious fundamentalists and fiscal conservatives -- two groups with nothing in common, and a fair degree of hate for each other.

In European politics, they call a shovel a shovel and work by coalition government. You have smaller parties which actually represent interest groups, although none are large enough for power themselves. They form and break coalitions -- some long lasting, some flittering around from election to election -- in order to form a majority ad hoc. It isn't a bad system, and the voters don't have to hold their noses so much at the polls.

(edit: all this squabbling between "the squad" and the Pelosi leadership makes much more sense when viewed as friction between the labor and liberal halves of the dems.)

[Jul 26, 2019] How Democrats Are Shorting White Voters for 2020 by Peter Van Buren

Kamala became too toxic to have a realistic chance in 2020 race, She overplayed her hand and is now viewed as a extremist by many potential voters. .
Jul 26, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The exaggeration of white privilege has become a cornerstone of progressivism. It's also one of the ways Democrats risk losing the 2020 presidential race, as it leads inexorably to the devaluation of voters needed to clinch the Electoral College.

The problem with a race-based, victim-washed vision of 2019 America is that being white is not enough, and never has been. I was a diplomat for 24 years, about as privileged a job on paper as you can get. But inside the State Department, being white was only a start. The real criteria was "pale, male, and Yale." Being white (the pale part) was great, but only if you were also a man; women were stuck in less desirable jobs (girls are nurses; boys are doctors). No surprise, then, that the State Department has been sued over the years by its women and black diplomats.

But white and male got you only to the door. The "good" jobs required the right background, preferably via an Ivy. A sort of proud graduate of The Ohio State University, my privilege only went so far. I couldn't fake it. They knew each other. Their fathers knew each other. They had money -- well, parents with money. We Big Ten alums never got our class action together and so muddled mostly at the middle levels.

The idea that white was enough was always laughable. America did not welcome our immigrant grandpas; it shunted them into slums and paid them as little as possible to work for male, pale, and Yale owners. Check how many Irish died digging the canals around New Orleans. Read how immigrant children were overworked in factories for decades. The 1924 Johnson-Reed Act used phrenology to exclude Italians. It was so horrendously racist that Hitler praised it in Mein Kampf . In 2019, so much as mentioning the Irish triggers someone with purple hair and a neck tattoo in Elvish to shout that slavery was worse. It was. But applying a rank order to suffering ignores the reason that ideology will drag down the Democratic party in 2020: it is about more than race. What progressives call white privilege is mostly status-wealth privilege, with a lot of unrelated things chucked in to fill out the racist manifesto -- basically everything bad that happens to black people, from airplane seating scrums to what color the director of the next superhero movie is.

The candidates then either dismiss what they call white angst as a Fox News narrative or condemn it as supremacy, Nazism, and fascism, words that have lost all meaning. Dems crow about changing demographics that will turn America into a non-majority-white nation, and celebrate the end of privilege as the country depletes its stock of Caucasians. They fail to see that the salient statistic of America is not that the 61 percent who are white is falling, but that a tiny group, the top 0.1 percent of households, now hold the same amount of wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

Every white voter in every swing state feels the pull of that. They're afraid of losing their place -- not to black people, but to the economy. And every one of those voters knows that the solutions Democrats propose will not help them (they are also unlikely to fix racism, but that's another matter). Mayor Pete Buttigieg's Douglass Plan provides billions for black businesses and colleges and aims to reduce the prison population by half. Biden wants to provide former felons with housing . Kamala Harris has a $100 billion plan for black homeownership . Everyone on MSNBC favors reparations .

Nothing excuses the at times dangerous behavior of Donald Trump and some of his supporters. Yet declaring all Trump supporters to be racist is far too crude an understanding. Many feel they are under attack by progressives who fail to see their own economic vulnerabilities. Instead of Barack Obama (Columbia '83, Harvard '91) talking about hope and change for everyone, they hear today's Dems dedicating themselves to over-correcting racial wrongs, punishing those in the present for historical sins. Resentment builds as they're scolded over what little more they have than others.

The 2020 Democratic Party Goes Full McGovern Did the Squad Just Make Trump's Day?

Democratic very-hopeful Kirsten Gillibrand failed to sell this penitent version of white privilege right at the ground zero for economic inequality -- Youngstown, Ohio. Youngstown was archetypal postwar America, a Midwest city built around a now-dead steel industry. It was racially mixed, not only statistically (49 percent white, 44 percent black), but in reality. The now-gone union jobs paid living wages to whites and blacks and allowed people to buy homes on each others' streets. Workers' privilege. The receding tide grounded all boats.

Gillibrand was asked at a campaign stop there: "This is an area that, across all demographics, has been depressed because of the loss of industry and the opioid crisis. What do you have to say to people in this area about so-called white privilege?"

Her answer, praised by CNN as "powerful," was a wandering narrative about how, while white privilege didn't spare the questioner unemployment, the loss of her house, her son to opioids, and her soul itself at the hands of rapacious inequality, the black folk in Youngstown had it worse -- 'cause the supremacist cops would bust a black kid for weed while a white kid would walk away. It was the perfect answer for a progressive media hit. It was the worst possible answer if a candidate actually wanted to win some of those Ohio votes. Gillibrand stumbled on to say she that she understood families in the community were suffering, "but that's not what this conversation is about."

Her answer was thin soup to women who'd lost sons to drugs. Opioids now rank just below suicide as a cause of death in America (as if the two are unconnected). Many more die from opioids than police violence. Ohio has the second highest opioids death count in the U.S. And how much time will that issue get at the next Democratic debate?

Gillibrand, standing in as the poster child for progressives, likely knows nothing about 1977's Black Monday in Youngstown, when 5,000 steelworkers were laid off, or of the 50,000 who lost their jobs after that. The town never recovered, trauma that helped put Ronald Reagan and then Trump in the White House. She doesn't see what they saw. The problem is not black and white; it is up and down.

The people of Youngstown understand this in their bones, and, to the endless amazement of progressive media , support Trump even when he is ineffective in helping them, because at least he understands. He would never tell them that their economic problems pale in comparison to racism. Gillibrand, on the other hand, went to Youngstown specifically to communicate that she doesn't care -- her eye is on another audience.

It is time to admit that racism is not the core problem, the one Pete Buttigieg claims "threatens to unravel the American project." It is in 2019 an exaggeration driving a key Democratic strategy: betting the White House on unreliable voters (since the 1980s, blacks have turned out in higher numbers than whites, percentage-wise, only for the Obama elections) against a body of whites they devalue.

This is a risky strategy. It alienates too many while challenging others (older Americans of all races historically turn out at 30 to 40 percent higher rates than the youngest voters) to vote for the party that now gleefully denounces Thomas Jefferson as a slaver, and throws its own vice president emeritus and frontrunner under the racism bus. Voters, meanwhile, wonder when the reparations for their lost jobs and homes will come.

The Dems can't reassess because to discuss racism in any but the Party's own terms is more racism. Dissenters are racists, or at least noncompetitive. Mayor Pete, who in January said , "Trump got elected because, in his twisted way, he pointed out the huge troubles in our economy and our democracy," now leads the charge with racism. Argument is ended with "Oh, so says a white person." Whitesplaining! It's like saying only doctors who have cancer are allowed to treat tumors.

In Wall Street terms, Democrats are "shorting" white voters. A short means betting against something, devaluing it. If you are short on Microsoft, you make investments that will go up if Microsoft goes down. Dems think white voters have little value, and are betting against them with exaggerated claims of supremacy. Along the way, they assume all "people of color" will fall into place, believing that what resonates with young urban blacks will also click with their older rural relatives in swing states, as well as with Latinos who trace their roots from Barcelona to Havana to Juarez, and Asians too (why not?), simply because, in Democratic lexicon, any color trumps white -- no shades of nuance needed.

If that sounds simplistic, never mind inaccurate, and a bad idea, you may want to consider shorting the Dems for 2020.

Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan.


E. T. Bass 3 hours ago

The reason the democrat left’s “identity politics” is doomed to failure is that it disdains, excludes and insults the intelligence of anyone who simply chooses to identify as “American”
James Greenbaum 2 hours ago
Obsessive Democratic Division Disorder. Instead of focusing on Unity and Accord, instead of seeing the US of A as one big melting pot filled with the same hopes & dreams, Democrats have obsessed on dividing the nation into every conceivable sub-category of humanity along lines of political correctness for the impossible idea of cobbling a majority voting block from minority classes that are already protected under Title IX, Family Leave Act, Equal Protection, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, ADA, and a host of other federal and state equally laws.

Hillary, The Inevitable One, failed miserably with Basket of Deplorables voting for Trump. As it turns out a majority of Americans appreciate the US of A, and understand that just because they have American Pride and believe in America, does not mean they should be labeled a racist.

So long as the Democrats Obsess on Dividing the nation falsing accusing anyone not on their Crazy Socialist Train racist, sexist, homophobic, white-privileged or Russian Collusion Conspirators -- the Dems will continue to go down in flames.

Mark Thomason 2 hours ago
"Gillibrand, on the other hand, went to Youngstown specifically to communicate that she doesn’t care—her eye is on another audience."

McCain did the same thing in my town's high school auditorium during his run for President. He came to tell us there was no hope, that no jobs were coming back, and our community had no future. He lost here.

olderwiser an hour ago
50 years ago, I started an entry level job in financial services. Most of my time was spent meeting with low income prospective customers, many of whom had incomes about the same as my entry level salary, or higher. It only took me a short time to realize that I had more in common with the low income minority group customers that I was meeting with than with the managers and executives who ran the company. It was never about race. It’s always about income and wealth and opportunity. The Democrats want to deny opportunity to everyone who is, by their definition, white. It’s already a fact of life for young white people trying to lift themselves out of poverty. Even young people of color recognize the injustice in the Democratic Party policies.
Eva_Galley an hour ago
I dont think its as much skin color as it is the age demographic. If you're 50 and up, despite your race, you were raised in a fairly harmonious age when people knew racism still existed, but the average person did not practice it. It was reserved for the 10% fringe (KKK) of society.
This article is spot-on in declaring the practice of punishing the present-day citizens for historical sins will never gain much momentum, even among the black community. They acknowledge they have never been slaves as much as their whit counterparts have ever owned slaves.
Whatever your color, we all want a steady economy. That's a winning message.
Don Quijote an hour ago • edited
Dems think white voters have little value, and are betting against them with exaggerated claims of supremacy.

No they just think that they will vote their racial resentment instead of their economic interest and so far they have been proven right.

House passes legislation aimed at stabilizing multiemployer pension plans

The House passed legislation Wednesday in a 264-169 vote aimed at helping stabilize multiemployer pension plans in hopes of mitigating the looming pension crisis.

Twenty-nine Republicans — nine of whom co-sponsored the legislation — joined Democrats in voting for the measure.

All Information (Except Text) for S.27 - American Miners Act of 2019

Dave an hour ago
Taken with a grain of salt from the man who wrote on Oct 29 2018 that the Democrats "are unlikely to take control of the House."

[Jul 25, 2019] Trump and mueller

Jul 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Circe , Jul 25 2019 13:14 utc | 107

Here's the hypocrisy I can't stand around here: Zionist Trump is doing the bidding of the Zionist cabal meddling in Venezuela and headed for war with Iran, not to mention all his other destructive policies, and he lined and lines his pockets scrooing everyone on the way up and people here are worried that such a pig at the trough might somehow be the victim of an injustice???

This is a man, who among his lesser offences cheated on his wife while she was pregnant AND then let his lawyer cover it up so he wouldn't take the fall for illegal campaign violations.

So it begs the question: why do you care so much about the corrupt bastard who should be behind bars with his fall guys?

Only Zionists defend Trump. Case in point.

[Jul 25, 2019] Neoliberal Democrats try to defeat Trump on his personality and his business practices. They do not want to discuss policies

Trump has neoliberal, pro-Israel policies -- exactly the same that Hillary would persue
Jul 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
somebody , Jul 25 2019 8:48 utc | 81
Democrats (as in Democrat party), not candidates, try to defeat Trump on his personality and his business practices. They do not want to discuss policies. Actually, Trump does not want to discuss policies, feeding the news cycles with click bait.

This realclearpolitics article claims all policy issues Democrat candidates have poll as a minority view - at present.

If people are utterly disgusted with Trump. they may just stay at home or vote Democrat, never mind the policy.

There is another chance. Trump has staked his reelection on claiming to be responsible for the - good - economy.
Bets are that after going up for a long time (and this started under Obama) the economy will go down.
Elizabeth Warren has already bet on it .
The green economy is the next industrial wave (after that capitalism has to stop if ecosystems are meant to survive, it is probably too late for that already).
Democrats have the recipe for that.
Even if Trump gets a second run, his policies are not sustainable, not demographically, not economically. Lack of health care/overprized health care, lack of education is a disadvantage not an advantage of the American system. Democrats are wise to have a long term perspective.

[Jul 25, 2019] Democrats for Trump, 2020 by Fred Reed

Jul 25, 2019 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

But can the Dems be serious? They've got to be drinking the Kool-Aid. We have Kamala Harris, a colored woman who is in favor of busing. This means sending white children forty-five minutes each way to violent fifth-rate schools where they will be bullied without mercy and come away hating blacks. She thinks parents will put her racial enthusiasms over the welfare of their kids. Not gonna happen, Kamala gal.

Kamala says we need more integration. Why? What good is it? Who is going to vote for it? Do not people avoid it like hemorrhagic tuberculosis when they have a choice?

The entire screwy list of adolescent canditatorial hamsters favors reparations for, oh god, slavery. We will never hear the end of slavery. Like the liver of Prometheus, slavery is a resource never depleted.

Reparations of course means forcing whites who never owned slaves to give money to blacks who never were slaves. Granted, this will get the Democrats the votes of American Africans, which they had anyway.

I can hear it in Detroit: "Reparations? Yowee! Hoo-ah!! More free stuff!" Just like looting a Walgreen's but you don't have to run even a couple of blocks.

In the "debates," these political dribs and drabs and leftovers avoided topics of importance such as the wars, the Pentagon's maximum-flab budget, the national debt, our domestic banditry such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa, immigration, and black crime. The latter spreads like gangrene in a suppurated wound. Almost weekly we read of businesses gang-robbed by "teens," which we all know what are.

(Meerriam-Webster–"Teen: a black between the ages of sixteen and twenty-eight caught on surveillance cameras sacking a business owned by shties.")

Now, reparations will fly in Flint. Who can doubtit? The water is poisonous, people don't have jobs, and now they have to pay American Africans who hate them for something Flint didn't do to them.

Trump must be paying the Democratic lineup to do this. Nothing else can explain it.

And all of the same political retards favor open borders. This is what got Trump elected in the first place, so they are going to do it again. What could make more sense? If you pound your thumb with a hammer, and it hurts, the smart thing is to pound it again. That will make it feel better. They seem to be in a race to see who can be least electable. They all look to be winners.

Meanwhile Trump, who should be an easy target, revs up his fans with carney-barker harangues appealing to the limbic third-grader so prevalent in the psyches of the mid-country. You have to hand it to the guy: He has charisma. Make America Great Again! Never mind that he is presiding over the greatest decline America has ever seen. Build the wall! Build the wall! Yeeee-hah! This sort of thing appeals to those whose minds might be described as uncluttered and, hey, a vote is a vote.

He hasn't built the Wall, is unlikely to, has deported almost nobody, and jobs are still leaving America. With Trump, though, it's the giddy mood of the thing, the sense that the President is one of us, against those rich New York bastards and snotty anchorwomen who have screwed us. Which of course they have.

Curiously, the press rabble in Washington pride themselves as being on the Left. Say what ? Howzat again? The Left used to be the party of the working man, the party supporting unionization, often at risk of bodily harm.They were against wars. Working men got killed in them for the benefit of the arms industry.

Today's alleged Left is the party of white coastal upper middle classes against the working class, whom they name deplorables. The racial minorities, with whom the elites strictly avoid associating, serve as voting fodder.

Can you imagine Saul Alinsky arguing for integrated bathrooms so as to be inclusive?

So we have Biden and Bernie, intensely exciting as wallpaper paste, suited more to Madame Tussaud's than the White House. Elizabeth Warren, who presumably will wear feathers and say woo-woo-woo and wave her DNA report saying that she is 1/1024 wild Indian. Maybe she will carry a tomahawk.

What gave us these? Saturation mutagenesis? The Russians put something in the water?

Well, there was Tulsi Gabbard, who will get my vote.(This doubtless will prove decisive.) She was the only entry in the lineup of stale-bread Democrats who mentioned the wars. She is against. Nobody else noticed the voracious Five-Sided Black Hole on the Potomac that devours the nation's substance.

This matters, or ought to. The military boodle is the only available pile of moolah to pay for Free Stuff. Or infrastructure. Or decent medical care. But it also sustains the military, the biggest scam of corporate America. The media will have to sideline Tulsi.

Meanwhile at the top, in the Great Double-Wide on Pennsylvania Avenue, we have Trump himself, crass as a truss ad, and John Bolton, who seems to be an actual mutant. Maybe his father sat on a radium watch. Throw in Pompeo, a vicious Christian who looks like an ad for bacon fat. This is what the turnips of the Democratic freak show, each more boring than all the others combined, all rushing to out-weird the others, will give us again in 2020.

Actually, I hope Trump isn't impeached. He may be all that stands between the Republic (I am being nostalgic) and war with Iran. The only people who want war are Bolton, the Jewish lobbies, and Israel. Everybody else wants to sell Iran stuff and buy stuff from it.

Anyway, Pence is a loon who thinks he is about to be vacuumed up by the Rapture and I guess drink beer with God. Without Trump, who may be too confused for a war, Bolton would nuke Tehran.

To date, the last chapter in this comic book has been the sad story of the British ambassador. He got caught telling his government that Trump was incompetent, flaky, unreliable, and egotistical. This of course is what all ambassadors must be telling headquarters. What do you expect them to write of a president who has invented three hitherto unknown countries–Nambia, Nepple, and Button–and tweets of the "Prince of Whales"? Tweeting is what birds do. Europe must look on with equal parts horror and amusement.

But how can he lose against such a sorry gaggle of embarrassing Democrats? They appear set to nominate some creature of the remote fringes, the political equivalent of Rupaul and then, having elected Trump again, they will wonder at length how he got elected. Only in America.


Cyrano , says: July 24, 2019 at 5:45 pm GMT

You are 100% bang on with this article, Fred. The reason why the multiculturalism fiasco was invented was so the US can continue with their old reactionary right wing ways – out of nostalgia – of course. If the idea wasn't catastrophic – it would be brilliant – and it is. Because who would suspect such a thing, the country with immigrant policy so carefree like there is no tomorrow – and the way the things look, there might not be one-and yet the country who invented it is exactly that – reactionary right wing.

Regardless who is in power – democrats or republicans – who are there just for the amusement of the great unwashed, US is stuck in their old ways. The dead giveaway that they are reactionary right wing country are their wars – which are exclusively fought against anyone who shows even a hint of socialism.

And yet – they are "socialist" themselves, or at least they are trying to sell themselves to the world as being "left wing". See, that's clever, the good old capitalists know that humanity ALWAYS evolves to the left – throughout history this has been proven. Feudalism was more left wing than slavery, capitalism is more left wing than feudalism, and whatever comes next, will have to be more left wing still.

Having no heart to follow that direction, the US decided to fake a left and continue with their right wing ways. What bothers me the most is that they think they are smart. And the fake left that they took will destroy them more thoroughly than if they took a real left.

David , says: July 24, 2019 at 6:17 pm GMT
@phil In the 1950's, the labor force participation rate of men (percent of working age men with a job) was around 86%. Today that number is about 69%. Lowest rate in history. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001
anonymous [340] Disclaimer , says: July 25, 2019 at 11:53 am GMT
Before any of you takes seriously the next Most Important Election Ever, consider this prediction by another columnist here at The Unz Review:

"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.

A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."

Linh Dinh, June 12, 2016.

National politics are the Establishment's way to channel, geld, and harmlessly blow off dissent. If you want things to change, stop voting and encourage others to do so. If nothing else, at least take a different crayon, something other than Red or Blue.

eah , says: July 25, 2019 at 11:55 am GMT
This is actually a pretty reasonable column from Fredrigo Reedriguez -- except perhaps for this part:

and jobs are still leaving America.

Of course jobs will always leave America -- the question is: Has there been net job growth under Trump (not that he should get sole credit for that), especially in manufacturing (decimated in previous decades), and if these gains are sustainable -- I don't think anyone can really answer the latter question -- also import is altering trade policy to stem future job loss -- it's less clear Trump has made significant progress there.

From the NYT on Jun 13 2019 -- In the Race for Factory Jobs Under Trump, the Midwest Isn't Winning -- The West and oil-rich areas have seen stronger gains than the industrial Midwest, which was hit hard by outsourcing and automation, a new analysis shows

In President Trump's first two years in office, factory job growth accelerated, Some of the 465,000 factory jobs that the country created in 2017 and 2018 are in the most economically beleaguered counties that voted for Mr. Trump in 2016.

Harold Smith , says: July 25, 2019 at 12:58 pm GMT

"But how can he lose against such a sorry gaggle of embarrassing Democrats?"

Exactly; just like they did the first time around by running the least electable democrat they could find, Hillary Clinton (and even then having to take obvious steps to undermine her campaign), in accordance with the long-standing plan.

"They appear set to nominate some creature of the remote fringes, the political equivalent of Rupaul and then, having elected Trump again, they will wonder at length how he got elected. Only in America."

Well I don't think they'll "wonder" about their own calculated plan, i.e., to portray orange clown's "opposition" as wanting to eat babies, open the borders, put white people in concentration camps, pay reparations, do away with the concept of gender, teach sexual perversion in schools, trash the 2nd amendment, etc., etc., etc thus only the apparently somewhat less evil orange clown can save us.

Harold Smith , says: July 25, 2019 at 2:02 pm GMT
@Anonymous

"What an asshole, disrespecting our President like that."

LOL! As if Israeli agent orange clown – who had to lie his way into the white house – actually deserves "respect."

[Jul 25, 2019] Corporate Democrats are shark suckers attached to the bottoms of Oligarchs.

Jul 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

VietnamVet , Jul 24 2019 22:29 utc | 50

Corporate Democrats are shark suckers attached to the bottoms of Oligarchs. To keep feeding they must blame someone else not the White Shark. Russians are a natural enemy for the five-eyes intelligence community and corrupt politicians. Media propaganda can't keep up with the spooks crazy operations; restarting the Cold War, the Steele Dossier, Brexit, Salisbury Poisonings, Trade Sanctions, or pirating oil tankers. One or all will inevitably kill the host.

[Jul 25, 2019] "Robert Mueller testifies today but Russiagate will live on as long as cynical democrats like Kamala Harris want it to

Jul 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Jul 24 2019 21:23 utc | 37

lysias @41--

Correct!

Techno_Fog and thread seem to agree Mueller perjured himself and ought to get the Flynn treatment.

Margaret Kimberley on Russiagate's legs and at least one responsible for keeping it alive:

"Robert Mueller testifies today but Russiagate will live on as long as cynical democrats like Kamala Harris want it to. She is the worst, as she uses black people and denies our history in an effort to promote the lie."

Oraneg , Jul 24 2019 21:35 utc | 42

The reason Mueller couldn't comment or answer so many questions today. The irony is off the charts.

"What Goes Around"

https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/what-goes-around/

"It turned out that Mr. Mueller's team had no evidence that the Russian government was involved with the Facebook pranks. This annoyed Judge Friedrich, who ordered Mr. Mueller and his lawyers to desist making public statements about Concord and IRA's alleged "sweeping and systemic" collusion with Russia, and threatened legal sanctions if they did."

[Jul 25, 2019] Dems ratpack of reparations freaks, weird sexual curiosities, and race hustlers is actually a fifth column for Trump re-election by Fred Reed

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The Democrats are fielding as candidates a roster of middle-school clowns and unflavored tapioca. Are they secretly in Trump's pay? Like Clinton with her "Deplorables" suicide line? ..."
"... Probably the Russians are behind it. ..."
Jul 25, 2019 | www.unz.com

They're going to do it, I tell you: The whole touchy-feely do-gooding ratpack of Microaggression worriers, reparations freaks, weird sexual curiosities, race hustlers, bat.-Antifa psychos, and egalitarian enstupidators of universities. They are going to elect Trump. Again.

Washington, where I shortly will be for a bit, is crazy. It has not the slightest, wan, etiolated idea of what is going on in America. The Democrats are fielding as candidates a roster of middle-school clowns and unflavored tapioca. Are they secretly in Trump's pay? Like Clinton with her "Deplorables" suicide line?

Probably the Russians are behind it.

[Jul 24, 2019] Elizabeth Warren Seeks to Cut Private Equity Down to Size

Highly recommended!
That bill alone makes Warren a viable candidate again, despite all her previous blunders. She is a courageous woman, that Warren. And she might wipe the floor with the completely subservant to Israel lobby Trump. Who betrayed his electorate in all major promises.
Notable quotes:
"... Not only would Warren's legislation prohibit some of the most destructive private equity activities, but it would end their ability to act as traditional asset managers, taking fees and incurring close to no risk if their investments go belly up. The bill takes the explicit and radical view that: ..."
"... Private funds should have a stake in the outcome of their investments, enjoying returns if those investments are successful but ab-1sorbing losses if those investments fail. ..."
"... Critics will say that Warren's bill has no chance of passing, which is currently true but misses the point. ..."
"... firms would share responsibility for the liabilities of companies under their control, including debt, legal judgments, and pension obligations to "better align the incentives of private equity firms and the companies they own." The bill, if enacted, would end the tax subsidy for excessive leverage and closes the carried interest loophole. ..."
"... The bill also seeks to ban dividends to investors for two years after a firm is acquired. Worker pay would be prioritized in the bankruptcy process, with guidelines intended to ensure affected employees are more likely to receive severance pay and pensions. It would also clarify gift cards are consumer deposits, ensuring their priority in bankruptcy proceedings. If enacted, private equity managers will be required to disclose fees, returns, and political expenditures. ..."
"... This is a bold set of proposals that targets abuses that hurt workers and investors. Most readers may not appreciate the significance of the two-year restriction on dividends. One return-goosing strategy that often leaves companies crippled or bankrupt in its wake is the "dividend recap" in which the acquired company takes on yet more debt for the purpose of paying a special dividend to its investors. Another strategy that Appelbaum and Batt have discussed at length is the "op co/prop co." Here the new owners take real estate owned by the company, sell it to a new entity with the former owner leasing it. The leases are typically set high so as to allow for the "prop co" to be sold at a richer price. This strategy is often a direct contributor to the death of businesses, since ones that own their real estate usually do so because they are in cyclical industries, and not having lease payments enables the to ride out bad times. The proceeds of sale of the real estate is usually dividended out to the investors, hence the dividend restriction would also pour cold water on this approach. ..."
"... However, there is precedent in private equity for recognizing joint and several liability of an investment fund for the obligations of its portfolio companies. In a case that winded its way through the federal courts until last year ( Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund ), the federal court held that Sun Capital Partners III was liable under ERISA, the federal pension law, for the unfunded pension obligations of Scott Brass, a portfolio company of that fund. The court's key finding was that Sun Capital played an active management role in Scott Brass and that its claim of passive investor status therefore should not be respected. ..."
"... Needless to say, private equity firms have worked hard to minimize their exposure to the Sun Capital decision, for example by avoiding purchasing companies with defined benefit pension plans. The Warren bill, however, is so broad in the sweep of liability it imposes that PE firms would be unlikely to be able to structure around it. It is hard to imagine the investors in private equity funds accepting liability for what could be enormous sums of unfunded pension liabilities ultimately flowing onto them. Either they would have to set up shell companies to fund their PE investments that could absorb the potential liability, or they would have to give up on the asset class. Either way, it would mean big changes to the industry and potentially a major contraction of it. ..."
"... I am surprised that Warren sought to make private equity funds responsible for the portfolio company debts by "joint and several liability". You can get to economically pretty much the same end by requiring the general partner and potentially also key employees to guarantee the debt and by preventing them from assigning or buying insurance to protect the guarantor from being liable. There is ample precedent for that for entrepreneurs. Small business corporate credit cards and nearly all small business loans require a personal guarantee. ..."
"... Warren's bill also has strong pro-investor provisions. It takes on the biggest feature of the ongoing investor scamming, which is the failure of PE managers to disclose to the investors all of the fees they receive from portfolio companies. The solution proposed by the bill to this problem is exceedingly straightforward, basically proclaiming, "Oh yeah, now you will have to disclose that." The bill also abolishes the ability of private equity managers to claim long term capital gains treatment on the 20 percent of fund profits that they receive, which is unrelated to the return on any capital that the private equity managers may happen to invest in a fund. ..."
"... We need a reparations movement for all those workers harmed by private equity. Seriously. ..."
"... It's so nice to see someone taking steps to protect the rights and compensation of the people actually doing the work at the companies and putting their interests first in case of bankruptcy. That those who worked hardest to make the company succeed were somehow the ones who took it in the shorts the worst has always struck me as a glaring inequity bordering on cruelty. ..."
Jul 23, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Elizabeth Warren's Stop Wall Street Looting Act , which is co-sponsored by Tammy Baldwin, Sherrod Brown, Mark Pocan and Pramila Jayapal, seeks to fundamentally alter the way private equity firms operate. While the likely impetus for Warren's bill was the spate of private-equity-induced retail bankruptcies, with Toys 'R' Us particularly prominent, the bill addresses all the areas targeted by critics of private equity: how it hurts workers and investors and short-changes the tax man, thus burdening taxpayers generally.

... ... ...

[Jul 23, 2019] Did John Bolton Light the Fuse of the UK-Iranian Tanker Crisis

Notable quotes:
"... Contrary to the official rationale, the detention of the Iranian tanker was not consistent with the 2012 EU regulation on sanctions against the Assad government in Syria. The EU Council regulation in question specifies in Article 35 that the sanctions were to apply only within the territory of EU member states, to a national or business entity or onboard an aircraft or vessel "under the jurisdiction of a member state." ..."
"... The notice required the Gibraltar government to detain any such ship for at least 72 hours if it entered "British Gibraltar Territorial Waters." Significantly, however, the video statement by Gibraltar's chief minister Fabian Picardo on July 4 explaining the seizure of the Grace 1 made no such claim and avoided any mention of the precise location of the ship when it was seized. ..."
"... There is a good reason why the chief minister chose not to draw attention to the issue of the ship's location: it is virtually impossible that the ship was in British Gibraltar territorial waters at any time before being boarded. The UK claims territorial waters of three nautical miles from its coast, whereas the Strait of Gibraltar is 7.5 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point. That would make the limit of UK territory just north of the middle of the Strait. ..."
"... But international straits must have clearly defined and separated shipping lanes going in different directions. The Grace 1 was in the shipping lane heading east toward the Mediterranean, which is south of the lane for ships heading west toward the Atlantic and thus clearly closer to the coast of Morocco than to the coast of Gibraltar, as can be seen from this live view of typical ship traffic through the strait . So it is quite implausible that the Grace 1 strayed out of its shipping lane into British territorial waters at any time before it was boarded. ..."
"... Such a move clearly violates the global treaty governing the issue -- the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea . Articles 37 through 44 of that agreement, ratified by 167 states, including the UK and the European Union, establish a "regime of transit passage" for international straits like the Strait of Gibraltar that guarantees freedom of navigation for merchant ships. The rules of that regime explicitly forbid states bordering the strait from interfering with the transit passage of a merchant ship, with very narrowly defined exceptions. ..."
"... The evidence indicates, moreover, that the UK's actions were part of a broader scheme coordinated with the Trump administration to tighten pressure on Iran's economy by reducing Iran's ability to export goods. ..."
"... On July 19, Reuters London correspondent Guy Falconbridge reported , "[S]everal diplomatic sources said the United States asked the UK to seize the vessel." ..."
"... Detailed evidence of Bolton deep involvement in the British plan to seize the Iranian tanker has surfaced in reporting on the withdrawal of Panamanian flag status for the Grace 1. ..."
"... The role of Panama's National Security Council signaled Bolton's hand, since he would have been the point of contact with that body. The result of his maneuvering was to leave the Grace 1 without the protection of flag status necessary to sail or visit a port in the middle of its journey. This in conjunction with the British seizure of the ship was yet another episode in the extraordinary American effort to deprive Iran of the most basic sovereign right to participate in the global economy. ..."
"... Back in 2013 2013 there was a rumour afoot that Edward Snowden, who at the time was stuck in the Moscow airport, trapped there by the sudden cancellation mid-flight of his US passport, was going spirited away by the President of Bolivia Evo Morales aboard his private jet. So what the US apparently was lean on it European allies to stop him. This they duly and dutifully did. Spain, France, and others denied overflight rights to the Bolivian jet, forcing it to turn back and land in Austria. There was even a report that once on the ground, the Spanish ambassador to Austria showed up and asked the Bolivian president if he might come out to the plain for a coffee--and presumably to have a poke around to see he could catch Snowden in the act of vanishing into the cargo hold. ..."
"... The rumor turned out to be completely false, but it was the Europeans who wound up with the egg on their face. Not to mention the ones who broke international law. ..."
"... Bolton persuaded the British to play along with the stupid US "maximum pressure" strategy, regardless of its illegality. (Maybe the British government thought that it would placate Trump after Ambassadorgate.) And then of course Pompeo threw them under the bus. It's getting hard to be a US ally (except for Saudi Arabia and Israel.) ..."
"... Spain lodged a formal complaint about the action, because it considers the sea around Gibraltar to be part of its international waters, "We are studying the circumstances and looking at how this affects our sovereignty," Josep Borell, Spain's acting foreign minister, said. So Gibraltar or Spanish waters? Gibraltar Territorial Waters (1 pg): ..."
"... Worse than the bad behavior of Bolton, and the poodle behavior of Britain, is the utter failure of our press to provide us a skeptical eye and honest look at events. They've been mere stenographers and megaphones for power doing wrong. ..."
"... And this just in. A UK government official has just stated, related to the Iranian tanker stopped near Gibraltar, the UK will not be part of Trump's 'maximum pressure' gambit on Iran. We shall see if Boris Johnson is for or against that policy. ..."
"... John Bolton, war criminal. ..."
"... John Bolton has been desperate for a war with Iran for decades. This is just another escalation in his desperate attempt to get one. He's the classic neocon chicken hawk who is bravely ready to risk and sacrifice other people's lives at the drop of a hat. ..."
"... Since UK is abusing its control of Gibraltar by behaving like a thug, maybe it is better for the international community to support an independent state of Gibraltar, or at least let Spain has it. It will be better for world peace. ..."
"... While I agree with the gist of the article, remember that Bolton has no authority except that which is given to him. So stop blaming Bolton. Blame Trump. ..."
"... The provocations will go on and on until Iran shoots back and then Wash. will get the war it's been trying to start for some time now to pay back all those campaign donors who will profit from another war. ..."
"... The MIC needs constant wars to use up munitions so new ones can be manufactured. It's really just about business and politicians working together for mutual benefit to keep those contributions coming in. With all the other issues facing America, a war with Iran will just add to the end of the USA which is coming faster than you think. ..."
Jul 23, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Did John Bolton Light the Fuse of the UK-Iranian Tanker Crisis? Evidence suggests he pressured the Brits to seize an Iranian ship. Why? More war. By Gareth Porter July 23, 2019

While Iran's seizure of a British tanker near the Strait of Hormuz on Friday was a clear response to the British capture of an Iranian tanker in the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4, both the UK and U.S. governments are insisting that Iran's operation was illegal while the British acted legally.

The facts surrounding the British detention of the Iranian ship, however, suggest that, like the Iranian detention of the British ship, it was an illegal interference with freedom of navigation through an international strait. And even more importantly, evidence indicates that the British move was part of a bigger scheme coordinated by National Security Advisor John Bolton.

British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt called the Iran seizure of the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero "unacceptable" and insisted that it is "essential that freedom of navigation is maintained and that all ships can move safely and freely in the region."

But the British denied Iran that same freedom of navigation through the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4.

The rationale for detaining the Iranian vessel and its crew was that it was delivering oil to Syria in violation of EU sanctions. This was never questioned by Western news media. But a closer look reveals that the UK had no legal right to enforce those sanctions against that ship, and that it was a blatant violation of the clearly defined global rules that govern the passage of merchant ships through international straits.

The evidence also reveals that Bolton was actively involved in targeting the Grace 1 from the time it began its journey in May as part of the broader Trump administration campaign of "maximum pressure" on Iran.

Contrary to the official rationale, the detention of the Iranian tanker was not consistent with the 2012 EU regulation on sanctions against the Assad government in Syria. The EU Council regulation in question specifies in Article 35 that the sanctions were to apply only within the territory of EU member states, to a national or business entity or onboard an aircraft or vessel "under the jurisdiction of a member state."

The UK government planned to claim that the Iranian ship was under British "jurisdiction" when it was passing through the Strait of Gibraltar to justify its seizure as legally consistent with the EU regulation. A maritime news outlet has reported that on July 3, the day before the seizure of the ship, the Gibraltar government, which has no control over its internal security or foreign affairs, issued a regulation to provide what it would claim as a legal pretext for the operation. The regulation gave the "chief minister" of the British the power to detain any ship if there were "reasonable grounds" to "suspect" that it had been or even that it was even "likely" to be in breach of EU regulations.

The notice required the Gibraltar government to detain any such ship for at least 72 hours if it entered "British Gibraltar Territorial Waters." Significantly, however, the video statement by Gibraltar's chief minister Fabian Picardo on July 4 explaining the seizure of the Grace 1 made no such claim and avoided any mention of the precise location of the ship when it was seized.

There is a good reason why the chief minister chose not to draw attention to the issue of the ship's location: it is virtually impossible that the ship was in British Gibraltar territorial waters at any time before being boarded. The UK claims territorial waters of three nautical miles from its coast, whereas the Strait of Gibraltar is 7.5 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point. That would make the limit of UK territory just north of the middle of the Strait.

But international straits must have clearly defined and separated shipping lanes going in different directions. The Grace 1 was in the shipping lane heading east toward the Mediterranean, which is south of the lane for ships heading west toward the Atlantic and thus clearly closer to the coast of Morocco than to the coast of Gibraltar, as can be seen from this live view of typical ship traffic through the strait . So it is quite implausible that the Grace 1 strayed out of its shipping lane into British territorial waters at any time before it was boarded.

But even if the ship had done so, that would not have given the UK "jurisdiction" over the Grace 1 and allowed it to legally seize the ship. Such a move clearly violates the global treaty governing the issue -- the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea . Articles 37 through 44 of that agreement, ratified by 167 states, including the UK and the European Union, establish a "regime of transit passage" for international straits like the Strait of Gibraltar that guarantees freedom of navigation for merchant ships. The rules of that regime explicitly forbid states bordering the strait from interfering with the transit passage of a merchant ship, with very narrowly defined exceptions.

These articles allow coastal states to adopt regulations relating to safety of navigation, pollution control, prevention of fishing, and "loading or unloading any commodity in contravention of customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations" of bordering states -- but for no other reason. The British seizure and detention of the Grace 1 was clearly not related to any of these concerns and thus a violation of the treaty.

The evidence indicates, moreover, that the UK's actions were part of a broader scheme coordinated with the Trump administration to tighten pressure on Iran's economy by reducing Iran's ability to export goods.

The statement by Gibraltar's chief minister said the decision to seize the ship was taken after the receipt of "information" that provided "reasonable grounds" for suspicion that it was carrying oil destined for Syria's Banyas refinery. That suggested the intelligence had come from a government that neither he nor the British wished to reveal.

BBC defense correspondent Jonathan Beale reported: "[I]t appears the intelligence came from the United States." Acting Spanish Foreign Minister Joseph Borrell commented on July 4 that the British seizure had followed "a demand from the United States to the UK." On July 19, Reuters London correspondent Guy Falconbridge reported , "[S]everal diplomatic sources said the United States asked the UK to seize the vessel."

Detailed evidence of Bolton deep involvement in the British plan to seize the Iranian tanker has surfaced in reporting on the withdrawal of Panamanian flag status for the Grace 1.

Panama was the flag state for many of the Iranian-owned vessels carrying various items exported by Iran. But when the Trump administration reinstated economic sanctions against Iran in October 2018, it included prohibitions on industry services such as insurance and reinsurance. This decision was accompanied by political pressure on Panama to withdraw Panamanian flag status from 59 Iranian vessels, many of which were owned by Iranian state-affiliated companies. Without such flag status, the Iranian-owned vessels could not get insurance for shipments by freighter.

That move was aimed at discouraging ports, canal operators, and private firms from allowing Iranian tankers to use their facilities. The State Department's Brian Hook, who is in charge of the sanctions, warned those entities last November that the Trump administration believed they would be responsible for the costs of an accident involving a self-insured Iranian tanker.

But the Grace 1 was special case, because it still had Panamanian flag status when it began its long journey around the Southern tip of Africa on the way to the Mediterranean. That trip began in late May, according to Automatic Identification System data cited by Riviera Maritime Media . It was no coincidence that the Panamanian Maritime Authority delisted the Grace 1 on May 29 -- just as the ship was beginning its journey. That decision came immediately after Panama's National Security Council issued an alert claiming that the Iranian-owned tanker "may be participating in terrorism financing in supporting the destabilization activities of some regimes led by terrorist groups."

The Panamanian body did not cite any evidence that the Grace 1 had ever been linked to terrorism.

The role of Panama's National Security Council signaled Bolton's hand, since he would have been the point of contact with that body. The result of his maneuvering was to leave the Grace 1 without the protection of flag status necessary to sail or visit a port in the middle of its journey. This in conjunction with the British seizure of the ship was yet another episode in the extraordinary American effort to deprive Iran of the most basic sovereign right to participate in the global economy.

Now that Iran has detained a British ship in order to force the UK to release the Grace 1, the British Foreign Ministry will claim that its seizure of the Iranian ship was entirely legitimate. The actual facts, however, put that charge under serious suspicion.

Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to The American Conservative . He is also the author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.


john 17 hours ago

Honestly the Brits are such idiots, we lied them into a war once. They knew we were lying and went for it anyway. Now the are falling for it again. Maybe it is May's parting gift to Boris?
kouroi 17 hours ago
Same EU legislation only forbids Syria exporting oil and not EU entities selling to Syria (albeit with some additional paperwork). However, it doesn't forbid other non-EU states to sell oil to Syria. They are not behaving like the US. And this is also not UN sanctioned. In fact, UK is also acting against the spirit of JPCOA towards Iran. Speak about Perfidious Albion (others would say US lapdog).
Stephen54321 15 hours ago edited
This story has certain familiar elements to it.

Back in 2013 2013 there was a rumour afoot that Edward Snowden, who at the time was stuck in the Moscow airport, trapped there by the sudden cancellation mid-flight of his US passport, was going spirited away by the President of Bolivia Evo Morales aboard his private jet. So what the US apparently was lean on it European allies to stop him. This they duly and dutifully did. Spain, France, and others denied overflight rights to the Bolivian jet, forcing it to turn back and land in Austria. There was even a report that once on the ground, the Spanish ambassador to Austria showed up and asked the Bolivian president if he might come out to the plain for a coffee--and presumably to have a poke around to see he could catch Snowden in the act of vanishing into the cargo hold.

The rumor turned out to be completely false, but it was the Europeans who wound up with the egg on their face. Not to mention the ones who broke international law.

Now we find that once again a European country had (apparently) gone out on a limb for the US--and wound up with egg on its face for trying to show its loyalty to the US in an all-too-slavish fashion by doing America's dirty work.

When will they learn?

Geoff Arnold 15 hours ago
Bolton persuaded the British to play along with the stupid US "maximum pressure" strategy, regardless of its illegality. (Maybe the British government thought that it would placate Trump after Ambassadorgate.) And then of course Pompeo threw them under the bus. It's getting hard to be a US ally (except for Saudi Arabia and Israel.)
cka2nd 14 hours ago
Does the British establishment have any self-respect at all, or do they really enjoy playing lapdog for the USA?
JPH 11 hours ago edited
The very fact that the UK tried to present its hijack of Iran Oil as an implementation of EU sanctions dovetail well with Bolton's objective of creating another of those "international coalitions" without a UN mandate engaging in 'Crimes of Aggression".

The total lack of support from the EU for this UK hijack signals another defeat to both the UK and the neocons of America.

chris chuba 10 hours ago
Too bad there isn't an international version of the ACLU to argue Iran's legal case before the EU body. What typically happens is that Iran will refuse to send representation because that would in effect, acknowledge their authority. The EU will have a Kangaroo court and enter a vacant decision. This has happened numerous times in the U.S.

Would anyone in the U.S. or EU recognize an Iranian court making similar claims? Speaking of which, the entire point of UN treaties and international law is to prevent individual countries from passing special purpose legislation targeting specific countries. Why couldn't Iran pass a law sanctioning EU vessels that tried to use their territorial waters, what is so special about the EU, because it is an acronym?

britbob 9 hours ago
Spain lodged a formal complaint about the action, because it considers the sea around Gibraltar to be part of its international waters, "We are studying the circumstances and looking at how this affects our sovereignty," Josep Borell, Spain's acting foreign minister, said. So Gibraltar or Spanish waters? Gibraltar Territorial Waters (1 pg): https://www.academia.edu/30...
Mark Thomason 8 hours ago
Worse than the bad behavior of Bolton, and the poodle behavior of Britain, is the utter failure of our press to provide us a skeptical eye and honest look at events. They've been mere stenographers and megaphones for power doing wrong.
JeffK from PA 5 hours ago
Fake News! Fake News! Fake News! <sarcasm off="">

Thanks for the investigative reporting. Trump has lied almost 11,000 times, so I think nobody expects the truth from The Trump Administration anytime soon. Especially if it goes against the narrative.

JeffK from PA 5 hours ago
And this just in. A UK government official has just stated, related to the Iranian tanker stopped near Gibraltar, the UK will not be part of Trump's 'maximum pressure' gambit on Iran. We shall see if Boris Johnson is for or against that policy.
EmpireLoyalist 4 hours ago
Job number one for Johnson - even before Brexit - must be to purge the neo-con globalists and anybody under their influence from Government.
Fran Macadam 4 hours ago
John Bolton, war criminal.
HenionJD Fran Macadam 2 hours ago
To be considered as such he would have to actually have been involved in a war. Give him a few more weeks and your charge will be valid.
Sid Finster 3 hours ago
OK, so why did the Brits go along with it? Are they so stupid as to not figure out that Iran might respond in kind, or did the Brits not also want war?
LFC 3 hours ago
John Bolton has been desperate for a war with Iran for decades. This is just another escalation in his desperate attempt to get one. He's the classic neocon chicken hawk who is bravely ready to risk and sacrifice other people's lives at the drop of a hat.
david 3 hours ago
Since UK is abusing its control of Gibraltar by behaving like a thug, maybe it is better for the international community to support an independent state of Gibraltar, or at least let Spain has it. It will be better for world peace.
Sid Finster 2 hours ago
While I agree with the gist of the article, remember that Bolton has no authority except that which is given to him. So stop blaming Bolton. Blame Trump.
Zsuzsi Kruska 2 hours ago
The provocations will go on and on until Iran shoots back and then Wash. will get the war it's been trying to start for some time now to pay back all those campaign donors who will profit from another war.

The MIC needs constant wars to use up munitions so new ones can be manufactured. It's really just about business and politicians working together for mutual benefit to keep those contributions coming in. With all the other issues facing America, a war with Iran will just add to the end of the USA which is coming faster than you think.